November 28, 2007
Academic Standards committee
Present
Debbie Chee, Brad Tomhave, Mike Spivey, Sarah Moore, Jack Roundy, Kathie HummelBerry, Seth Weinberger, Carolyn Weisz, David Sousa, Ted Taranovski, Alison Tracy
Hale, Rob Taylor, Brady Evans, Dolen Perkins-Valdez, Ben Bradley
Order
Chair Spivey convened the meeting.
Approval of Minutes from last meeting. M (Taranovski)/2nd (Moore)/Passed
unanimously
Announcements
There were none.
Petitions Report
The November 20 meeting of the Petitions Committee was canceled.
For the period 11/14-11/20/07, the following actions were taken:
• The Registrar approved a Late-Add petition
• The Petitions Preview Team approved 2 petitions: one for a time conflict, and one
for concurrent enrollment
For the period 11/21-11/27/07, the following actions were taken:
• The Petitions Preview Team approved 3 petitions: one for a change from P/F to
graded status; one for a time conflict; and one waiver of a core requirement.
• The Petitions Subcommittee approved 1 petition for a time conflict.
Thus far this semester, 39 petitions have been considered, of which 30 have been
approved (3 by the Registrar, 10 by the Petitions Preview Team, and 17 by the Petitions
Subcommittee), and 9 denied.
Committee Business
Pass/Fail
Regarding the student who petitioned for a change from P/F to graded status, Roundy
asked Tomhave if the Registrar’s Office might need to “add obstacles” to the selection of
the P/F option to prevent future petitions. Tomhave replied that there were warnings and
reminders built into the system that alerted the student to the consequences of electing
P/F. Roundy observed that since students tend to “blow by” the warnings posted online,
he would like to see students come by the Registrar’s Office before electing the P/F
option, where the risks and consequences of the decision could be made clear to them by
a member of the Registrar’s staff; e.g., that P/F courses are not allowed to count toward
the major, minor, or core.
Tomhave noted that seniors who elect the P/F option are contacted by a degree evaluator,
who informs them that the standard for “passing” such courses is actually slightly higher
(C-) than under the regular grading option. Various suggestions were offered as to how
more dynamic technology might be employed to further alert students to the
consequences of the P/F option, since some students appeared to click right by the
existing information in the system. Tomhave replied that he would work on possible
alternatives.
University Honors
With respect to the previous discussion of graded units/university honors, Sousa asked if
there was a follow-up to the question of making honors retroactive based on the recent
change in policy (see Minutes of 11/14/07). Moore replied that she had checked the
Minutes of the relevant Faculty Senate meeting (5/07/07). She noted that while there was
little description of the conversation that took place, Dean Bartanen had characterized the
matter as “not pressing” because the student in question had already graduated, and that
there appeared to be no special “deal” that would award honors to the student based on
whether or not the policy was changed.
Following these two brief discussions, the Committee turned to scheduled discussion:
Academic Honesty
As a member of the previous year’s subcommittee (along with Greta Austin and Mark
Martin), Weinberger provided an overview of the Subcommittee’s Recommendations
(attached). Weinberger stated that the Recommendations were perhaps framed in the
reverse order with respect to creating a coherent policy, but that the basic elements were
as follows:
1. A quiz (developed by Tufts University) on Academic Honesty, to be introduced
early on in each student’s UPS career—perhaps during orientation, Prelude
(although the Prelude Committee objected to requiring it of participating faculty),
or one of the two required first-year seminars (WRS or SCIS).
2. Changes to the language of the Academic Honesty Policy in 5 areas:
a. adding a section on “Intellectual Community”
b. changing the language regarding academic honesty in the electronic age
c. adding language concerning the use of “common knowledge”
d. adding language concerning the “grey areas”
e. adding material regarding the special issues of academic honesty in
mathematics problems.
3. Public Discussion of Academic Honesty
a. including discussion of the academic honesty policy and the nature of the
intellectual community in university orientation sessions
b. inclusion in the “Advice to New Students” booklet of pieces dealing
specifically with academic honesty
c. the discussion of a university honor code
Following Weinberger’s summary, Tomhave asked about the nature of the Prelude
Committee’s objection to including the quiz during Prelude. Weinberger noted that the
objection was informal, but was presumably based on two issues: first, that the Prelude
Committee was uncomfortable telling faculty what to do in their sessions, in part because
the Committee wanted to make the Prelude program attractive to faculty and to maintain
their participation; second, that Prelude had become shorter and shorter, making it even
more difficult to add even a short segment.
Hummel-Berry noted that in her experience, Prelude was not necessarily a time when
students would be fully engaged; she suggested that the Writing Seminar might be a more
appropriate setting. Roundy concurred, citing Julie Neff-Lippman’s advice that we not
adopt the “inoculation” theory, but rather embed these conversations in actual teaching
contexts. Weinberger stated that the issue needed to be raised at some point during
orientation, perhaps through a discussion of the intellectual community and what it
means. He added that the Subcommittee had never intended the introduction of the
subject during orientation to be the complete coverage of the issue.
Sousa agreed that the issue needs to be incorporated with the student’s work, and
suggested that we might mandate the inclusion of the topic in the WR seminars.
Weinberger noted the need to create the sense of intellectual community and to specify
the student’s responsibility as a member of that community.
Chee noted that there had been several sessions on academic honesty that were poorly
attended.
Roundy observed that we were talking about three converging conversations on campus:
1) the discussion of Classroom Civility surrounding the English Department’s work last
spring; 2) The question of academic honesty/plagiarism; 3) The larger sense of an
academic community. He asked how we might structure these issues coherently in terms
of student life.
Moore noted that the discussion had three layers: the philosophical, the "meat and
potatoes" policy, and the "rules" (consequences). She pointed out that the Academic
Handbook was, in fact, the document that describes the university's policies and
procedures. Although the philosophy and examples are important educational pieces, she
wondered whether the Handbook should be the home for this information; she noted
that the Handbook does not contain this type of material for any other topic area.
Weinberger responded that last year’s discussions focused on using electronic
supplements to the handbook for such information. Taranovski expressed concern that by
adding detail to the policy, we might inadvertently create “loopholes” that students might
exploit. He suggested that a generic statement might be better. He further noted that in his
experience, plagiarists were often not first-year students. Based on that, he suggested that
perhaps each department ought to have its own statement, based on its disciplinary
criteria, rather than pouring all of the various permutations into a single university
document that many students fail to read. He further noted that his comment was not
meant as a criticism of the previous work done by the Subcommittee.
Weinberger noted that the internet has changed the general mentality regarding the
concept of “ownership” in a way that needed to be addressed. Sousa expressed support
for a general statement that would cover any omissions, and noted that the examples were
useful. He further noted that one “glaring omission” was the collections of work available
to members of private organizations. Bradley noted that there is a well-known rule that an
organization to which he belongs does not have such files, but admitted that there are
people in such organizations who break the rules.
Weisz noted that the policy revisions, and the introduction of the issues at several
junctures would be useful in the long-term efforts to shape social norms. She noted that
many students honestly don’t remember their previous work, and that “general” examples
often don’t fit her particular discipline. She noted that while it was important for each
field to educate students on its criteria, there was also a need for a general, shared
resource. Roundy noted that in many other ways, disciplinary boundaries were being
broken down, as well. Perkins-Valdez said that she found the issues raised by intentional
and unintentional plagiarism very different; she saw a need to heighten the student’s
sense of moral authority, perhaps through a statement of academic honesty on submitted
work.
Weinberger noted that we might make the question of an honor code a part of the
recommended public conversation. Taranovski noted that plagiarism is a general problem
in academia, and referred to a recent article in Randy Cohen’s syndicated column “The
Ethicist” regarding plagiarism done by a graduate student (see “Bad Grad, Good Grad,”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/magazine/18wwln-ethicist-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin.) Taranovski
further noted that faculty bear a large responsibility in utilizing appropriate penalties and
in using pedagogical approaches (in-class exams, e.g.) that allow us to spot suspicious
material.
Sousa observed that the handbook was somewhat ineffective and that we need to make
real the consequences of dishonesty. He noted that the TurnItIn program under evaluation
by the P&G department, students upload their work, receive information on where there
is overlap, and then have the responsibility for fixing the work. He noted that the system
was not private; that students learned by having their paper “scored” in terms of overlap.
He stated that he had found the program very useful in his course, and liked its
practicality. Sousa and Weinberger provided a summary of the program: it compares text
(word placement, distance) and then provides a report that with a numerical “similarity
score” and highlights text that is too similar. Sousa noted that the report and score can be
“devastating.” Perkins-Valdez expressed concern that students would be penalized for
ideas that coincide with those expressed elsewhere; Weinberger noted that the program
makes no judgment, but merely highlights similarities for students to examine and
perhaps revise.
Given the lateness of the hour, Chair Spivey adjourned the meeting. As a post-script,
Taranovski noted that the existing plagiarism example in the handbook, involving the
Anasazi, makes use of a term that is no longer considered politically correct and which
should be changed.
Respectfully submitted,
Alison Tracy Hale
Recommendations from ASC Subcommittee on Academic Honesty
April 6, 2007
Greta Austin
Mark Martin
Seth Weinberger
During the meeting of the ASC Subcommittee on Academic Honesty on March 29, 2007,
the subcommittee proposed several recommendations to make before the full ASC
regarding the academic honesty policy of UPS, particularly as it relates to honesty in the
electronic age. The recommendations are as follows:
1. Quiz on Academic Honesty
a. The subcommittee strongly believes that all freshmen and new faculty
should be required to take a quiz on academic honesty. The quiz is used at
several other institutions, including Amherst College and Tufts University.
Permission could likely be obtained from Tufts (the developer of the quiz)
for use at UPS.
b. The subcommittee would like the ASC to discuss what the appropriate
time for the quiz would be. Possibilities mentioned included during
Prelude or during a session of the freshmen seminars, and/or during new
faculty orientation. It was noted that there has been resistance to
implementing academic honesty education during Prelude, and the
committee should discuss what options are available for adding such
content.
2. Academic Honesty Policy Language
a. The subcommittee recommends adding a section on “Intellectual
Community,” similar to that found in Princeton University’s policy.
b. The subcommittee discussed changing the language regarding academic
honesty in the electronic age.
i. The subcommittee has forwarded two examples of the
inappropriate use of websites for consideration by the ASC.
ii. The subcommittee recommends including the Princeton Statement
on “Non-Print and Electronic Sources” including a statement
analogizing Internet use with music sharing and downloading
(forwarded to the committee).
c. The subcommittee discussed adding language concerning the use of
“common knowledge” to be added to the Princeton Statement on “When
to Cite Sources.”
i. The subcommittee has forwarded potential language on student
reluctance to cite and student awareness of plagiarism.
ii. The subcommittee has forwarded the document “Plagiarism in
Plain English” for consideration.
d. The subcommittee recommends adding language concerning the “grey
areas” of plagiarism. See Princeton’s section on “The Question of
Collaboration” and “Other Forms of Assistance.”
e. The subcommittee discussed the request from Spivey on the ASC to deal
with the problem of academic honesty in mathematics problems. The
subcommittee felt that it lacked the ability to discuss the problem, and
hoped that Spivey could draft some relevant language.
3. Public Discussion of Academic Honesty
a. The subcommittee recommends that, during orientation, entering students
hear one or two presentations on the academic honesty policy as well as
the nature of the intellectual community of the University.
b. The subcommittee recommends that the “Advice to New Students”
booklet distributed during orientation include pieces on academic honesty,
such as a “mea culpa” as was published in The Trail.
c. The subcommittee recommends that the ASC discuss the creation of an
honor code for the University.