Academic Integrity University of Arkansas

1. Academic IntegrityUniversity of Arkansas “This is college, everyone cheats. Everyone cheats in life in general,” Ravvin told ABC News. “I just think you’d be hard pressed to find anyone in this testing lab who hasn’t cheated on an exam. They’re making a witch hunt out of absolutely nothing, as if they want to teach us some sort of moral lesson.” http://knightnews.com/2010/11/good-morning-america-gma-ucf-cheating-scandal-national-news-quinn/

2. Ad Hoc Committee MembersPat Koski and Paul Cronan, Co-Chairs • Steve Boss • Paul C. Calleja • Alan E. Ellstrand • Chaim Goodman-strauss • Ethel Goodstein • Paul Michael Hewitt • Monica Holland • Linda Jones • Beth Juhl • Terry Martin • Charles Rosenkrans • Patsy Watkins

3. Some Relevant Points • Current procedures - Judicial process is not clear and is complicated • It takes time for faculty • Faculty decisions are not supported • A student can use multiple paths(Judicial Board and/or Grade Grievance) • Lack of trust • Differences for undergraduate students vs graduate students

4. Points of View Expressed • Awarenessand good information about process and results reported back to all stakeholders • Clear process is needed -simple way of viewing this process; simple step-by-step • Contextof the situation must be considered (we need to be careful not to oversimplify). Clear definitions are important.

5. The intention of the infraction should (not) be considered (lack of clear understanding vs. willful act) • Administrationof the policy is important • Clarity, consistency, structure, and a clear risk-reward-punishment are essential • Faculty reporting of an infraction should be simple and not time consuming • Minimize time burden for the faculty member; college “academic integrity monitor” in each college to handle the details

6. Faculty – “buy in” - type of sanction for a given offense • Simplify sanctions – very clear and consistent • Clear burden of proof and what constitutes proof • No tolerance once academic dishonesty has been proven – if there is no trust, our academic system falls apart and what it means to be an academic community is in question • It should never be “too much work”

7. There should be consequences for actions • Foundational/systemic issues need to be addressed – from H.S to university; educating students and faculty; instilling values about academic honesty in students; ownership; responsibility • Structural - cases involving academic dishonesty are different from student conduct cases; results of both types of cases reported to the Faculty Senate

8. Revised Streamlined Process • Instructor meets with student involved in the infraction • If it is deemed by the instructor that an infraction has occurred, it is reported to the College Academic Integrity Monitor • College Academic Integrity Monitor reviews the case with instructor & student • If student admits, file centrally and file to the Judicial Board for sanctions approval

9. Revised Streamlined Process • If the student contests responsibility, Academic Integrity Monitor forwards file to a standing University Judiciary Committee (faculty in majority from each college plus students) • Appeals are to the Provost/Chancellor– procedural errors, expulsion,new evidence,(very limited)

10. Ideas We Are Discussing • Clear Definitions of Violations w/ Sanctions • Level One – copying, collaborating, … • Level Two – stealing exam, “ringers,” plagiarizing, multiple Level One’s • Level Three – altering grades, sabotaging, multiple Level Two’s

11. Ideas We Are Discussing • Sanctions for Violations– • Level One – grade of zero for 1st offense to “F” in the course for 2nd offense + required classes • Level Two – grade of “F” in the course, Academic Probation, & required classes to Expulsion for 2nd offense • Level Three – immediate and permanent Expulsion

13. Your Input is Important !!! Let’s have a conversation about this… Because we do care….