Faculty supports that teachers proctor exams

Author: Zamir Ahmed

At their April 11 meeting faculty members approved a sense of the faculty motion that reflects a desire for the College community to consider an Honor Code during next year's review of the Code that allows professors to proctor exams. Though the vote is non-binding and only ceremonial, the vote indicates a feeling among professors that the current Code inadequately prevents cheating or does not encourage students to report cheating.

Faculty Council took up the issue after it was approached in the fall by an academic department with serious concerns regarding the current guidelines in the Code.

"[The academic department] believes that the current system of administering exams does not work, and one of the ways to help resolve some of the problems is for professors to have the option of proctoring their own exams as a matter of course," said Associate Professor of Spanish Miguel Fernandez, a member of Faculty Council who presented the issue at the meeting. "Such a change would reduce cheating and protect the interests of the large amount of students who abide by the code."

The desire to amend the Honor Code, which is reviewed by the College every four years, also stems from a sentiment that the current judicial system cannot adequately rule on academic violations because of the difficulty faced in investigating such cases.

"The department in question also had concerns with the way infractions are adjudicated," said Fernandez, "feeling that, without a confession, there is often never enough evidence for the Judicial Board to find the students guilty."

At the meeting, Assistant Professor of Economics Jessica Holmes cited preliminary data from a survey of the student body conducted by a student in her Economics of Sin course regarding cheating at the College. The survey found that almost half of those surveyed had observed at least one instance of cheating, though only a small percentage reported the incident.

Holmes argued that one of the problems with the Honor Code is that it asks students to report academic infractions, a system that she argued is unreliable. Holmes read from a list of responses students gave on the survey for not reporting Honor Code violations, with many cited that they did not care about the cheating of their peers.

"I would affirm some of what [Holmes] said about students' observations that they may care about the Honor Code in relation to themselves but they are reluctant to turn to their neighbor and follow up with another student," said Dean of the College Tim Spears, the chair of the Judicial Board. "It happens occasionally when one student brings another student forward but it doesn't seem to be in the student culture."

Associate Dean of the College Gus Jordan, who conducted research eight years ago regarding academic dishonesty and the Honor Code, said that the research by Holmes' student confirmed the sentiment that there is a problem with academic integrity. Despite the presence of cheating at the College, however, Jordan pointed out that the cheating rates at Middlebury are significantly lower than the national averages. He noted that the 275 or so schools that have some form of an academic honor code have lower cheating rates than comparable schools that do not have such a system.

During the meeting, some members of the faculty suggested alternative potential solutions to the issue of cheating.

"I'm not convinced that [proctoring] is the solution to that problem - that is, academic dishonesty occurring and how do we monitor that," said Jordan. "I think it requires a concert of activities to do that within which faculty are actively involved at all levels, and that is the best measure of low cheating rates on campus."

Jordan used examples such as a discussion at the beginning of a course that focuses on issues of stealing and plagiarism as more effective means of addressing cheating if students are open to tackling the issue of academic dishonesty.

Professor of History Don Wyatt, a former chair of the Judicial Board, offered another idea to solving the problem that would keep professors out of the classroom during exams.

"In my experience in working with [students on the Judicial Board], it seems to me that they are the most conscientious, rigorous, really true guardians of the Honor Code," said Wyatt. "Have we given any thought to having students do the proctoring?"

According to College procedures, in order to implement an Honor Code with an amendment allowing for the proctoring of exams by professors, two-thirds of students must vote in the referendum, with two-thirds of those students supporting the measure. The faculty then casts its vote for the Honor Code the students have backed, with the option to withhold its approval of the Code.

Prior to the discussion regarding amending the Honor Code, the Educational Affairs Committee presented a proposal requiring all students to complete some form of independent work their senior year, which would take effect for the incoming class of 2012. The proposal, which stems from a recommendation in the Strategic Plan, would also help alleviate the workload for faculty, encouraging the division of courses and student enrollment on a more equal basis within departments.

The proposal will be taken up again at the next faculty meeting on May 12, with the possibility of a vote on the measure that day.