Best Practices for Promoting Academic Integrity and Validating

Best Practices for Promoting Academic Integrity and Validating Student Identity in Online Learning Environments

Online Higher Education Learning CollaborativeCustom Research Report

March 2009

Catalog No. 117OHECRR0309

© Eduventures, Inc. 2009

Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary

2. Background, Key Questions, & Methodology

3. Findingsa. Is Academic Integrity a Widespread Concern?b. How Do Schools Address Academic Integrity Issues?c. How Are Schools Preparing for Implementation of the Higher

Education Opportunity Act of 2008?

4. Conclusions & Recommendations

5. Future Research

2 2








5. Future Research

3 3



Key Questions Motivating This Custom Research Report

• The inquiring member has commissioned this report to gather insight on best practices and strategies for improving and promoting academic integrity and identity authentication in online learning environments

• Central questions to be addressed include:– What are colleges and universities doing to raise awareness of appropriate

academic behavior among students?– Are different practices and strategies being implemented to promote

academic honesty in online learning environments than in face-to-face settings?

– What, if anything, are schools doing to comply with the student identity authentication provision in the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008?

4 4



Methodology & Sources

• OHE-LC staff members employed primary and secondary methodologies in compiling this report

• The inquiring member surveyed OHE-LC members on academic integrity policy and practices through a Membership Q&A– OHE-LC researchers conducted in-depth follow-up telephone interviews

with six Membership Q&A respondents and two officials from non-member schools identified by the inquiring member

• To supplement the data gathered through interviews, OHE-LC researchers scanned the secondary literature for relevant research on best practices for academic integrity and for policy guidance from accrediting bodies

5 5



Key Findings in This Report

Is academic integrity a widespread concern?

• A majority of the schools polled have prioritized the promotion of academic integrity in their online programs

• Officials interviewed for this report viewed academic integrity as essential to the credibility and therefore the marketability of online learning as a delivery mode– Although they rejected the belief that online learning is more prone to

cheating, interview participants expressed concern over such a perception among current and prospective students, some educators, accreditors, and prospective employers

• Increased attention to academic integrity issues is attributable, in part, to– Increasing enrollments of international students because of online programs– Generational patterns, increased reliance on technological tools for

research, and a growing emphasis on collaborative work

6 6



Key Findings in This Report (continued)

How do schools address academic integrity issues?

• The profiled schools develop and implement academic integrity policy at the administrative, college/departmental, or faculty level, and generally through some combination of all three– None of the profiled institutions had separate academic integrity policies for

online and face-to-face programs

• Plagiarism and cheating on exams are the most common infractionsschools seek to detect and punish, in both online and face-to-face courses

• Academic integrity policies vary along a continuum from an explicit listing of specific violations and their consequences to general parameters that are interpreted according to the circumstances of each incident

• The consensus among interviewees was that consistent detection, reporting, and punishment of violations are the keys to a successful and credible academic integrity policy

7 7




How do schools address academic integrity issues?

• Schools educate their students and faculty about their academic integrity policies through their Web sites and course management systems (CMS), on course syllabi, in student and faculty handbooks, through informed consent procedures, and through orientation and training sessions

• According to interviewees, the most effective means of promotingacademic integrity is through conscientious online course design that facilitates student-instructor interaction

• The most common technological tools used to enforce academic integrity rules are Turnitin.com, adaptive release features in CMS, and exam question randomization

• Among the schools that administer proctored exams, all have procedures for identifying qualified proctors and verifying student identity

8 8




How are schools preparing for the Higher Education Opportunity Act?

• A consensus seems to be emerging that the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 (HEOA)’s “Part H: Program Integrity” provision will ultimately require distance learning providers to adopt student authentication mechanisms beyond log-on IDs and password protection

– In the near-term, however, schools will need to make few adjustments to be in compliance with the law

• Few schools have already taken specific actions to comply with the law

• Interview participants expressed three key concerns about the HEOA:– The potential cost of its authentication provision– Its inequitable treatment of face-to-face and distance learning environments– The adverse effects an excessive reliance on technology could have on the

interactive pedagogy that has developed in high-quality online learning

9 9



Key Conclusions• Academic integrity is a vital issue to the credibility and marketability of

online learning as a reputable and respected delivery modality

• Cultivating a reputation for rigorous and successful academic integrity policies in online programming could serve as an effective means of market positioning and differentiation

• For academic integrity policy to succeed, both faculty and administrators must be actively involved in implementation and enforcement

• Creating a culture of academic honesty, however, comes largely from preventive measures, engendered through effective instructional design, conscientious pedagogy and assessment, faculty development, student-teacher interaction, and communication with and education of students

10 10



Key Conclusions

• The implications of the HEOA’s student authentication provision remain uncertain, especially beyond the short-term period– Log-on identification and password protection are likely sufficient in the

immediate-term to satisfy the new authentication requirement

• Participants in this study expressed the opinion that lawmakers and accreditors need to consider more carefully the rationale behind the rule’s inequitable treatment of face-to-face and distance learning providers as well as the cost, access, and quality ramifications of mandating technological solutions

11 11



Summary of RecommendationsBased on these findings & conclusions, OHE-LC staff members recommend the following best practices to promote academic integrity in distance learning environments:

12 12



Summary of Recommendations

13 13








5. Future Research

14 14


2. Background

Research Objective

• The inquiring member seeks insight on best practices and strategies for improving and promoting academic integrity and identity authentication in online learning environments

• In particular, the inquiring member requests information on:

– Peer institutions’ handling of academic integrity and academic dishonesty concerns

– Peer institutions’ planned responses to the pending implementation of the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, specifically its provision on student identity validation in distance learning

15


2. Key Questions

Key Questions Addressed in this Report

• What are colleges and universities doing to raise awareness of appropriate academic behavior among students?– What is the “academic integrity climate” at other schools?– Is academic integrity an institutional priority?

• Are different practices and strategies being implemented to promote academic honesty in online learning environments than in face-to-face settings?– Are new or different instructional techniques and assessment strategies

being developed and utilized to address academic integrity concerns in online learning?

• What, if anything, are schools doing to comply with the student identity authentication provision in the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008?

16


2. Methodology

Methodological Approach and Key Sources

• OHE-LC staff members employed primary and secondary methodologies in compiling this report

• The inquiring member surveyed OHE-LC members on academic integrity policy and practices through a Membership Q&A

• OHE-LC researchers conducted in-depth follow-up telephone interviews with six Membership Q&A participants and two officials from non-member schools identified by the inquiring member

17


2. Methodology

Interview ParticipantsSchool Description Interview Participant Title Academic Integrity

Responsibilities

Large, public university Director, Office of Technology & Enhanced Learning

Provides technology and faculty development support

Small, private not-for-profit college

Vice President for Academic Outreach

Oversees program development

Mid-size, private not-for-profit university

Dean, College of Distributed Learning & Dean, College of Arts & Sciences

Oversee faculty and curriculum development & online design and delivery

Large, private not-for-profit university (online campus) President Oversees policies and

enforcement

Small, private not-for-profit university

Faculty Development Coordinator & Director

Provides faculty development support and oversees policy enforcement

Large, public two-year school* Director of Distance & Online Learning

Oversees policy development and implementation

Large, public university* Associate Provost for Academic & Student Affairs

Oversees policies and implementation

Large, public university Director, Center for Academic Integrity

Facilitates awareness and disseminates information

* Indicates non-OHE Member 18


2. Methodology

Methodological Approach and Key Sources

• To supplement the data gathered through interviews, OHE-LC researchers scanned the secondary literature for relevant research on best practices for academic integrity and for policy guidance from accrediting bodies

• In particular, OHE-LC staff members searched for:

– Information on academic integrity and student authentication strategies and enforcement tools

• Including hardware and software being marketed to address academic honesty challenges specific to distance education settings

– Policy guidance on the meaning and likely implications of the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 provision requiring accreditation agencies to mandate student authentication rules for distance learning providers

19


3. Findings






5. Future Research

20 20


3a. Findings






5. Future Research

21 21


3a. Findings

Key Takeaways from this Section

• A majority of the schools polled for this report have prioritized the promotion of academic integrity in their online programs

• Officials interviewed for this report viewed academic integrity as essential to the credibility and therefore the marketability of online learning as a delivery mode– Although they rejected the belief that online learning is more prone to

cheating, interview participants expressed concern over such a perception among current and prospective students, some educators, accreditors, and prospective employers

• Increased attention to academic integrity issues is attributable, in part, to– Increasing enrollments of international students because of online programs– Generational patterns, increased reliance on technological tools for

research, and a growing emphasis on collaborative work

22 22


3a. Findings

Are Schools Prioritizing Academic Integrity?• A large majority of online higher education institutions have made

academic integrity a policy priority– In a recent OHE-LC Membership Q&A*, 61% of respondents (11 of 18)

claimed their school or unit had made academic integrity a priority– Officials from six of the eight institutions interviewed for this report described

academic honesty and related issues as an institutional priority

Is academic integrity in online & distance learning a priority for your institution/unit?

* OHE-LC Membership Q&A #66: Academic Integrity and Student Identity Validation in Distance Learning Environments, February 2009. 23 23


3a. Findings

What Has Prompted this Apparent Increase in Attention to Academic Integrity in Online Learning Environments?

• A general perception of high academic integrity standards in online learning is essential to the delivery mode’s credibility and therefore its marketability

– Interviewees expressed a concern that prospective employers, students, and even some educators (including accreditors) perceive online learning as especially vulnerable to cheating and other forms of academic dishonesty

• Therefore, high standards are imperative to the credibility of online programming• As a result, administrators and faculty members have pushed for explicit

academic integrity standards and consistent enforcement in order to reverse such negative perceptions

– Most interviewees believed, however, that cheating is no more likely online than in face-to-face settings

• In fact, many believed that emergent norms in online course design and pedagogy generally lead to increased faculty-student interaction and greater faculty vigilance, thereby reducing academic dishonesty in online courses

24 24


3a. Findings


• Interviewees also attributed greater academic integrity concerns in part to increased international student enrollment with the advent of online programming– Online programs have generated greater numbers of international enrollments

than many schools had historically experienced• None of the interview participants had systematic data on higher rates of academic

dishonesty among foreign students • Anecdotally, however, there is a strong perception that larger international enrollments

necessitate greater emphasis on and resources devoted to academic integrity

• Nonetheless, interviewees were reluctant to attribute these concerns to cultural differences , instead citing a number of possible causes:

• Language differences• Stress of studying in an unfamiliar system• Social pressures within unusually tight-knit cohorts of foreign students• Relative youth of many international students• Lesser emphasis on North American-style academic integrity norms in foreign primary and

secondary education systems

25 25


3a. Findings

What Has Prompted this Apparent Increase in Attention to Academic Integrity in Online Learning Environments?• Regardless of the reasons for this perceived pattern, increasing international

enrollments and the challenges they pose necessitate proactive efforts to address the implications for academic integrity:

– Emphasis on and communication of academic integrity standards beginning in the admissions process

– Sufficiently high English language competency standards to minimize miscommunication

• e.g., higher TOEFL score requirements for admissions

– Adequate support services for non-native students

– Reinforced importance of explicit, clearly communicated, and consistently enforced standards

“Preventive measures are the way to go [to create a culture of academic integrity].”– Dean, College of Arts & Sciences

26 26


3a. Findings


• Similarly, interviewees suggested generational changes in spurring a renewed focus on academic integrity– Younger students may be more accustomed to, and more reliant on,

technologies that facilitate lackadaisical research practices (e.g., proper citation and attribution)

– Furthermore, a number of interview participants described heightened academic integrity concerns as the flip-side to greater emphasis in the workplace and at lower levels of education on collaboration and team-based tasks

• Changing expectations and pedagogical approaches may complicate the articulation and communication of what is acceptable

– Again, these technological and generational changes reinforce the importance of explicit, clearly communicated, and consistently enforced standards

“Students are increasingly habituated to collaboration [and it’s] what’s wanted in the workplace, but that increases the challenge of academic integrity.”

– Associate Provost

27 27


3b. Findings






5. Future Research

28 28


3b. Findings


• The profiled schools develop and implement academic integrity policy at the administrative, college/departmental, or faculty level, and generally through some combination of all three– None of the profiled institutions had separate academic integrity policies for

online and face-to-face programs

• Plagiarism and cheating on exams are the most common infractionsschools seek to detect and punish, in both online and face-to-face courses

• Academic integrity policies vary along a continuum from an explicit listing of specific violations and their consequences to general parameters that are interpreted according to the circumstances of each incident

• The consensus among interviewees was that consistent detection, reporting, and punishment of violations are the keys to a successful and credible academic integrity policy

29 29


3b. Findings

Key Takeaways from this Section (continued)

• Schools educate their students and faculty about their academic integrity policies through their Web sites and CMS, on course syllabi, in student and faculty handbooks, through informed consent procedures, and through orientation and training sessions

• According to interviewees, the most effective means of promotingacademic integrity is through online course design that facilitates student-instructor interaction

• The most common technological tools used to enforce academic integrity rules are Turnitin.com, adaptive release features in CMS, and exam question randomization

• Among the schools that administer proctored exams, all have procedures for identifying qualified proctors and verifying student identity

30 30


3b. Findings

What Are Schools Doing to Promote Academic Integrity Online?

• The apparent priority given to academic integrity has translated into a wide array of policies and actions– Distribution of the responsibilities for policymaking and enforcement differ

from school to school• Typically situated at the administrative, college/departmental, or faculty level or

some combination thereof

• Online learning programs promote academic integrity through various approaches:– Explicit delineation of possible violations and consequences– Strict enforcement and record-keeping– Communication with and education of students and faculty– Pedagogy, instructional design, and faculty development– Technological strategies

31 31


3b. Findings

Who Makes and Enforces Academic Integrity Policy?

32 32

© Eduventures, Inc. 2009 33

3b. Findings

What Are the Upsides and Downsides to Each Approach?

33


3b. Findings

Is Academic Dishonesty Common in Online Courses?

• Overall, plagiarism and cheating on exams were the most common academic integrity violations mentioned by interview participants– Perhaps most strikingly, interviewees could cite few incidents of academic

dishonesty that were somehow unique to the online environment• Again, none of the interview participants believed the online learning environment

was more susceptible to academic dishonesty than face-to-face delivery

• In general, interviewees believed strongly that academic integrity incidents online were of the same variety they encounter in their face-to-face courses

• Perhaps as a result, none of the profiled schools had distinct academic integrity policies for their online and face-to-face programs

34 34


3b. Findings

How Do Schools Define Academic Dishonesty Violations?

• Schools vary in whether their policies enumerate explicit academic integrity violations or instead outline general parameters

• One profiled school has defined an extensive list of infractions with a corresponding continuum of possible punishments– The virtue of this approach is that it communicates a clear relationship

between violations and their likely consequences– However, the punishment continuum allows for latitude in differentiating first-

time offenders and accounting for extenuating circumstances

• Most schools that have adopted this “explicit” approach continuously update their policy to make it more specific and maximize its relevance and use as a tool to guide students and faculty

“[The policy allows] the flexibility to treat first offenses as learning opportunities [but nonetheless seeks] to create a level playing field with fair treatment for all but [at the same time provide] strong incentives for integrity.”

– Associate Provost

35


3b. Findings

How Do Schools Define Academic Dishonesty Violations?

• Other schools have adopted a more “situational” approach– Rather than relying solely on a list of infractions, this approach seeks to teach

students general principles and values of academic integrity– One interviewee described her institution’s program to teach students to

recognize and avoid academic dishonesty through a series of scenarios• The program is in conjunction with the school’s move to an ePortfolio system, whereby

students assemble a dossier of assignments and learning experiences to demonstrate acquired skills and competencies throughout their undergraduate career

• These “explicit” and “situational” approaches are not, of course, mutually exclusive– The situational approach, however, seems to place greater emphasis on

teaching academic integrity rather than merely punishing transgressions

“[The University’s Center for Academic Integrity] has developed an online module of ‘cheating vignettes’ to introduce students to key concepts of academic integrity. [Students must also] demonstrate specific competencies through their ePortfolio, including ‘ethical judgment.’”

– Director, Center for Academic Integrity

36


3b. Findings

How Do Schools Punish Academic Dishonesty Violations?

• Punishments vary from a failing grade on the assignment in question, to failing the course, to suspension, to expulsion– At all six of the profiled schools with policy and enforcement situated at or

above the college/departmental level, the adjudication process allows for some discretion based on circumstances, faculty input, and/or first-time versus repeat offenses

– At the two profiled schools where faculty maintain their own policies, only the most severe punishments (i.e., expulsion) require administrative approval

• In the absence of an explicit institutional policy, however, punishment decisions are made on a case-by-case basis

• Regardless of the approach taken, no profiled school’s policy mandates required punishments for specific violations– Instead, policies provide guidance and suggest consequences while

permitting discretion in punishing infractions

37 37


3b. Findings

How Do Schools Punish Academic Dishonesty Violations? • The consensus among interviewees was that consistent enforcement

(i.e., detection and reporting of violations) is of paramount importance– To establish the academic integrity policy’s credibility among faculty and

students– To signal an institution’s commitment to a culture of academic honesty– To ensure that application of the policy is fair to students

• At least two of the profiled schools reformed their academic integrity policies and improved the consistency of their enforcement systems in part because of student perception that enforcement and punishments varied significantly among faculty members and colleges/departments

• To promote consistent enforcement, an institution-wide record-keeping system is essential

– Without centralized recording of violations, it is impossible to detect repeat violators and inconsistencies in incident reporting among colleges/departments/faculty members

– However, two of the eight profiled schools do not have centralized academic integrity record-keeping

• These are the same schools that situate policymaking and enforcement at the faculty level

38 38


3b. Findings

Does Rigorous Enforcement Become a Burden for Faculty?

• All interview participants agreed that policymakers must be careful to design an academic integrity system that does not become unduly burdensome for faculty members– Because faculty are “on the front lines,” they will inevitably and necessarily

be key players in detecting and reporting violations

• Faculty reactions to academic integrity policies varied widely at the profiled institutions– At one school, the faculty spurred the policy’s development and thus

supported its requirements and the responsibilities it engenders from the outset

– Two schools reported that it took a few years before faculty sentiment was solidly in favor of the policy and its enforcement procedures

39 39


3b. Findings

How Do Schools Publicize Their Academic Integrity Policies?

40 40


3b. Findings

How Do Schools Publicize Their Academic Integrity Policies? (continued)

41 41


3b. Findings

Using Pedagogy and Instructional Design to Promote Academic Integrity

• Many interview participants expressed the belief that the most effective means of promoting academic integrity is through conscientious online course design that facilitates student-instructor interaction

“The biggest variable in academic integrity is the instructor. Just like in an on-campus class, [the instructors] know the students and can tell when something isn’t right.”

– Director of Distance and Online Learning

“Academic integrity is more problematic in face-to-face courses than online. The pedagogies used in online settings – project-based assignments, constant student-teacher interaction [through voice and text] – makes cheating more difficult.”

– Vice President for Academic Outreach

“Because online courses are so heavily discussion-based and have smaller class sizes, the faculty get to know their students and their writing. Plus, they can compare written assignments to student’s discussion board contributions. This goes a long way to encourage academic integrity.”

– President

42 42


3b. Findings

Using Pedagogy and Instructional Design to Promote Academic Integrity

• Six of the eight profiled schools have made academic integrity an essential component of their faculty development programs for online instructors

– In general, these faculty development efforts focus on how to design course syllabi, assignments, and assessments to maximize their pedagogical value while minimizing opportunities for academic dishonesty

– Faculty members at these schools are encouraged to avoid multiple choice exams and previously used essay topics to minimize the likelihood of cheating

– At least one profiled school designs online courses centrally (i.e., different faculty members use all the same materials and assessments for the same course)

• In this case, the instructional design process incorporates best practices geared toward promoting academic integrity

• Among interviewees, there was a strong sentiment that the student-faculty interaction that online learning, at its best, facilitates is the most effective strategy for generating a culture of academic integrity

43 43


3b. Findings

According to Interviewees, These Online Pedagogical Strategies Are Most Effective in Minimizing Academic Dishonesty

44 44


3b. Findings

According to Interviewees, These Online Pedagogical Strategies Are Most Effective in Minimizing Academic Dishonesty (continued)

45 45


3b. Findings

Other Instructional Design Features to Reduce Academic Dishonesty

• In addition to these pedagogical strategies, many of the profiled schools encourage their online faculty to use other techniques made possible by online delivery and technology to promote academic integrity

– At least one school encourages faculty administering exams online to use the question randomization feature in its CMS

• Automatically shuffles the order of exam questions for each student to make collaboration more difficult

– Another school programs its CMS for “adaptive release,” which requires students to electronically sign a pledge that the work is their own before submitting an assignment and before they are given electronic access to the next course module

– A number of schools use timed-out screens and browser lockdowns to prevent students from accessing other electronic materials during exams

46 46


3b. Findings

Other Instructional Design Features to Reduce Academic Dishonesty

• The most commonly used tool among the profiled schools is Turnitin.com, an online plagiarism detection service

• Seven of the eight profiled schools use Turnitin, to varying degrees– The one school that does not currently use Turnitin expressed concerns

over protecting student privacy and student intellectual property– Among the seven institutions using Turnitin:

• None require faculty members to use the service– Some interviewees emphasized that the tool is not useful in many disciplines,

particularly when there is less emphasis on essay and research paper writing, as in experimental sciences, computer science, and mathematics

• Six make the service available to students to review their assignments before submission

• Each interview participant also reported that faculty members make frequent use of Google and other search engines to monitor for plagiarism

47 47


3b. Findings

Proctoring Exams in Online Courses• A frequent concern about academic integrity in online courses arises from

the difficulty of administering exams to students far from campus– One profiled institution requires its distance courses to have at least one

proctored exam, in part to validate student identity– On the other hand, another profiled school does not use proctored exams

• The profiled schools have various means of certifying proctors– One institution draws proctors from its alumni network and from among high

school teachers and counselors at schools where it recruits– Many schools maintain cooperative arrangements with peer institutions around

the country and world to provide proctoring services• Many schools also have similar arrangements with the military

– One profiled school contracts with an international network of testing centers– At least one school uses the iLink system, which allows faculty and student to

see one another while communicating over the Internet• Similarly, the University of Western Alabama has begun marketing a Web-based tool

called “Remote Proctor,” providing another possible technological solution

48 48


3c. Findings






5. Future Research

49 49


3c. Findings


• A consensus seems to be emerging that the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 (HEOA)’s “Part H: Program Integrity” will ultimately require distance learning providers to adopt student authentication mechanisms beyond log-on IDs and password protection– In the near-term, however, schools will need to make few adjustments to be in

compliance with the law

• Few schools have taken specific actions to comply with the law

• Interview participants expressed three key concerns about the HEOA:– The potential cost of its authentication provision– Its inequitable treatment of face-to-face and distance learning environments– The adverse effects an excessive reliance on technology could have on the

interactive pedagogy that has developed in high-quality online learning

50 50


3c. Findings

What Will the HEOA Mean for Online Higher Education Providers?

• The Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 (HEOA) – Enacted into law in August 2008– Amends and reauthorizes the Higher Education Act of 1965

• Of particular importance for distance learning providers, the law’s “Part H: Program Integrity” stipulates that accrediting agencies must demonstrate that

“it requires an institution that offers distance education or correspondence education to have processes through which the institution establishes that the student who registers in a distance education or correspondence education course or program is the same student who participates in and completes the program and receives the academic credit.”*

* Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, Public Law 110-315, August 14, 2008.51 51


3c. Findings

What Will the HEOA Mean for Online Higher Education Providers?• Though vague, the Congressional conference report issued with the law

points to the likely ramifications of this provision:

• In effect, Part H seems to require distance learning providers to have mechanisms in place to verify students’ identity– Furthermore, the intent of the law seems to be to ultimately require more

advanced authentication technologies– The law, however, is mute on what those technologies might be

“The Conferees expect institutions that offer distance education to have security mechanisms in place, such as identification numbers or other pass code information required to be used each time thestudent participates in class time or coursework on-line. As new identification technologies are developed and become more sophisticated, less expensive and more mainstream, the Confereesanticipate that accrediting agencies or associations and institutions will consider their use in the future.”*

* “Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference, H.R. 4137.” 52 52


3c. Findings

What Will the HEOA Mean for Online Higher Education Providers?• To implement the law and its provisions, a federal “Negotiated

Rulemaking” process began in early 2009– This process should help clarify the practical meaning of Part H

• In anticipation of this rulemaking process , various accreditors and interest groups have reviewed the HEOA and issued guidance on complying with its (apparent) requirements

• The WCET Working Group on Academic Integrity and Student Verification recommends that distance learning providers

“[use] a student authentication technology, for example: secure student logins and password to access online courses and related resources [to comply with the HEOA].”*

* WCET Working Group on Academic Integrity and Student Verification. “Institutional Policies/Practices and Course Design Strategies to Promote Academic Integrity in Online Education,” February 2009, p. 1.

53 53


3c. Findings

What Will the HEOA Mean for Online Higher Education Providers?• In February 2009, the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) responded to the

HEOA in its updated accreditation policies*

– In its amended accreditation policies, HLC advises its member schools that student log-on identification and passwords are sufficient for compliance in the immediate-term

– Looking ahead, however, HLC warns “as time progresses, better processes for verifying the identify of students come into existence, and final regulations develop, this policy may need to be updated […] In the meantime, institutions should be examining more sophisticated approaches to verifying the identity of their students and making plans to incorporate such approaches in their distance and correspondence education.”

• This guidance echoes the HEOA and its conference report, reflecting the ongoing ambiguity about what the new requirement will mean in practice beyond the immediate-term

* The Higher Learning Commission. Summary of Policies Related to the Higher Education Opportunity Act, February 2009, Section G, pp. 8-9. 54 54


3c. Findings

How Are the Profiled Schools Reacting to the HEOA?• Upon the inquiring member’s request, OHE-LC staff members asked the profiled

institutions about their actions thus far in response to the HEOA• Few schools have taken specific actions to comply with the student identity

authentication provision– In a recent OHE-LC Membership Q&A*, only 28% of respondents (5 of 18) answered that

their school/unit had taken specific action– None of the interviewed institutions had yet to take specific actions

• One profiled school is located outside the United States and is thus not relevant for this issue

Has your school/unit taken action to comply with the HEOA identity authentication provision?

* OHE-LC Membership Q&A #66: Academic Integrity and Student Identity Validation in Distance Learning Environments, February 2009. 55 55


3c. Findings

The Profiled Schools Are, However, Aware of the HEOA and Are Examining Its Likely Implications

• At least three of the profiled schools believe their current password protection protocols will comply with the HEOA’s immediate requirements– All of the remaining institutions have begun or have at least scheduled internal

discussions about preparations for policy changes if they become necessary– None of the profiled schools currently use any special technology – i.e.,

beyond log-on IDs and password protection – to validate student identity• Though half of those interviewed expressed the belief that password protection will

ultimately prove inadequate to comply with the law

• As discussed above, for those schools that have proctored exams for their distance learning students, they rely on certified proctors and picture ID requirements at the testing site to verify student identity– One interview participant discussed the use of hand-written exams submitted

in hard copy as a stop-gap (though not seen as feasible on a large scale) measure to authenticate student identity in some distance learning courses

56 56


3c. Findings

The Profiled Schools Have Three Key Concerns About the HEOA• Interviewees had three key sets of concerns about the law’s potential implications:

– The requirement to adopt sophisticated technological mechanisms to comply with the rule could be cost-prohibitive, particularly for smaller institutions, possibly forcing them to curtail their distance learning programs

– The inequitable application of the rule to face-to-face and distance learning

– The adverse effects an excessive reliance on technology could have on the interactive pedagogy that has developed in high-quality online learning environments

“Our biggest concern is what [the HEOA] might require us to commit financially. It could quickly become cost-prohibitive.”

– Vice President for Academic Outreach

“If we’re going to have these rules, we need the same requirements for on-campus [i.e., face-to-face] classes. The authentication issues are probably far worse in a large lecture class. Current online integrity efforts far exceed what has ever been done for face-to-face.”

– Director, Center for Online Learning

“Online learning directs attention back to the things that matter in education. And small class sizes in our online courses allows us to know students better [than we would in big face-to-face classes]. If we’re forced to go a technological route [to comply with the HEOA], it will restrict the availability of online learning in ways we don’t want.”

– Director, Center for Academic Integrity

57 57








5. Future Research

58 58



Conclusions• Academic integrity is a vital issue to the credibility and marketability of

online learning as a reputable and respected delivery modality– Judging from the sample studied for this report, instructors and

administrators in online higher education tend to believe strongly that online learning is no more susceptible to academic dishonesty than is face-to-face delivery

– There is, however, an equally strong belief that outsiders perceive online learning as more vulnerable to cheating, a perception that online providers must work to combat

• In light of this perception, cultivating a reputation for rigorous and successful academic integrity policies in online programming could serve as an effective means of market positioning and differentiation– Prospective students need prospective employers to trust the credibility of

their credentials

59 59



Conclusions

• For academic integrity policy to succeed, both faculty and administrators must be actively involved in implementation and enforcement – Nonetheless, coordination at the college/departmental or school-wide level

is necessary to provide the record-keeping and consistent policy application and enforcement that are essential to maintaining a policy that is seen as rigorous, fair to students, and not unduly burdensome to faculty members

• Creating a culture of academic honesty, however, comes largely from preventive measures, engendered through effective instructional design, pedagogy and assessment, faculty development, student-teacher interaction, and communication with and education of students

60 60



Conclusions• The implications of the HEOA’s student authentication provision remain

uncertain, especially beyond the short-term period– Log-on identification and password protection are likely sufficient in the

immediate-term to satisfy the new authentication requirement – However, an apparent consensus is emerging among schools, influenced by

policy statements from accrediting agencies and interest groups, that the law will ultimately necessitate more sophisticated technological solutions to identity verification

– Nevertheless, given the uncertain environment and lack of decisive guidance, few schools have thus far taken concrete action to adapt to the anticipated requirements

• Participants in this study expressed the opinion that lawmakers and accreditors need to consider more carefully the rationale behind the rule’s inequitable treatment of face-to-face and distance learning providers as well as the cost, access, and quality ramifications of mandating technological solutions

61 61



Recommendations: Best Practices for Promoting Academic Integrity• In light of these findings & conclusions, OHE-LC staff members recommend the following best practices:

62 62



Recommendations: Best Practices for Promoting Academic Integrity

63 63




64 64




65 65




66 66




67 67


5. Future Research



3. Findings• Is Academic Integrity a Widespread Concern?• How Do Schools Address Academic Integrity Issues?• How Are Schools Preparing for Implementation of the Higher



5. Future Research

68 68


5. Future Research

Recommendations for Future Custom Analysis• The OHE-LC research team would welcome the opportunity to discuss this report

and its findings with the inquiring member and answer any questions about the research through an Analyst Discussion

• To expand upon the findings of this Custom Research Report, OHE-LC staff members recommend:

– Custom Inquiries examining specific issues within academic integrity, including the extent to which schools are using their policies as a market positioning and differentiation strategy

– Custom Inquiries on specific pedagogical and technological approaches to promoting academic integrity

– Supplemental research on student perceptions and preferences about academic integrity in online programs

– Continued monitoring of the HEOA “negotiated rulemaking” process– Additional Membership Q&As to poll the inquiring member’s OHE-LC peers about their

specific responses to the HEOA

For additional Custom Analysis or to discuss the current report, please contact Lesley Nelson, the OHE-LC Custom Research Manager, at [email protected]

69 69

Documents

Best Practices for Promoting Academic Integrity and Validating