The Honor Committee recently released a comprehensive survey asking the University teaching faculty about their feelings toward the honor system. The survey was conducted in February and March of 2006.
Tom Guterbock, director of the University's Center for Survey Research and organizer of the survey, presented the results to the Committee Sunday night.
"This is by far the most comprehensive and serious survey of faculty attitudes that's ever been done about the honor system at U.Va.," Guterbock said. "There have been other efforts, but they have not been well supported or well executed."
He also said he believes the last survey of this nature was conducted 10 years ago.
The Development of the Survey
Guterbock said he was first contacted by then-Honor Committee Chair David Hobbs in September 2005. A random sample of faculty and teaching assistants were chosen to participate in a focus group to evaluate the draft questionnaire developed that fall.
Throughout February and March 2006, all 2,460 teaching faculty members and 987 graduate teaching assistants, representing all schools in the University, were contacted through anadvanceletter. An electronic version of the questionnaire was made available to all teaching faculty with an e-mail notice and then a reminder e-mail.
According to the report issued by CSR, a paper version of the survey was also made available for faculty who requested it.
According to Committee Chair Alison Tramba, the entire project cost about $23,000. The cost was covered by the Honor Committee's and the provost's budgets.
Tramba said although it required a larger budget, the decision was made to survey the entire faculty.
"We decided we wanted to survey the entire group because it was more representative," Tramba said.
What the Numbers Say
Of the 3,447 people contacted for the survey 1,563 respondents completed the survey with a response rate of 52.6 percent. According to Guterbock, this survey has a 1.7 percent margin of error.
The survey garnered the greatest response from College faculty, with 47 percent completing the survey. Of the Engineering School teaching faculty, 10.4 percent responded. Darden and the Law School had the lowest rate of response, with 1.9 percent.
The questionnaire began by asking basic knowledge questions which were combined to form a "Basic Knowledge Index" with a maximum score of two points. In this section, faculty members were asked what constitutes an honor offense and "which penalty or penalties are applied when a trial for an Honor offense results in a guilty verdict?" One point was awarded for each correct answer.
While 24.8 percent of faculty received no points, 41.4 percent received one point and 33.8 percent received both points.
Faculty members were also asked five additional questions in the knowledge section: Who is responsible for running the honor system? What is the role of the faculty in relation to the honor system? If you detect cheating in your class which of the following options does the honor system make available? If you detect cheating in your class, are you required to report the cheating to the Honor Committee? If a student admits to cheating, what are his or her options regarding the Honor process?
Four percent of faculty received all seven points possible in the knowledge section, 10.3 percent received six points, 15.9 percent received five points, 19.6 percent received four points, 15.5 percent received three points, 16.6 percent received two points, 12.0 percent received one point and 6.1 percent received no points. The Commerce School had the highest mean of 5.19 points. The School of Continuing and Professional Studies had the lowest mean of 2.12 points.
Faculty members were also asked questions regarding their level of support for the Honor System.
While no position had a majority of respondents, a plurality of 30 percent "strongly" support the system and 39 percent said they supported the system "with reservations." Two percent wanted to abolish the system, 3.4 percent oppose the system and want it to change, 12.9 percent somewhat oppose the system, 14.9 percent are neutral.
When asked about how much they think their individual support matters to the effectiveness of the Honor Committee, 48 percent said it matters "very much," 38 percent said somewhat and 14 percent thought their support does not matter at all.
In the report presented to the Committee, Guterbock examined the relationship between knowledge of and support for the Honor System.
He said faculty who strongly support the system had an average score on the Combined Knowledge Index of three. Those who support with reservations received 3.8 points on average. Neutral faculty members received an average of 2.8 points. Faculty members somewhat opposed to the system received four points. Faculty with no opinion received 1.9 points. Ironically, those who completely opposed the system understood it best, receiving the highest average score with 4.3 points.
The faculty survey also measured classroom discussion of the honor system, organized on a four-point "Classroom Acknowledgement Index" based on how often faculty have discussed the Honor code on their syllabi, discussed it with their classes, stated expectations about honorable conduct and asked students to sign pledges in the past two years.
On this section, 21.9 percent of respondents received a full score of four points, 15.7 percent received three points, 18.5 percent received two points, 16.8 percent received one point and 27 percent received no points.
The survey also discussed cheating in classes. When asked, "How commonplace do you think cheating is in the University?" eight percent of faculty thought it was very uncommon, 36.4 percent thought cheating was uncommon, 29.8 percent thought it is somewhat common, 4.3 percent thought it was very common and 21.4 percent responded they "don't know."
When asked if they had ever clearly observed a student cheating or been certain a student cheated on work, 31.6 percent said "yes" and 58.4 percent said "no".
Of those who observed cheating, 27.6 percent took action through the honor system. If cheating was suspected, 3.8 percent began honor proceedings.
Faculty who had reported a case were also asked about their experiences with the system. In terms of the time commitment required, 53 percent described it as "manageable," 30 percent thought it was not a problem and 17 percent said it was "prohibitive."
Of those who had initiated cases 63 percent said they were satisfied with the overall process.
When asked if they know their school's Honor Committee representatives, 85.8 percent said no.
At the survey's conclusion, respondents were given the chance to discuss factors they think "work to reduce the effectiveness of the Honor System at U.Va." These open-ended responses were then organized into broad categories. While 54 percent did not respond, the largest minority, 16.2 percent, cited the single sanction as reducing the effectiveness of the honor system. Other factors listed were lack of awareness, lack of reporting, lack of full support from the University community, distrust of the Committee due to no faculty or administration involvement, the trial process and the seriousness clause.
Suggestions for improving the system included changing the single sanction, better communication, more faculty or administration involvement, changing procedure and better reporting and enforcement. Most faculty did not respond to this question, but 14.6 percent of all faculty surveyed supported changing the sanction.
What the Numbers Mean
Ken Schwartz, chair of the Faculty Senate, said there "are many positives" in the faculty survey.
"[The survey] will help to dispel some of the potential misunderstandings that are based on anecdotes alone. Now we have hard data, and I think that can only be healthy," Schwartz added.
Tramba said prior to the survey there was an idea that the faculty do not support the system or that they turn to other means of punishment.
"We wanted to understand what their actual experiences have been, because much of what we hear is hearsay," Tramba said.
She said the Committee will release its own analysis of the data, probably by the end of the semester.
Vice Chair for Trials Jay Trickett called the survey "surprisingly unsurprising" because it confirmed anecdotal evidence of faculty support.
Only 15 percent of faculty completely oppose the system, Trickett said.
Schwartz said he looked forward to hearing and reading the Committee's analysis of the survey.
"They have elected to control the analysis themselves as opposed to having the Center for Survey Research [do the analysis], and I'm eager to see what the Honor Committee comes up with," Schwartz said.
The Committee will host a question and answer forum tonight to address concerns from the University community.
Read More
Class of 2024 celebrates graduation at final exercises
By Finn Trainer | 2 days agoIn his opening remarks, University President Jim Ryan praised the graduating class for their resilience during challenging times.
U.Va. Alumni Association submits plans for new Alumni Hall building
By Caroline Hagood | 4 days agoWest said that despite the proposal moving through City Council’s review process, the project is still years away from becoming a reality.
Graduating student leaders reflect on how they impacted the University community
By Jackie Bond and Brandon Kile | 5 days agoAccording to Lilian Rojas, Board of Visitors student representative and fourth-year Batten student, the Class of 2024 is defined by its resilience.
