Date: 4/30/96
To: Grace Kirchner, Faculty Senate
From: Sarah Moore, Academic Standards Committee
Re: Final Report, Academic Year 1995-1996
The following outlines the Senate's charges to ASC for the 1995-96 academic year, the action
taken by ASC, and the committee's recommendations for the 1996-97 academic year. Relevant
documents are attached.
1. Continue work of Petitions subcommittee The committee heard numerous cases this year, a
summary of which may be obtained from Mary Morgan, Registrar.
2. Continue work on Honor (Integrity) Code The integrity code subcommittee (Inger Brodey, Ann
Ekes, Jeanette DiScala) examined several issues pertaining to academic honesty, including
combining the sections of the Honor Code (i.e., "Integrity Code") and the Student Handbook (i.e.,
"Academic Honesty Policy." See Charge #6, below.) The subcommittee, however, also
developed a series of broader goals directed toward:
" ... (a) encouraging a shift in campus culture that would engender greater individual
responsibility among students, especially regarding honesty both inside and outside the
classroom,
(b) building awareness that an Honor Code is not simply punitive, but rather a linchpin of
academic freedom, enabling students, faculty and staff to engage in mature and free exchange of
ideas which characterizes a liberal arts education,
(c) creating an atmosphere where the burden (opportunity) of monitoring honesty lies
primarily with students themselves rather than with faculty, thereby decreasing the parental and
policing role of the faculty,
(d) encouraging faculty to report dishonesty automatically when it does occur and enabling
the administration to punish it swiftly and forcefully,
(e) engaging the whole campus community in a discussion about the role of our Honor Code
in our campus life, especially a discussion of its relation to academic freedom...."
Because these goals require changes on many fronts, including, but not limited to a change in
campus culture, the subcommittee initiated and completed a series of short- and longer-term
goals. (See attached final report.) Moreover, the subcommittee has requested that they meet
with the Senate at the beginning of the 1996-97 academic year so that there may be an open
discussion of these broader changes, with the hope of generating awareness of, and enthusiasm
for, this type of cultural shift.
3. Continue work on revision of withdrawal policy In response to a request from Jack Roundy, the
committee discussed the problems associated with passive withdrawal from courses and the
difficulties associated with faculty holding the primary responsibility for initiating the student's
withdrawal from courses in extreme cases of nonattendance. Accordingly, ASC unanimously
passed a motion to alter the wording in the Logger to read,
"When non-attendance is in the instructor's judgment excessive, the instructor may levy a grade
penalty or may direct the registrar to drop the student from the course. In extreme cases of nonattendance, the registrar or the director of advising, in consultation with the course instructor(s),
may initiate the student's withdrawal from some or all of his or her classes. When a student's
withdrawal is initiated by anyone other than the course instructor, the student shall be notified in
writing and given the opportunity to be heard before official action is taken."
This wording does not remove power from the faculty, but rather allows university personnel, who
may have a better working knowledge of the student's overall classroom performance, to initiate
action as well.
4. Review academic policy and advising issues related to the development of a new,
decentralized student records and registration system.
Given the enormity of this topic, a subcommittee headed by Jack Roundy compiled a list of
relevant questions that served to focus ASC discussions over the course of the year on this
matter (see attached list). Jack Roundy plans to summarize the results of this discussion over the
summer.
Beginning Fall 1996, ASC would like to distribute the summary to all faculty and receive feedback
and suggestions before specific program features of this system are developed. Based on the
information obtained from other universities that have made similar types of conversions, Roundy
and others have strongly suggested that the success of this new system is largely dependent
upon the consideration of many different constituencies' preferences.
5. Consider policies to combat grade inflation Prompted by the proposal from a faculty member
that the mean course grade appear alongside the student's earned grade on the student's
transcript, ASC had several discussions on the general topic of grade inflation. For a variety of
reasons, this specific proposal was not adopted; however, in the course of the committee's
discussion, several issues emerged.
a) Depending upon one's philosophy of grading, grade inflation may or may not be a
problem. If one believes that grades should allow for discrimination between good and poor
students, then truncated variance of GPA is problematic. If, however, one uses grades to reflect
some level of mastery, as determined by the instructor, then grade inflation may be a moot point.
b) At present, there is no valid way to determine if the pattern of rising grades is "real" (i.e.,
reflecting higher quality work from students who deserve the higher grades), or "artificial" (i.e.,
faculty, for various reasons, marking students higher than they deserve).
The committee concluded that these questions must be answered before any policy changes be
implemented: any proposed solutions would be most effective if they were directed specifically at
the underlying mechanism of the grade inflation problem. Because of the broader philosophical
implications of this topic, it was suggested by one member of ASC that an ad hoc committee be
established in order to survey faculty, hold open-discussions, and conduct other appropriate
activities.
6. Review Integrity and Academic Honesty sections of Logger. (See comments from charge #2.)
Other ASC Activities:
7. Discussions with Lyn Chandler regarding the structure and function of the ASC.
The primary concern of ASC members was the proposal that the number of ASC members be
decreased. The members unanimously stated that ASC have at least 10 members, 6 of whom
would serve on the policy "arm" of the committee, and 4 of whom would serve on the Petitions
committee. Moreover, the committee believed that the decision of who should serve on which
committee should remain with ASC.
8. Request to hold an event during Reading Period Dean Potts requested that the committee
review a proposal from CHispA, who requested approval to hold their annual banquet during
reading period.
Given the unique features of their request (banquet to be held on May 5th to coincide with this
Mexican holiday), the committee unanimously voted to support Dean Potts, should he decide to
grant this waiver.
9. Academic Dishonesty Hearing Board Meetings Three meetings concerning second formal
charges of academic dishonesty have been held during the Spring semester, with two more
potentially scheduled for the month of June.
********************
Integrity Code Subcommittee Final Report
Honor Code Planning:
To: Faculty Senate
From: Academic Standards Committee
Re: Recommendations on the Integrity Code and Academic Dishonesty
What follows is a list of the stated goals of our subcommittee on the Integrity Code, as of
Spring, 1995, followed by our actions in each area to date (in bold). We also provide a final
section containing a summary of our suggestions for future actions, approved unanimously by the
full Academic Standards Committee. We are submitting it to the Faculty Senate for your approval
as well.
1. Simplify the language of our academic honesty policy by developing language within the
Integrity Code of the Student Handbook that would cover academic honesty as well (previously
covered by the Academic Honesty Policy of the Academic Handbook).
Completed. What was the Academic Honesty Policy is now Standard One under the Integrity
Code. These changes will appear in the next Logger. In the process of making this primarily
organizational change, we changed the description of academic (dis)honesty to accord better with
the Integrity Code and to include areas that had not before been included and also simplified the
language. We also revised the samples of plagiarism included in the section. The Academic
Standards Committee believes that this unification of the codes into one statement will have
greater pedagogical effect and will still preserve the separation of enforcement of non-academic
behavior and of academic behavior.
2. Expose students to the integrity code at Passages and Prelude. We would like students to see
it as part of the difference between high school and college--an opportunity to act and be treated
as adults and an opportunity to help protect their own academic freedom against abuses.
Completed/ In progress. Since there was no room for us in Prelude, we have found other ways of
achieving this end, primarily through educating specific groups of students, through a special
library orientation, and through material available to advisers and teachers of Freshman Writing
Seminars. We are designing and organizing training sessions for RAs, PAs, and OLs to help
disseminate information about why academic honesty and intellectual ownership are important at
a liberal arts college and also how to distinguish between quoting, paraphrasing, and plagiarizing.
Lori Ricigliano, of the library, is designing an interactive computer program that will give students
(and anyone else who wants it) a chance to try to test whether they can differentiate between
paraphrasing, plagiarism, and proper quotation. Students will be able to tally results and the
program will have branching to allow for levels of expertise. It should be available in the Fall for
use in advising sections or in Freshman Writing Seminars, for example. We also are helping to
design a presentation on intellectual ownership for the Freshman Library Orientation that starts
this Fall. In all of these presentations, we are trying to emphasize the positive message: the
empowering effect of respecting intellectual ownership.
If the various training sessions are successful, the Committee will need to consider a mechanism
to ensure that they are conducted annually, perhaps by a member of the staff at the Center for
Writing and Learning.
3. Include a description of our academic honesty policy in the Viewbook.
Vice President Mills has agreed to place a description of the Integrity Code, and perhaps
especially the Matriculation Pledge, in the Viewbook, as soon as he is assured that this is what the
faculty at large would like.
It is our hope that the explicit support of the Academic Standards Committee, as well as the
Faculty Senate, will provide this assurance.
4. Introduce new faculty to our Integrity Code and academic honesty issues (perhaps with sample
hypothetical cases) at the New Faculty Orientation.
Vice President Potts has agreed to begin this practice at the upcoming New Faculty Orientation in
the Fall of 1996. Dean Finney has volunteered to construct an orientation exercise including a
sample (hypothetical) case.
5. Enable clearer distinction between first and second offenses (by encouraging faculty to report
offenses) and consider the possibility of heavier penalties for abuses of the academic honesty
policy.
Dean Finney has promised to bring the issue up with new faculty at the orientation and encourage
them to report first offenses. We think that greater exposure to and understanding of the policy
will make faculty less apt to underreport incidences of academic dishonesty.
6. Make a formal initial assent to the Integrity Code part of the entering freshman experience-either with written acceptance of Admission's offer or in the opening ceremonies (or both).
Dean Kay has given us the text of the speech which generally precedes the Matriculation Pledge
that incoming students take during the Matriculation Ceremony. (The pledge itself is within the text
of the Integrity Code in the Logger.) About 3/4 of Freshmen attend this ceremony. In order to
reach the students who do not attend this ceremony, we have proposed that all students give a
written assent to the Integrity Code, because of its foundational importance.
Vice President Mills has agreed to place the Matriculation Pledge, along with a short description of
the Integrity Code to introduce it, on the form that incoming students sign when accepting
admission to the University--again, assuming broad faculty support.
7. Involve Peer Advisors in educating the campus about the opportunities and responsibilities
involved in having an honor code.
Completed. See #2 above.
8. Facilitate faculty and student discussion groups about the honor code in order to bring it to
widespread attention.
The Informal Committee on Teaching held a successful panel in March on Academic Honesty
issues. The session was well attended and spurred excellent discussions. The session also
confirmed the Subcommittee's sense that academic dishonesty is a wide-spread and
underreported phenomenon as well as that there is a great deal of confusion among faculty about
how to execute the policy.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Change speech associated with matriculation pledge to reflect the new, academic, content of the
Integrity Code.
Recommend that training on Intellectual Ownership, as well as on the difference between quoting,
paraphrasing, and plagiarism, occur in advising sections or Freshman Writing Seminars.
Establish an orientation on Integrity Code and Intellectual Ownership for transfer students.
Include Matriculation Pledge and short description of Integrity Code in the Viewbook and on the
initial assent sheet that students sign when accepting admission to the university.
Consider the possibility of an impersonal administrative board to handle academic dishonesty
cases.
Consider the streamlining or clarification of the policy and review its procedures for
implementation, considering the possibility of having the policy implemented by the Academic
Dean's office.
Consider a mechanism to ensure that the training sessions (for RAs, PAs, CCs, OLs, etc.) are
conducted annually, perhaps by a member of the staff at the Center for Writing and Learning.
**********************
Computerized Records and Registration - Topics for Discussion - 10/19/95
What follows is a list of some of the more important decisions that must be made in the transition
to a computerized records and registration at Puget Sound.
Should advising remain mandatory in the new system?
If the answer to this question is yes then further questions will have to be answered. Should
all transactions currently requiring signatures continue to be mandatory? How should all an
electronic "signature" be requested and given?
What will be included in an electronic advising file, and in what form will it appear?
Many (if not all) of the paper advising resources currently distributed to advisors could be
replaced by electronic ones in the new system. What pieces of information should be provided
electronically?
In what form will they be easiest to use?'
Once computerized registration is in place, who will be permitted to use it?
Continuing on-campus students will of course be allowed to register themselves. But what
about new freshmen? What about new transfer students? What about students who are on
study abroad or other leaves of absence? How will we register these students in the new system?
What will be the rules for access to electronic student records?
How will FERPA rules be interpreted for access in an electronic environment? Students and
their advisors now receive copies of academic records, as well as individuals with a "need to
know." Who should be on that list in the new system? Will we need to add department chairs to
it?
The system will allow us to assign multiple advisors to students. Should we offer that option? If
so, should secondary advisors have electronic access to
students' academic records?
How will exceptions, waivers, and petitions be handled in an electronic environment?
How will department chairs record and communicate exceptions and waivers of degree
requirements? How will degrees be cleared? Will the petitions process change?