Academic Honesty in Online Courses
At Stanford University, academic honesty policy is strongly influenced by the Office of Community Standards and the Honor Code. The Honor Code articulates the university’s expectations of students and faculty in establishing and maintaining the highest standards in academic work.
Three parts of the Honor Code
The first part of the code states that students “will not give or receive aid [with regard to] any work that is to be used by the instructor as the basis of grading.” (“Honor Code | Office of Community Standards” n.d.)
The second part of the Honor Code states that Faculty will “[refrain] from proctoring examinations and from taking unusual and unreasonable precautions to prevent... dishonesty” and “avoid… academic procedures that create temptations to violate the Honor Code.” (n.d.)
Finally, the third part of the Honor Code states that “students and faculty will work together to establish optimal conditions for honorable academic work.” (n.d.)
Trust students to act with integrity
In the first part of the Honor Code, students are expected to take an active role in upholding the spirit of the Honor Code. A common concern around online learning is that students are more likely to cheat in online courses than in face-to-face ones. However, research on this issue suggests that students are no more likely to behave dishonestly in an online course than they are face-to-face (Beck 2014).
Strategies that build trust, human presence, and a sense of community, are key to establish a class culture of integrity regardless of the online modality. Remind students of their responsibility and include the Honor Code in the course syllabus or Canvas content.
Minimize the preconditions for dishonesty
The second part of the Honor Code precludes the use of virtual proctoring and other enforcement approaches. Therefore faculty are encouraged to instead focus on ways to minimize “temptations to violate” the Honor Code. There are four conditions that can tempt students to be dishonest:
- The stakes are high
- The task is based on a one-time performance
- The task is perceived by the student to be beyond their ability
- The consequences are perceived to impact the student’s broader goals.
One common strategy to lower the stakes and the pressure of a one-time performance is to have multiple assessments rather than one big final exam or project. Additionally, faculty might allow students to retake an exam and keep their best score, or make all their online exams open-book.
Faculty can also support students’ sense of self-efficacy by regularly encouraging them to connect to various learning programs on campus, such as academic skills coaching, subject matter tutors, and writing tutors. To mitigate student concerns about the consequences of poor performance, remind students of helpful policies about taking an incomplete or withdrawal.
Work together with students
The third part of the Honor Code explicitly states that both parties must cooperate to establish optimal conditions. Trust between students and faculty is key. Communicate with your students about the Honor Code and work with them to adjust your assessments, rubrics, and grading policies over time.
- Best practices for upholding the Honor Code during remote teaching, Office of Community Standards (2020).
- Remote exams and the Honor Code, Stanford TeachAnywhere (2020).
- Instructor Resources for Remote Exam Administration, Stanford TeachAnywhere (2020).
- Strategies that promote adherence to the Honor Code and support student learning, Center for Teaching and Learning (2020).
Beck, Victoria. 2014. “Testing a Model to Predict Online Cheating—Much Ado about Nothing.” Active Learning in Higher Education 15 (1): 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787413514646.
“Honor Code | Office of Community Standards.” n.d. Accessed June 9, 2020. https://communitystandards.stanford.edu/policies-and-guidance/honor-code.