In 5 pages this paper considers how honor codes developed within institutions of higher learning, what their functions are, and the social and educational developmental effects they have on the students. Four sources are cited in the bibliography.
Name of Research Paper File: JL5_JLhonour.rtf
Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
their educational institution, and what is not. However, as the University of North Carolinas student affairs department (2002) points out, there is little pointing having such a framework if students
are unsure why the code is important, or the finer details of how they are to follow it. For instance, a common feature of all honour codes is that the
students work should be original, which generally implies that it should not have been produced in collaboration with anyone else. However, it is also the case that in many subjects,
group work is seen as a vital part of the study process in that it allows students to share ideas and come to conclusions through co-operation and dialogue. The code
should therefore make it clear at which points collaborative work is acceptable, and when it is not. UNC also make the point that although tutors can guide and instruct students
in the elements of the code, it is in the last analysis the responsibility of students themselves to control and direct their own actions.
Many institutions honour codes were in fact originally developed by the students themselves, and intended
to be self-regulating, although as Georgia College (2002) notes, over the years the focus has changed. In the majority of colleges breaches of the code are handled by senior staff
rather than the students themselves. In one way, this can be seen as emphasising the importance of the code, since only senior staff have the power to impose strict disciplinary
sanctions such as expulsion. On the other hand, it could also be argued that if the students derive and maintain the code themselves, this encourages both personal and group responsibility