ACADEMIC HONESTY POLICIES

 

This document defines academic honesty policies as they apply to my CompE271 sections. CompE271 is a difficult course. As a required course in the ECE Department, it must be passed with a grade of C- or better to be used as either a degree requirement or as a prerequisite course. Thus, the pressures to get a satisfactory grade can lead to incidents of academic dishonesty. Be advised that academic dishonesty in this class can have very serious consequences ranging from no credit given for work in question up to university sanctions that could include expulsion from the university.

If the possibility of such consequences is not motivation to maintain strict academic honesty, here’s another. Most situations of academic dishonesty occur because the required work was not done by the due date. This could be due to carelessness, but more often as the result of poor academic habits or inability to do the work. Engineering is a rigorous curriculum. If you do not do your own work in the manner prescribed, you will not get a satisfactory grade. There is simply no way to earn an engineering degree without doing the work. And, you must get through this course successfully to continue. So, follow the rules and do the work and you’ll likely get through the class with the required C- or better. Remember, you’ll have to demonstrate your knowledge on exams (they’re 90% of the grade). Getting a satisfactory grade will be next to impossible if you haven’t done the work required to know the material!!!

 

The following rules apply to all work submitted for grade in this course:

 

1.        All work submitted for a grade must be original work, done independently by you.

2.        Collaboration shall be limited to subject matter study, clarification of the requirements of an assignment, general approach to a problem or program, development of algorithms, and interpretation of error messages.

3.        You are prohibited from giving another student any answers to any homework problems. Similarly, you are prohibited from sharing any portion of your program code, including comments, on a programming assignment.

4.        While it is permissible to discuss the subject matter covered by a question, the answer to a question must be developed and written by each student independently.

5.        Answer keys and past student work are unacceptable sources for homework answers and/or programming assignments. No credit will be given for submitted work taken from published answers.

6.        Each student is expected to have the detailed knowledge sufficient to explain their answers on any homework or exam problem. (If you cannot, then you do not have independent knowledge of the subject matter.) Similarly, each student is expected to have knowledge sufficient to explain how their program works in exact detail.

7.        No student shall submit a program that was produced by mechanical manipulation of another program. Also, no student shall deliberately transform borrowed sections of code or other material in order to disguise their origins.

8.        Students are expected to formulate their own answers to exam problems. Therefore, answers to exam questions that are clearly answers taken from study guides, past exam solutions, or similar sources and do not apply to the given problem will not receive any credit.

9.        A student found cheating on an exam shall receive an F in the course. Calculators are not permitted on exams. No reference materials of any kind may be used on an exam other than those provided by the instructor, if any. Use of any reference other materials or electronic device during an exam will be considered cheating.

10.     By submitting any work to be graded, a student gives consent for the work to be analyzed by computer (and/or other means) for similarities to work submitted by others or published by others.

 

In addition to the rules listed above, additional information is given in the remainder of this document. The three areas covered in this document are cheating, plagiarism, and facilitating academic dishonesty. The working definitions of these terms are given below. (These definitions are from policies at the George Washington University, School of Engineering, but have also been found on several other internet sources.)

Cheating - intentionally using or attempting to use unauthorized materials, information, or study aids in any academic exercise; copying from another student's examination; submitting work for an in-class examination that has been prepared in advance; representing material prepared by another as one's own work; submitting the same work in more than one course without prior permission of both instructors; violating rules governing administration of examinations; violating any rules relating to academic conduct of a course or program.

ACADEMIC HONESTY POLICIES (cont’d)

Plagiarism - intentionally representing the words, ideas, or sequence of ideas of another as one's own in any academic exercise; failure to attribute any of the following: quotations, paraphrases, or borrowed information.

Facilitating academic dishonesty - intentionally or knowingly helping or attempting to help another to commit an act of academic dishonesty.

How these concepts apply specifically to this course.

Since you are expected to submit only original work prepared by you on all graded work, use of another’s work in this course might constitute either cheating or plagiarism (or both). The line between them is not necessarily clear when applied to homework and programming assignments. The difference usually is determined by the instructions for the work involved. Getting information from a source that is prohibited is cheating. For example, copying a homework assignment from a classmate is cheating. Submitting answers to textbook questions that are copied from the answer key is also cheating. Submitting a computer program partially copied from another source is cheating since using any outside source for a program submitted as your own is prohibited. But, if getting a small portion of code from an outside source were allowed, it would be considered cheating and plagiarism. It would be cheating since you represented the work as your own. It would be plagiarism as you used another’s work without attributing the source. If you allow another student to use your work in a manner proscribed above, or you verbally give prohibited information, you have facilitated academic dishonesty.

But, we are used to working together…

Some changes in your study habits may be required. Discussion is encouraged, but jointly producing work is not allowed in this course. You should have attempted any homework problem before discussing it with others. You can discuss how to setup the problem or work out the ideas needed to answer a question. But, the group should stop short of actually formulating an answer. When you copy anything from a classmate, it is not independent work but is copying. When all members of a study group work out and write down the same answer, it is not independent work and is considered copying. When it comes to programming assignments, it is OK to discuss the assignment, outline the approach, and then work out the algorithm for a program as a group; but, the collaboration must stop as soon as the code writing begins. Helping a classmate interpret an error message is OK, but pointing out a syntax error in the code is not allowed. With a bit of thought, there is usually a way to guide a classmate in the right direction without doing their work for them.

Why should I care if others are doing it?

Allowing others to practice dishonesty affects everyone. It may affect “the curve” adversely but moving a student who typically scores below average into a higher grade. It definitely cheapens the value of the grades given. This in turn devalues the worth of a degree based on that work. And which then tarnishes the reputation of the institution giving the degree. And, so on. As a state university, the people of the State of California expect SDSU to maintain strict standards and only give the grades and degrees to those who properly worked for them. Additionally, the practice of engineering and computer programming may also involve situations where the safety of a person or someone’s livelihood depends on the quality of a classmate’s work. Would let your family fly in a plane where your dishonest classmate wrote the code for the autopilot?

A final checklist on program assignments (from J. Koomen, Univ of Rochester, CS-170)

The following echoes my thoughts: “You are taking this class to learn important fundamental things about computing, and I must give you a grade that fairly represents what I think you've learned. Therefore, I need to know that your work is your work, so I need to limit the collaboration somewhat. For purposes of assignments in this class, here are some guidelines as to which phases of an assignment are appropriate for collaboration, and which are inappropriate.”

OK

Preliminary Analysis of Problem

OK

Developing the Algorithm

NO!

Developing a Test Plan, if required

NO!

Coding in program in Assembly Language

NO!

Proof-reading the program before compilation/execution

OK

Interpreting errors at compile/execute time

NO!

Finding errors in your source code

NO!

Writing up the documentation