MINUTES of the Academic Standards Committee
April 7, 2010
Present: Sarah Apple-student, James Bernhard, Debbie Chee, Ken Clark, Betsy
Kirkpatrick, Heidi Kreiss-student, Martins Linauts, Sarah Moore, Jack Roundy, Maria
Sampen, Brad Tomhave, Seth Weinberger, Ivey West, Carolyn Weisz, Linda Williams
The meeting was called to order by chairperson Seth Weinberger at 3:32 PM.
APPPROVAL of MINUTES
The Minutes from 3/24/2010 were approved with minor spelling corrections suggested
by Kirkpatrick.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Weinberger reported that the Faculty Senate in its most recent meeting has continued
discussion on P/F policy amendments.
PETITIONS REPORT
As submitted by Tomhave:
Petitions for the period 03/18/2010 – 03/31/2010
The Petitions Sub-Committee met on March 24th and March 31st. Prior to the March
24th meeting, the Petition Preview Team approved an Emergency Administrative
Withdrawal. The Sub-Committee approved a petition from an upper-division student to
transfer credit from a community college. On March 31st, the Sub-Committee met to
consider 2 petitions: A late add to a second-session Independent Study was approved
and a decision was deferred on a petition regarding credit for both AP Statistics and
MATH 160 Applied Statistics.
In summary:
1 Approved Late Add
1 Approved Emergency Administrative Withdrawal
1 Approved Transfer Credit from Community College for Junior/Senior
3 Total Petitions
Registrar Approved: 0
Preview Team Approved: 1
Sub-Committee Approved: 2
Total Approved: 3
Sub-Committee Denied: 0
Total Petitions: 3
For the year to date, 161 petitions have been acted upon with 137 approved and 24
denied. More than 40% of the total petitions are either Time Conflicts (30) or Late Adds
(39).
The Committee also enforced a directive to a student returning from a Medical
Withdrawal to reduce her schedule from 4 units to 3 units. The student did not comply
with instructions to reduce her schedule and asked the Committee to reconsider. The
Committee reconsidered and, in a split decision, decided to enforce the directive and in
further action, compromised to allow the student to remain as an auditor in the 4th
course.
BUSINESS
Weinberger reported that most of the main business for the academic semester has
been dealt with, and only a small number of lingering issues remain to be discussed
today:
• revising the process for grade disputes
• dealing with new technology’s implications for academic integrity
• placing of signs in the library to increase student awareness of the Honor Code
• increasing faculty and university community awareness of the implementation of
the Honor Code in general
Reviewing the process for grade disputes
Discussion was initiated with Weinberger describing a case in which a student was
contesting a grade from two years ago. Within the required five weeks, the student had
expressed the intention of contesting the grade but then had failed to follow through
with the process for approximately two years. Contributions from Weisz, Kirkpatrick,
Weinberger, and Moore indicated general agreement on the idea that some language
should be put in place ensuring that the hearing board to contest a grade would
conclude by the end of the next semester unless permission for an extension were to be
granted by the Associate Dean or other suitable person (within an appropriate time
frame). This would allow students who were studying abroad during the semester
immediately following a contested grade to obtain an extension as necessary, while
avoiding the extension of the process of contesting a grade without such a suitable
reason. However, rather than trying to come up with precise language for such a policy
on the fly, Moore and Weinberger suggested that they will work on some suitable
wording to bring before the committee in the near future.
Dealing with new technology’s implications for academic integrity
Weinberger opened the discussion by posing the question of what we as faculty and
collectively as a university should be doing in reaction to the creation and growth of
websites such as coursehero.com and notehall.com designed to make course material
available to students (and others) in ways that we may not desire.
In addressing the copyright issues of students posting course materials to such websites,
West pointed out that if this situation parallels the situation with people hired to take
notes in a class, posting of such materials is a violation of copyright.
Weinberger pointed out that there are two distinct issues at stake: the question of the
legality of such postings and the broader question of how the university should
approach the existince and growth of such websites. Moore stated that she thought
that having the university trying to to act as police in such matters would be impractical
to completely infeasible. As to the question of whether students are currently using
such websites much, both Kreiss and Apple stated that they did not think students at
Puget Sound were currently using these sites much. Weisz thought that an emphasis
should be placed on the legal questions. Bernhard and Kirkpatrick mentioned that many
materials being posted to such sites are already available on professors’ websites here.
While this does not detract from the legal issues, it does diminish the ability of such
sites to provide materials that we do not want students to be accessing. Moore stated
that perhaps we should focus on exactly what we as faculty and as a university view as
problematic about such websites: is it the copyright issues, the cheating issues, both, or
even something else?
Weinberger pointed out that there is an imporant question of intent. With such
websites, students are quite deliberately trying to provide help that is not supposed to
be available to students in the class. He closed the discussion by resolving that we
should gain access to such sites (as members) and investigate more closely what
materials and services they are providing.
Signs reminding students of the honor code
Weinberger opened the discussion with a request from the library staff to approve
language for signs relating to the Honor Code to be posted around the library. This
would be designed to remind students of the implications of the Honor Code, in a place
where they may in fact be tempted to violate the Code, intentionally or unintentionally.
The original language being posited was borrowed from some signs posted around
Concordia.
Roundy and Kirkpatrick suggested that more positive wording might be helpful, as
would shorter phrasing. Weisz expressed the view that the terms “fraudulent” and
“unauthorized”, while negative, are key to the message. She suggested that the signs
might begin on a positive note, but then become more negative as need be. After some
discussion, Weisz suggested that the library employ some wording to the effect of
“Know the definitions of plagiarism, fraudulent behavior, etc.”. There was general
agreement with this approach. Weinberger added that it might be good to post similar
signs around the residence halls as well. Also, it was suggested that the name of a
specific person to contact for further information (perhaps a particular library staff
member) about the Honor Code and its implications might be useful to include on the
signs as well.
Broader education for the university community about the Honor Code
Weinberger began the discussion by reminding the committee that since the Honor
Code was so recently implemented, it would be desirable to publicize it more,
particularly among the faculty. He suggested some mechanisms for this: having a place
for students to sign the honor code on blue exam books; suggesting that faculty place a
reminder of the Honor Code on syllabi; and putting the word out to faculty that students
are now affirming the Honor Code during course registration.
Kreiss asserted that in-class settings might be less relevant for publicizing the Honor
Code, but that instead a reminder on take-home exams and essays could be more
helpful. Tomhave echoed this sentiment. Weisz suggested that if we are serious about
pursuing this, we should consult the national literature on the effectiveness of Honor
Codes, and we should get small numbers of faculty to try emphasizing it also.
Weinberger closed the discussion with the assertion that we should continue to think
about ways to implement and publicize the Honor Code.
At 4:30pm, Weinberger moved to adjourn, and the motion was seconded by Clark.
Submitted by James Bernhard, Scribe of the Day