This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:
This is what a comment looks like. Comments with links are queued for moderation to help control spam.Reference
There’s probably no point naming the Retention Alert software as it is likely to be replaced in the near future. Is there a more generic way to phrase that?Reference
Please consider including the Academic Integrity Tutorial in the language of the policy. The tutorial is designed to deter infractions from occurring in the first place, but may also be an effective remedial tool, especially with first infractions.
I believe there is an urgent and recurring need to establish material and financial aid for students in the production of their thesis work to aid them in reaching their fullest potential.
Ugh, this is the element of the Pratt Academic Integrity system that makes no sense to me.
Why is the initial infraction localized in this manner?
Academic integrity issues affect everyone, and we put undue pressure on faculty and allow unmerited leniency to dishonest students with our current system.
If you want the first offense to only be PUNISHED LOCALLY, that is fine.
But every case of dishonesty needs to be sent to the AIHB and they need to render judgment. The faculty member involved should be providing facts, not judgment. The AIHB should be saying “yes, this was an academic dishonest student action and the faculty member is merited in leveling one of these sanctions”. And the student involved should be on notice that the whole institute is watching, even if the penalty for the first offense is just dealt with locally.
Our current policy also really neglects to create educational opportunities out of infractions. What if I have a student who plagiarizes one question on my exam? In terms of their work in my class, I am tempted just to give a zero for the question that was plagiarized. But put me on the front lines of “making sure the student learns his lesson” and I have to consider larger sanctions. Which I am not so sure is effective… or appropriate!
What works educationally is to couple required education with infractions. Commit an academic integrity violation, and you have to take a course on academic honesty. There’s a penalty in the burden of taking the course, but that’s an appropriate, meaningful, and effective penalty: you show us you don’t understand how to be academically honest and we don’t want to expel you for it, but you have shown you require further education.
Before the APC goes forward with a continuance of current policy, I challenge it to conduct an anonymous survey to figure out how many cases of plagiarism go unreported to the Registrar because the current system puts so much burden on faculty. I hypothesize that a lot of faculty deal with academic dishonestly so locally that many cases of plagiarism and other violations go unreported.
The way we deal with Academic Integrity is very out of step with every other educational institution that I have been involved with… has anyone investigated the policies of other institutions we respect?Reference