CO N N E C T I O N S W I N T E R 2 0 1 4\r\n\r\nWELCOME\r\nOn Cheating, Not Cheating, and Academic Integrity\r\n\r\nAt CSEE we’re engaged in a lot of work about purpose. Simply put, purpose matters. We frequently hear from schools in the aftermath of a community-rocking cheating scandal. They are eager to do whatever it takes. But, the “purpose question” forces some critical thinking. What do we want to accomplish through our efforts? Let’s look at two scenarios.\r\n\r\nThe first is referred to as the “no cheating” scenario. If the purpose of our efforts is first and foremost to curtail cheating, an entire battery of resources is available. It starts with elimination of anything providing an opportunity to be dishonest: proximity to other test takers, means of communication such as whispers, cell phones, communal bathroom breaks, and so forth. Other “anti-cheating measures” come via the way test questions are constructed, student perceptions of sanctions for dishonesty, student understanding of “how much this counts,” and certainly, via a well-proctored exam room.\r\n\r\nBut what if our purpose is to foster academic integrity? Collecting cell phones or assigning bathroom monitors probably has little positive effect on the development of academic integrity. Such measures may even have a slight negative effect, even if they do reduce incidents of dishonesty. After all, can we use the term “person of integrity” to refer to the student who would cheat if he had the chance, but who has no chance to do so? Not usually. \r\n\r\nIf academic integrity refers to the quality of a person who chooses not to cheat even when the opportunity is present, then the critical thinking educator needs a whole new battery of resources. What we hope is that educators will consider both of these approaches, and then opt for the path to integrity over the path to no cheating. The integrity path—strategies for which are included in this issue—is harder than the no cheating path. It does have more long term benefits, however. And it is the only route toward ethical growth. \r\n\r\nYes, both routes can lead to a reduction in cheating. But only one route leads to the development of character, of moral soundness, and of ethical action. Purpose matters.\r\n\r\nDavid Streight, Executive Director\r\n\r\nCSEE Connections - Winter 2014\r\nPage 1