New Practitioners Forum Continued from page 75 The goal of raising faculty and recep Pay close attention to student behavior, tors'awareness of cheating is to encourage especially at the beginning and end of an need to leave personal belongings at the them to be proactive instead of reactive. assessment. front of the testing room, a smartphone Being proactive starts at the beginning of se a secure browser such as LockDown is easily concealed and accessible during the semester, IPPE, or APPE when faculty Browser( Respondus, Redmond, wA)if an exam, especially when the students document clear expectations and policies th desk has a modesty panel or when the in their syllabus. These policies should be Have one proctor supervise or escort classroom is large and has only one exam documented in writing and make clear students who need to leave the exam proctor. Requiring students to leave their faculty members' expectations for atten- environment smartphone face-down on their desk in dance and group work and collaboration, Avoid using an answer key that students plain view is not an absolute deterrent, as well as quiz and examination guidelines, can complete and remove from the test because students could bring in a"fake" audience-response-system use guidelines, Supervise exam reviews after the exam is phone to place on the desk while retain- and closed-exam (no exams returned) graded to ensure that no students write ing their working smartphone. Students procedures. In addition, faculty should down questions or take pictures of the exam. taking IPPE or APPE assessments should provide a policy that includes fair and Conduct class exam reviews by discussing also leave their belongings and smart- appropriate consequences for instances general concepts covered by the exam ver- phone in a room separate from the proc- of academic misconduct. For example, sus specific exam questic tored test environment instructors could state that any student Whether in the classroom orexperien- caught cheating on an assignment, quiz, Role of students in reporting aca- tial setting, traditional paper and pencil or exam may receive a zero on that assign- demic misconduct. Faculty and pre- altiple-choice testing may be the most ment, quiz, or exam and a failing grade ceptors are not the only groups that are mmon type of testing, but additional in the course, IPPE, or APPE. Preceptors concerned about and capable of de testing methods, such as performance- should also include specific consequences tecting cheating. Previous research has ased assessments, written assessments, for falsification of experiential hours (e.g, found that failure to detect cheating and and technology-driven assessments, can accidental or intentional reporting of discipline students who cheat may lead also unintentionally invite cheating if hours not completed) to student dissatisfaction if behaviors expectations are unclear or standardized In the classroom or experiential set- are rampant. Students have two op procedures are not used. If students are ting, proctoring has been identified as tions for reporting academic misconduct participating in performance-based as- the primary deterrent to cheating dur- when they witness it. They can contact essments such as objective structured ing traditional testing. Therefore, fac- the course coordinator or preceptor and clinical examinations, policies should ulty should establish and consistently confidentially report the misconduct. state and proctors should reinforce that uphold clear exam-proctoring policies. Because the reporting student,'s coopera- alking ar rohibited Examples of such policies include the tion is necessary to investigate the situa- luring the test. If faculty or preceptors following tion further, anonymous reporting is un- use written assessments or assignments, available at most academicinstitutions. If a log of previous report topics should Secure the testing room (look at chairs the student is uncomfortable contacting be maintained to avoid reuse of reports. and desks for concealed handouts, study the course coordinator or preceptor, he The instructor should also check the stu sheets, and other test aids) before students or she may contact the institutions aca- dent's references to ensure that content enter the room demic integrity council and reque est con- is appropriately summarized and cited Ask students to leave personal belongings tacts specific to each college/school and and consider using antiplagiarism soft- in the front of the room or other desig. its departments. The academic integrity ware such as TurnItIn(iParadigms LLC, ouncil is a committee of students who Oakland, CA)that may be available from the college or school. Advise students what type of clothing is promote academic integrity on cam- Students may collaborate when in prohibited in the room(e. g, baseball hats, puses to improve student accessibility to resources and foster a healthy academic structors deliver homework, quizzes, or hooded sweatshirts, coats) exams online in an unproctored environ Advise students about exam entry, exiting, environment. The name of this type of ay vary by ment, especially if the rules for student questioning, and talking policies in writ- honor council)and may be synonymous collaboration are unclear. Instructors ing at least 24 hours in advance. ith the academic misconduct board who use audience response systems Have at least two active exam proctors in which often consists of faculty and stu- (e.g, clickers) may have cheating occur the classroom who are watching students dents who hear cases and make decisions if they use the clickers for summative instead of tending to personal work. about academic misconduct. Other qual assessments, such as graded quizzes, at Use multiple versions of the exam ities that may differ among institutions tendance, or participation, because one Adopt a closed-exam policy include the role of each committee in in- student can record answers for multiple . Use a seating chart to eliminate students' vestigation, judication, or advocacy and students by bringing the absent students' intentional seating arrangements. the ratio of faculty, students, and staff Have adequate spacing between students. who comprise each committee. In gener 756 Am J Health-Syst Pharm--Vol 70 May 1, 2013New Practitioners Forum 756 Am J Health-Syst Pharm—Vol 70 May 1, 2013 Continued from page 754 need to leave personal belongings at the front of the testing room, a smartphone is easily concealed and accessible during an exam, especially when the student’s desk has a modesty panel or when the classroom is large and has only one exam proctor. Requiring students to leave their smartphone face-down on their desk in plain view is not an absolute deterrent, because students could bring in a “fake” phone to place on the desk while retain￾ing their working smartphone. Students taking IPPE or APPE assessments should also leave their belongings and smart￾phone in a room separate from the proc￾tored test environment. Whether in the classroom or experien￾tial setting, traditional paper and pencil multiple-choice testing may be the most common type of testing, but additional testing methods, such as performance￾based assessments, written assessments, and technology-driven assessments, can also unintentionally invite cheating if expectations are unclear or standardized procedures are not used. If students are participating in performance-based as￾sessments such as objective structured clinical examinations, policies should state and proctors should reinforce that talking among students is prohibited during the test. If faculty or preceptors use written assessments or assignments, a log of previous report topics should be maintained to avoid reuse of reports. The instructor should also check the stu￾dent’s references to ensure that content is appropriately summarized and cited and consider using antiplagiarism soft￾ware such as TurnItIn (iParadigms LLC, Oakland, CA) that may be available from the college or school. Students may collaborate when in￾structors deliver homework, quizzes, or exams online in an unproctored environ￾ment, especially if the rules for student collaboration are unclear. Instructors who use audience response systems (e.g., clickers) may have cheating occur if they use the clickers for summative assessments, such as graded quizzes, at￾tendance, or participation, because one student can record answers for multiple students by bringing the absent students’ remotes to class.7 The goal of raising faculty and precep￾tors’ awareness of cheating is to encourage them to be proactive instead of reactive. Being proactive starts at the beginning of the semester, IPPE, or APPE when faculty document clear expectations and policies in their syllabus. These policies should be documented in writing and make clear faculty members’ expectations for atten￾dance and group work and collaboration, as well as quiz and examination guidelines, audience-response-system use guidelines, and closed-exam (no exams returned) procedures. In addition, faculty should provide a policy that includes fair and appropriate consequences for instances of academic misconduct. For example, instructors could state that any student caught cheating on an assignment, quiz, or exam may receive a zero on that assign￾ment, quiz, or exam and a failing grade in the course, IPPE, or APPE. Preceptors should also include specific consequences for falsification of experiential hours (e.g., accidental or intentional reporting of hours not completed). In the classroom or experiential set￾ting, proctoring has been identified as the primary deterrent to cheating dur￾ing traditional testing.3 Therefore, fac￾ulty should establish and consistently uphold clear exam-proctoring policies. Examples of such policies include the following: • Secure the testing room (look at chairs and desks for concealed handouts, study sheets, and other test aids) before students enter the room. • Ask students to leave personal belongings in the front of the room or other desig￾nated area. • Advise students what type of clothing is prohibited in the room (e.g., baseball hats, hooded sweatshirts, coats). • Advise students about exam entry, exiting, questioning, and talking policies in writ￾ing at least 24 hours in advance. • Have at least two active exam proctors in the classroom who are watching students instead of tending to personal work. • Use multiple versions of the exam. • Adopt a closed-exam policy. • Use a seating chart to eliminate students’ intentional seating arrangements. • Have adequate spacing between students. • Pay close attention to student behavior, especially at the beginning and end of an assessment. • Use a secure browser such as LockDown Browser (Respondus, Redmond, WA) if the exam is online. • Have one proctor supervise or escort students who need to leave the exam environment. • Avoid using an answer key that students can complete and remove from the test. • Supervise exam reviews after the exam is graded to ensure that no students write down questions or take pictures of the exam. • Conduct class exam reviews by discussing general concepts covered by the exam ver￾sus specific exam questions. Role of students in reporting aca￾demic misconduct. Faculty and pre￾ceptors are not the only groups that are concerned about and capable of de￾tecting cheating. Previous research has found that failure to detect cheating and discipline students who cheat may lead to student dissatisfaction if behaviors are rampant.3 Students have two op￾tions for reporting academic misconduct when they witness it. They can contact the course coordinator or preceptor and confidentially report the misconduct. Because the reporting student’s coopera￾tion is necessary to investigate the situa￾tion further, anonymous reporting is un￾available at most academic institutions. If the student is uncomfortable contacting the course coordinator or preceptor, he or she may contact the institution’s aca￾demic integrity council and request con￾tacts specific to each college/school and its departments. The academic integrity council is a committee of students who promote academic integrity on cam￾puses to improve student accessibility to resources and foster a healthy academic environment. The name of this type of committee may vary by institution (e.g., honor council) and may be synonymous with the academic misconduct board, which often consists of faculty and stu￾dents who hear cases and make decisions about academic misconduct. Other qual￾ities that may differ among institutions include the role of each committee in in￾vestigation, judication, or advocacy and the ratio of faculty, students, and staff who comprise each committee. In gener-