January 25, 2007
Academic Standards Committee
Present: Debbie Chee, Brad Tomhave, Mike Spivey, Jack Roundy, Carolyn Weisz, Kristin
Johnson, Mark Martin, Ben Bradley, Ted Taranovski, Kathie Hummel-Berry, Gary McCall, Bill
Breitenbach and visitors (Doug Sackman, Julie Neff-Lippman, Lisa Ferrari).
Chair Spivey convened the meeting and requested nominations for secretary and Johnson
volunteered. Minutes from last meeting were approved, seconded, and passed.
Announcements: Spivey announced that there is no baby yet but by the time these minutes are
being read maybe there is! (Due date 1/31).
Petitions Report:
12/12/07-1/03/08
1/04/08-1/11/08
1/12/08-1/23/08
9/7/07-1/23/08
Approved by
Registrar PPT
0
1
0
1
0
4
3
20
Comm
16
8
6
59
TOTAL
Approved
17
9
10
82
Denied
1
5
2
20
Tomhave noted a waiver of the upper-division rule that was granted to a FLIA major as of
particular interest, and one that we might see more of in the future. While we have determined
how to deal with substitutions for the foreign language requirement, we may also need to discuss
adequate substitutions of upper division credits.
Committee Business: Academic Dishonesty Discussion. After recognizing visitors invited for
this discussion (Ferrari, Neff-Lippman, and Sackman), Spivey placed the following question,
given the results of that subcommittee, before the ASC for discussion: When should Academic
Dishonesty be brought up with first year students?
Sackman noted that it would be useful to hear where the ASC is on the issue, and a discussion
ensued in response. The primary issues were as follows; the subcommittee had proposed Prelude
as a place for discussion with new students, however various concerns had arisen regarding the
appropriateness of insisting on specific requirements Prelude content. Given concerns regarding
the limited amount of time and the philosophy behind Prelude, discussion had moved to the
advantages of a tiered, rather than ‘inoculation,’ approach. Thus, the role of the website (currently
under revision) an online course similar to those used to teach research ethics at various
institutions, and floor meetings led by RAs and peer advisors regarding scholarly culture were
each canvassed (Spivey, Weisz, Roundy, Chee, Ferrari, Hummel-Berry) 1 . Given that the context
in which plagiarism can arise may vary between disciplines, discussion ensued regarding the
possible role departmental statements may play in a revised system, in addition to the university
policy. These could be distributed in methods courses as is done in the History department
(Taranovski), or in Bio 112 (Martin). Weisz emphasized the importance of providing concrete
examples (since there are only a few types of plagiarism that commonly occur), perhaps – in the
case of a website - organized by departmental buttons attached to a more general guide.
1
If more information is required on who said exactly what, I can provide that rather than an overall
summary. Next time I will bring a laptop and can stick closer to exact wording if the committee would
prefer.
Sackman outlined the reasoning behind a tiered approach (versus leaving the discussion to
Prelude) and the advantages of integrating an AD policy within the curriculum; namely, the
disciplinary and pedagogical problems with simply placing an exercise in Prelude, and the fact
providing another list of ‘DO NOT’S’ in Prelude is at cross purposes with the aim of Prelude.
Breitenbach pointed out that Prelude does in fact contribute to students’ learning regarding
plagiarism in increasing their familiarity with how academic argument is generated, the lack of
which is one of the primary reasons behind plagiarism. Neff-Lippman also pointed out that it was
impossible to assure that all students have the same experience in Prelude given that faculty
create their own Prelude programs.
In response to a query regarding the motivations regarding the effort to revise the policy
(Sackman), Roundy explained that the discussion had originated due to the recognition that the
policy statement didn’t acknowledge the digital environment, but that this original discussion
then led to other questions regarding the current policy. It did not result from an increased
number of cheaters. Roundy pointed out that the wikiworld blurred the line of acceptability
regarding use of material, and it was important to detach problems of practice from problems of
motive in order to avoid the policing-mentality, given that the lines are often difficult to establish.
Given the latter, Martin pointed out that the project could focus on raising consciousness for the
whole community, including faculty. Weisz agreed that things do seem to have changed with the
access to articles on the internet. For example, students tend to think it is okay just to read the
abstract and cite as though they have read the article (Martin agreed, citing his experience of a
student citing something in polish from which they had read a translated abstract).
Neff-Lippman pointed out that in her experience at the Writing Center students are very
confused, and the current policy is not easy to navigate. Certainly something needs to be done to
address the problem of disciplinary difference, since the current examples don’t come from the
sciences, social sciences, or OT.
Roundy agreed with Weisz that a website, perhaps outside of Prelude, was needed, but it was
unclear how elaborate it could or should be. The website IS going to be revised, he noted, but the
question was how do we deploy it? In seminars? Prelude? Sackman pointed out that the
discussion should take place within the context of an actual assignment in the freshman seminars,
and Ferrari agreed, pointing out that this should indeed be a central role of the seminars.
Taranovski pointed out that Academic Dishonesty is different from plagiarism, and that there are
two options amid the complexity - policing or teaching what is good writing. Sackman pointed
out that the subcommittee had agreed that emphasizing ‘what is good writing’ was the way to go,
and agreed that while it should be implicit in all classes, we may need something extra. Weisz
agreed that we should promote the positive but not shy away from clearly defined normative
rules, both within and outside of Prelude. Taranovski urged that a policy can be enacted with the
following sentences; ‘Don’t use the words of another as though they are your own,’ and Bradley
pointed out, as a student, that the lessons in Freshman seminar had certainly stuck with him,
although he was unsure how the problem applied to computer science and mathematics. Martin
expressed that it would be interesting to know what is going on in secondary schools regarding
academic dishonesty, in order to understand the mindset of current students. McCall urged some
inquiry into who does have lesson plans on AD. Roundy wondered whether the librarians might
have something already, and also suggested keeping the rules small and the examples numerous.
Spivey asked the committee whether it was ready to make a decision on the primary question of
where the conversations to first years should take place, Chee asked if we were leaning toward a
multi-tiered approach, and the committee responded yes. Weisz proposed voting on a
recommendation that the policy be revised to include first year seminars, the web, and peer
conversations, which Chee seconded. Roundy proposed the Academic Handbook statement needs
to be revised and the committee agreed. Weisz pointed out that a draft is in the works, and
Taranovski wondered if we are crafting our own or referring to some other institution, and if the
former noted that the committee should be interdisciplinary.
Motion: Spivey noted that a motion seemed ready to be birthed (sorry, but I just had to put that
in): 1) Taranovksi moved the creation of a subcommittee regarding revisions, seconded by
Tomhave. The ASC passed the motion. Weisz (chair), Taranovski, Roundy and Martin
volunteered to serve on the subcommittee. Roundy asked whether we can appropriate a member
of the library staff to help. Taranvoski proposed that a draft be circulated to the ASC and library
staff. Weisz urged that someone from English should be on the subcommittee.
Motion: Weisz moved to ask the senate to charge the curriculum committee to require freshman
seminars in both fall and spring to hold discussions of academic honesty. Tomhave pointed out
this would require a change to the guidelines. Roundy seconded the motion. The ASC passed the
motion.
Motion: Spivey moved to adjourn and the committee agreed!
Respectfully submitted,
Kristin Johnson