Additional Navigation

All CLA faculty play an essential role in creating a classroom environment that reflects the values of honesty, responsibility, and fairness. As mentors and instructors, faculty are the primary touchstone of students to the academic world. As such, it is the responsibility for faculty to be familiar with Drew’s institutional policies, set clear expectations for integrity in the classroom, and serve as a good example to their students.

PLEASE NOTE:  The policies and procedures below apply to CLA students.  For policies and procedures relating to students of the Caspersen School of Graduate Studies and the Theological School, please refer to the catalogs for these schools.

What is Drew's Academic Integrity Policy?

Standards of honesty in the academic world derive from the nature of the academic enterprise itself. Scholars use writing both to record and create knowledge, and students are invited into the academic enterprise through an intellectual conversation that occurs primarily in writing. Through contributing to this academic conversation, students develop their intellectual skills. Since academic dishonesty violates the basic principles of the conversation, it cannot be tolerated under any circumstances. Accordingly, Drew University has established standards of academic integrity and procedures governing violations of them. These basic standards apply to all work done at Drew. Students are expected to study and comply with these principles. All members of the academic community are obliged, by that membership, to report instances of presumed dishonesty to the appropriate officials.

The full policy and associated procedures are posted in the catalog and can be viewed here.

Categories of academic dishonesty include: plagiarism, duplicate submission, cheating on examinations, and false citation.

Instructors should report alleged cases of violations of the Academic Integrity Policy using the Academic Integrity Violations-Faculty Form. The following considerations may apply to reporting alleged cases:

  • In cases where there is question as to whether a preponderance of evidence exists, instructors may wish to consult with the convenor of the Academic Integrity Committee for guidance in choosing the appropriate course of action.
  • New faculty may wish to consult with their department chair to review suspected violations and to assist in moving a viable case forward.
  • Students are expected to maintain the standards of the college by reporting to the instructor any violations of the policy they observe in their classes.

The following constitute two potential courses of action in response to reporting an alleged violation:

  1. Alternative Resolution Procedure (ARP): The ARP applies to first offenses that are minor or unintentional for a student who admits responsibility for the violation. Violations by first-year students are generally managed through the ARP. Details on the ARP follow below.
  2. Academic Integrity Hearing: If the evidence suggests that the violation is more serious, was intentional, and/or the charged student is unwilling to admit to the offense, the Academic Integrity Committee may determine that an alternative Resolution is inappropriate.  When at least one of the following conditions apply, the convenor of the committee  will schedule an Academic Integrity Hearing:
    1. The nature of the case is more serious than would be warranted by an alternative resolution procedure or
    2. The student refuses to admit to a first offense that could otherwise be resolved through the Alternative Resolution procedure or
    3. The student fails to complete sanctions articulated in the alternative resolution forms or
    4. The violation is the second reported violation for the student.

While the faculty member may advise a specific course of action in the Academic Integrity Violations-Faculty Form,  the Academic Integrity Committee confirms the appropriate course of action. 

All procedures are managed by the administrative office of the Center for Academic Excellence (CAE).

Step 1- The instructor contacts the student to alert them of the violation and that the case will be managed via an Alternative Resolution.

Step 2- If the student denies the allegation and refuses to engage in the AR process, faculty should inform the convenor as the case must go to hearing.

Step 3- Assuming the student admits to the violation, the instructor determines the sanction.

 Required Sanctions:

  • Successful completion of online course Understanding Academic Integrity.
  • For violations related to plagiarism: participation in a meeting, or workshop, with a writing specialist.

Potential additional Sanctions include, but are not limited to, the following:

  • No credit for the assignment
  • A failing grade on the assignment that cannot be dropped
  • Re-do of the assignment with grade penalty depending on the severity
  • An alternative assignment related to the course material

Step 4-After the faculty have discussed the violation with the student, they should inform the CAE administrative office, and an electronic template for the AR form will be shared with the instructor; the instructor completes the template and sends it back via email to cae-admin@drew.edu. 

Step 5- Once the template is received, the electronic signature process commences, whereby the student signs the AR form first, agreeing to the terms.

Step 6- Once the sanction(s) have been fulfilled, the instructor signs the AR and a letter from the Academic Integrity  committee is sent to the instructor and student, warning that future violations will have more serious consequences.  Failure to complete all sanctions will prompt the convening of an Academic Integrity Hearing.

Step 7- The letter and all documents associated with the case are stored for referral in the event of another reported violation.

Step 1 – The convenor contacts the student via email to confirm that the case must be reviewed at a hearing of the Academic Integrity committee.  The student is informed that they may invite a faculty or staff member for moral support only (not for student advocacy). Students with documented disabilities may request disability-related assistance to be present at the hearing. 

Step 2 –  The CAE administrative office coordinates scheduling with the instructor, the student , and committee members. The student is informed that if they do not respond to scheduling requests or if they are absent from the hearing and do not provide prior notice, the case will be adjudicated in their absence. Along with the student, instructor and the convenor, two committee members are requested to attend.  All relevant documents are made accessible to the attendees of the hearing.

Step 3- The hearing follows the process as outlined in the policy, and the outcome is communicated to the student during the hearing and via email. Any appeals are referred to the Dean’s Council. 

Step 4 – As necessary, sanctions that impact final course grades will be implemented by the Registrar’s office. 

Additional details hearing proceedings are provided in the Academic Integrity policy.

At Drew, sanctions are imposed for demonstrated academic integrity violations. In the event of a violation that is positively determined to be a breach of academic integrity, penalties will be weighed in accordance with the seriousness of the offense.

Minor offenses:

  • Participation in and achievement of a passing score in an educational tutorial
  • No credit for the assignment
  • A failing grade on the assignment
  • Re-do of the assignment with grade penalty
  • An assigned paper or project related to academic integrity

More serious violations:

  • Failing grade in course
  • An assigned paper or project related to academic integrity
  • Dismissal or denied entry to departmental/university honors or merit-based program
  • Suspension for one or more semesters
  • In rare or extreme cases, or for multiple offenses, permanent expulsion from the University.

Decisions of the Academic Integrity Committee may be appealed only if the original hearing overlooked specific evidence or committed procedural errors.

The Dean’s Council is the final appeals board for cases of violations of the academic integrity policy. The appeal, whether sought by the faculty member who brought the charge or by the accused student, must be submitted in writing to the Council. On the basis of the written appeal, the Council may decide to hear the case or to uphold the original decision if no evidence has been shown to have been overlooked and/or if no procedural errors have been shown to have occurred. Whatever its decision, the Council must provide reasons in writing to both parties. If the Council agrees to hear the case, it has the right to reverse the decision of an earlier hearing.

Only the five faculty members of the Dean’s Council will vote on such appeals. The Dean of Arts & Sciences or designee will remain in attendance during such hearings, and will have a voice but no vote.

When any member of the Council believes he or she should not hear the matter under appeal because of a possible conflict of interest, that member may be excused. In this event, the Dean of Arts & Science will appoint a temporary faculty replacement. The student is granted the same provision of faculty, disability-related support, or staff support  as for an integrity hearing.

During the hearing of the appeal, both the faculty member who brought the original charge and the student may be asked questions by members of the committee. and each will make an oral statement to the Committee and answer any questions.

Decisions will be based on a preponderance of the evidence and will be provided in writing to both parties.

Why Do Students Cheat?

There is much discussion of why students may choose to engage in academic dishonesty. Without condoning such behaviors, exploring potential motivations for academic integrity violations can help instructors improve classroom values and guide students to choose ethical work methods.

RATIONALIZING – Students that choose to cheat are usually aware that what they are doing is wrong. However, they press forward with unethical work practices by rationalizing their actions. Many who cheat view the behavior as an exception to their normal perception of themselves as honest people; that their moral principles are still intact as long as the cheating feels legitimate. For example, a student may rationalize cheating when they perceive an assignment is not important, too difficult, or too important to fail.

DEVELOPMENTAL – Young adults, particularly teenagers, are biologically predisposed to make risky decisions and are less bothered by uncertain outcomes. The gamble of academic dishonesty versus the payoff and potential consequences are not always connected in the decision-making process that tempts students to cheat in the first place. Young adults are also especially susceptible to the forces of peer pressure, which has complicated dynamics on a college campus. This could take place within a small social group (fraternity organization, etc), between individuals, or in the context of a broader community that ‘looks the other way’ in a culture of academic dishonesty.

POOR STUDY SKILLS – Many students, particularly first years, often lack the study skills that are essential for success in college. These skills are a constellation of habits and self-awareness that include time-management skills, estimating the amount of work necessary for a given project, correctly evaluating the actual difficulty of a task, and knowing when to ask for help. While some students arrive with a good foundation of the above, many more are learning those skills for the first time.

HIGH-STAKES – High-stakes exams and assignments may create significant enough pressures on a student that they may consider cheating. Classroom methods that include exclusively high-stakes assignments (e.g. one midterm and one final) can impact a student’s judgement about completing the tasks ethically. The problems of high-stakes assignments may be compounded by a student’s perception of their own ability, particularly in areas where the subject is perceived to be innate (e.g. math). When students feel a very low probability of success, combined with high-stakes assignments, they are more likely to consider cheating as an option.

PERCEIVED LACK OF CONSEQUENCES – In some circumstances, a student who is motivated to cheat will feel enabled because they believe that they are unlikely to be caught. Crowded classroom exams and take-home assignments are tempting opportunities for academic dishonesty. Additionally, some instructors prefer to deal with academic dishonesty privately. This course of action may create an environment where the consequences of cheating are low-cost or even permissible.

TARGETED MARKET – There is a wide-ranging fraud industry that specifically targets students through algorithms on social media, web browser searches, and through otherwise legitimate online study tools. These contracts include a sum paid, often to a writer abroad, who will complete an assignment on behalf of the student. These assignments range from one-time papers to degree capstones and master’s theses. These services have existed for long time, but have become particularly common during the online education surge due to the COVID-19 crisis.

The above was informed by the helpful resources listed below:
Andrew Simmons, “Why Students Cheat – And What to Do About It,” Edutopia (2018): https://www.edutopia.org/article/why-students-cheat-and-what-do-about-it
“Solve a Teaching Problem,” Carnegie Mellon University: https://www.cmu.edu/teaching/solveproblem/strat-cheating/index.html
Kim Newton, “As online education grows, the fraudulent business is booming,” Texas News Today (2021): https://texasnewstoday.com/as-online-education-grows-the-fraudulent-business-is-booming/383686/

How to Promote Academic Integrity

Usually, the conversation about academic integrity begins in the syllabus. There, a student will observe the precise definition of the term, what it means in a college classroom, and what the consequences are of academic integrity violations. Having a reference point to return to is helpful and it also swiftly defines important academic and professional boundaries that students are obliged to observe.

To continue the conversation about academic integrity, verbally emphasize the importance of academic integrity in class early; perhaps during the introduction to the course and syllabus. Both print and face-to-face conversation about the importance of academic integrity will reinforce its importance from the outset. Reminding students of the policy before important papers and exams will also serve as points of reinforcement.

Beyond simply speaking about academic integrity, consider emphasizing its importance to you, as an instructor and as an individual, and how it is important to the entire Drew community. By personally connecting with its significance to other people, students may come to value it as well. An instructor should model academic integrity as well, within classroom resources as well as their own research and publications.

A student-instructor relationship defined by mentorship, empathy, and mutual respect is also helpful; besides defining academic integrity, it is essential to equip students with the tools to avoid intentional and unintentional violations. These tools could include conversations about time management, discipline-specific study tips, notetaking guidelines, and how to use internet resources responsibly. Services within the Center for Academic Excellence (CAE) are also helpful referrals for students who require assistance in building good academic habits. Instructors should also encourage students to seek assistance when questions about research standards and citation practices arise.

Finally, instructors should consider taking practical steps to prevent academic integrity violations. These could include: changing assignment instructions and exams every semester, assigning specific research topics, grading individual components on group work, and requiring a sequence of drafts and outlines prior to project deadlines. Plagiarism detection tools available online may also prove helpful when checking written assignments.

This information was informed by helpful materials provided by Baylor University and The University of Ontario: Institute of Technology. For more, see:
*”What Faculty Can Do to Encourage Academic Integrity,” Baylor University, https://www.baylor.edu/honorcode/index.php?id=952634.
*”Academic Integrity for Instructors and TAs,” University of Ontario: Institute of Technology, https://shared.uoit.ca/shared/department/academic-integrity/documents/tip-sheet-on-academic-integrity-for-instructors.pdf.

How to Identify Academic Dishonesty

Common indicators of academic dishonesty during exams:
* Answers, both correct or incorrect, match between two or more students’ exams.
* Unusual behaviors that could include: sitting at an odd angle, whispering, shuffling paper, glancing around or staring at a fixed spot, surreptitious use of phone or smartwatch.
* Using signals to communicate with or attract the attention of other students.
* Attempting to alter an exam after submission.

Common indicators of academic dishonesty on written assignments:
* Mixed, inconsistent, or non-existent citation styles and bibliographic references.
* Inconsistencies in tone, style, formatting, and overall quality across multiple assignments.
* Typographical errors that result from copying and pasting text.
* Usage of jargon or overly technical language, beyond what is normal for the student.
* Paper topic was changed at the last minute or appears to have been written for a previous course.

The information above was synthesized from helpful resources provided by the University of Toronto and Arizona State University:
“Academic Integrity: Detecting Cheating,” Arizona State University: https://thecollege.asu.edu/resources/academic-integrity/detecting-cheating
“Academic Integrity for Instructors and TAs,” University of Toronto: https://shared.uoit.ca/shared/department/academic-integrity/documents/tip-sheet-on-academic-integrity-for-instructors.pdf