This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:
This is how comments appear.Reference
Curious as to why this is being removed. I believe it was initially put in there to avoid students being paired with faculty that could have a say in future grades, etc.Reference
We should just make sure that Starfish is functioning as described in this paragraph. As a Chair I am getting a lot of Starfish information, way more than I need to know. I haven’t seen any academic integrity cases, but we should be certain that academic integrity cases are only sent to this list of people.Reference
The AISC members discussed this at the end of the Policy’s first year. In some cases, it was difficult to require that this this counseling come from outside the school. In some programs, for example, it might be computer code that had been plagiarized, and preventing discussion with anyone from the relevant school was problematic. Other programs such as Architecture and Fashion also have their own contexts for such discussion. This change with still permit assignment outside of the home school where that wouldn’t be problematic, but it was also felt that, counseling within a school, when best to be assigned in that way, could be viewed as part of a student’s professional development in that no problem in a future workplace or career relationship is likely to be outsourced for resolution. Again, this deletion is intended to permit particular pairings when the nature of the infraction might require that.Reference
and the Learning Access Center which offers a peer tutoring service in all subjects.Reference
Perhaps reword “Based on our value of academic integrity” . . . instead something something like “To help protect academic integrity,” or “Because we value academic integrity” or “Because these issues are crucial in our community”,” or . . . maybe just delete and start sentence with “Pratt has an Academic Integrity Standing Committee (AISC)”Reference
Re “Whenever possible, we strive to resolve .. ” — perhaps make this “the committee strives to resolve .. .” or does this mean “Whenever possible, we at the Institute strive to resolve . . .”?Reference
“These works include, but are not limited to exams, quizzes,”
Add a comma after “to” as below:
“These works include, but are not limited to, exams, quizzes . . .”Reference
–re “may study, collaborate and work together”
if using series/Oxford comma, as sometimes is the case here, put a comma after “collaborate”Reference
Thank you for your work on this matter. As a Chair dealing with a few recent cases I must say that this is a good and respectful process. That said, we should always be prepared for those outliers!
“include but are not limited to”
Well, either here, add commas, or else in previous paragraph, delete comma(s), when using that phrase.
include but are not limited to x
include, but are not limited to, x
(Inconsistency is okay if it makes a difference in comprehensibility but otherwise . . .”Reference
Re: “The supplying or receiving of completed work including papers, projects, outlines, artworks, designs, prototypes, models, or research for submission by any person other than the author.”
Clearer and reads better if commas are added after “work” and after “research”
Re “The supplying or receiving of partial or complete answers, or suggestions for answers; or the supplying or receiving of assistance in interpretation of questions on any examination from any source not explicitly authorized.” Replace the semicolon with a comma, and to insert a comma after “questions” — (I understand the semicolon is meant to organize that long citation but I don’t think a semicolon works after “questions” and something there is needed.)Reference
make it “or TO consult with an academic advisor” although the meaning is clearReference
Very important for followup! When “flagging” (i.e., reporting) a student for an Academic Integrity issue under Starfish, it tells me— as the issuing faculty member— that I am “confidentially alerting the Registrar and Academic Integrity Chair”,
with the disclaimer that a student can request the full text of my “flag” under FERPA.Reference
“The conduct adjudication process is not intended to be a formal legal process although fundamental fairness applies.”
“The conduct adjudication process is not intended to be a formal legal process, but aims at fair resolution of alleged violations.”
“The conduct adjudication process is not intended to be a formal legal process but aims to be fair.”Reference
Note that in section IV. Penalties under A, that language also needs to be removed. Right now, it still has the earlier exclusion of AISC member from the student’s school.Reference
Perhaps make it “Faculty report cases of academic dishonesty through a confidential platform. As of this writing, the system is Starfish. The only individuals at Pratt with access to academic integrity records are: 1) the lead administrator of the relevant platform (currently Starfish); 2) the Registrar; 3) the Associate Registrar, Academic Records and Technology; and 4) the Chair of the Academic Integrity Steering Committee.Reference
“When the infraction is judged to be so serious that the maximum penalty available to the faculty member (failure of the course) is deemed to be insufficient.”
It’s unclear who would make that judgement. but maybe it’s better to leave that open. (Faculty or chair, I suppose, would make that judgement.)Reference
“Appeals Board” –used here in last 2 paragraphs. Then several times in further sections, the term used is “Appeal Board” — make consistent.Reference
“An Academic Integrity Hearing Board consists of three members from the Academic Integrity Standing Committee (AISC) and one member is selected to serve as chair.”
Does that make 4 members?
Suggest either “An Academic Integrity Hearing Board consists of three members from the Academic Integrity Standing Committee (AISC) of whom one member is selected to serve as chair.” OR
“An Academic Integrity Hearing Board consists of three members from the Academic Integrity Standing Committee (AISC) plus a fourth member selected to serve as chair.”Reference
Thank you for the clarification, Kathryn – that makes a lot of sense.Reference
Again, above the term used was “Appeals Board” but starting with header B the term has become “Appeal Board” — go with one or the other.
“The chairperson, a voting member appointed by the board, will ensure that proper procedures are followed.” Too many boards! Does this mean “The chairperson of the Appeal(s) Board, a voting member appointed by [the AISC? . the Hearing Board? (Not “by the Appeal(s) Board” itself if appointed rather than elected I assume . .Reference
or “through the designated online system (currently Starfish).Reference
“If the respondent refuses or fails to attend a hearing, does not attempt to schedule a videoconference, or file a request for continuance for good cause
I think it should be explained here in plain language what is meant by the legal term “continuance for good cause” — I’m not sure myself. An accused student might need to know this.
And, I think it should be “files” a request for continuance for good cause, not “file,” if I’m reading it correctly.Reference
I wrote an email asking about the representation issue (as system kept crashing.)
Related . . . it starts to sound possibly less than fair that a board can summon witnesses and question them, yet a student can’t even officially have an advocate present. It could arguably be hard for the student to realize what questions need to be asked on the spot, if faced with unanticipated issues.Reference
This is I believe the first time the term “complainant” has been used . . .or the first time I noticed. Overall — it feels like this policy starts out in plain language and states there will be no legal proceedings but the goal will be fairness. But as I keep reading, the policy and procedures start to sound very much like legal proceedings, in which the accused’s rights are limited. The tone changed around the time there was a reference to “filing a request for continuance for good cause.” I suggest legal language be avoided.Reference
Sounds so formidably legal. Could the term be “Questioning” rather than “Cross Examination”?Reference
Again, reference to “complainant.” Meaning, I assume, teacher or chair, in most cases? If that term is to be used, maybe define it in apposition the first time it’s used.
And then in next section, 11. Adjudication– “The range of sanctions that may be given by the Academic Integrity Hearing Board includes as listed in IV below.” — I think “included” not “includes”
And then further down– C. Appeal Board — make sure whether it’s Appeals Board or Appeal Board. And I believe the term was capitalized previously, but under C it’s all lower case.
In general . . . the first part of this policy refers to the accused person as “student.” Then once it goes to the board, we hear about “respondent.” Is this change in language both intentional and necessary? Would an accused student be able to understand that “respondent” is student? I suggest going through this to see whether it could remain in plain language. Eliminate or explain legal terms as much as possible.Reference
Re legal terms . . ..This paragraph refers both to “complainant” and “faculty member” — I believe the same person is meant.
Then the next section, D, is back to respondent and complainant rather than student and faculty member . . .
Then in Penalties, “faculty member” and soon “student” are the terms again. Could this entire document use the terms “student” and “faculty member” throughout?Reference
The “student’s home school” in this instance refers to Pratt School of Information, and not the entire University, correct? It is likely that the student will seek a member within Pratt, if this is allowable. One alternative to this line is: “All first time offenders must meet with a member from within the Pratt community and outside the School of Information.”Reference
why is the last sentence deleted ? seems like an important point to highlight both the transparency but that it wont be part of transcript. ..
question- is this info retained in perpetuity? and who has access to it?Reference
Im curious, has there been any tracking or research as to which students are committing plagiarism? who are they ? who will be most impacted by this process? Are students also getting an opportunity to review these guidelines? It would be great to get a sense from students about what they think about the proposed process.
Also, what about for students for whom English is not their primary language or who are coming from a different cultural context ?Reference
why is the last sentence being removed? the question of privacy and spelling that out seems important ..
(sorry if this is a duplicate posting. I keep trying but my comments are not showing up).Reference