Passed: November 18, 2020
Sponsor: Educational Policy Committee[https://theuniversityfaculty.cornell.edu/committees/standing-senate-committees/epc-current/]
Posted: October 14, 2020
Background:
There was a presentation and discussion at the September 9 Senate [https://theuniversityfaculty.cornell.edu/faculty-senate/archives-and-actions/archived-agenda-and-minutes/online-senate-meeting-sept-9/]on three issues related to academic integrity each of which was prompted by experiences associated with the Spring 2020 semester. (1) Primary hearings were staged online using Zoom. (2) There were cases that involved a large number of students due to the illegal sharing of course materials and exams via uploading to sites like Chegg and CourseHero. (3) There was a realization that the S/U grade option complicated the choice of an appropriate sanction. Details and comments are available here:
On Video in Lieu of the Primary Hearing Witness[https://theuniversityfaculty.cornell.edu/faculty-senate/archives-and-actions/current2-draft/resolution-on-modifying-the-code-of-academic-integrity-based-on-s20-experiences/on-primary-hearing-recording/
On Handling Large Cases[https://theuniversityfaculty.cornell.edu/faculty-senate/archives-and-actions/current2-draft/resolution-on-modifying-the-code-of-academic-integrity-based-on-s20-experiences/on-handling-large-cases/]
On Changing the Chosen Grade Option[https://theuniversityfaculty.cornell.edu/faculty-senate/archives-and-actions/current2-draft/resolution-on-modifying-the-code-of-academic-integrity-based-on-s20-experiences/on-changing-the-chosen-grade-option/]
The DoF shared this assessment with the EPC which then proceeded to deliberate and recommend these changes [https://theuniversityfaculty.cornell.edu/faculty-senate/archives-and-actions/current2-draft/resolution-on-modifying-the-code-of-academic-integrity-based-on-s20-experiences/code-changes/] to the Code of Academic Integrity.[https://theuniversityfaculty.cornell.edu/dean/academic-integrity/code-of-academic-integrity/] The resolution was presented at the October 14 meeting [https://theuniversityfaculty.cornell.edu/faculty-senate/archives-and-actions/archived-agenda-and-minutes/online-senate-meeting-oct-14/]of the Senate.
The Resolution
Whereas it is important for sanctions to be fair and proportionate;
Whereas it is important to have an impartial third party attend the primary hearing;
Whereas the instructor may need primary hearing assistance when handling cases that involve a large number of students;
Be it resolved that students under investigation for an AI Code violations should be prohibited from dropping or changing the grade option in the course until cleared of all violations; (SU)
Be it further resolved that the instructor should be allowed to offer a student taking a course S/U the option of changing to the LET grade option before assigning a grade penalty after a guilty finding; (SU)
Be it further resolved that an independent witness is required despite the existence of recording technologies; (IW)
Be it further resolved that a member of the staff can serve as an independent witness; (IW)
Be it further resolved that if a case involves four or more students then the instructor can designate a member of either the University or RTE faculty to run the the primary hearing in the instructor’s stead. If that is the case then the hearing must be recorded and the instructor retains full responsibility for determining guilt and an appropriate sanction (if any); (L)
Be it finally resolved that these requirements be enacted by making these changes [https://theuniversityfaculty.cornell.edu/faculty-senate/archives-and-actions/current2-draft/resolution-on-modifying-the-code-of-academic-integrity-based-on-s20-experiences/code-changes/]to the code.
Another consideration regarding the change of grade option from S/U back to LET is the functional distinction between U and F. A grade of U that indicates D or F performance in a course does not count in the calculation of GPA. A letter grade of F (or D) does count in the calculation of GPA. Do we want to leave the decision about whether or not an AI penalty grade should count in a student’s GPA solely up to the student? Or do we want that decision to be up to the faculty member, to be determined based on the nature and severity of the guilty verdict for an AI violation?
Leaving the decision up to the faculty member could serve as a stronger deterrent to cheating if students know that they could lose more than just an S grade in a course by an academic integrity violation. After all, we don’t allow a student who is found guilty to drop a course to avoid an AI grade penalty. So why should we allow them to mitigate an AI penalty to the point of perhaps not being much of a penalty at all to them in certain cases by opting to keep the S/U grade option with a U penalty grade instead of a penalty grade that would affect their GPA? Shouldn’t this remain a prerogative of the faculty member and AI governing body?
It seems that items such as this and others raised concerning the effect that S/U vs LET AI penalty grades may have on a student’s academic record and GPA need to be clarified and spelled out more explicitly in the framing and wording of this resolution before it can be applied without further controversy. I encourage the drafter(s) of this resolution to consider the possibility of leaving the decision to change an S/U grade option to LET option with the faculty member delivering a guilty verdict, rather than with the student, in order to maintain control over imposing fair and consistent AI penalty grades and to provide a stronger deterrent to cheating.
The proposed modification to the AI grade penalty policy of allowing the change of grade option from S/U to letter grade in order to impose a fair non-failing grade penalty is good and necessary. I speak from experience, having participated in numerous AI hearings from Spring 2020. The only additional modification I might suggest for consideration is to leave the choice of whether to change the grade option from S/U back to letter grade with the faculty member in charge of the course, rather than the student. The reason for this is that students tend to obsess over this decision and don’t always understand its implications.
One of our students found guilty of cheating on an exam was taking our course S/U and had otherwise earned a calculated grade of A in the course. The penalty we assigned was a zero on the exam which brought his course letter grade down to B. So with permission from our AI authorities we assigned a penalty letter grade of B in the course, rather than the U that would have been the only available grade penalty if the grade option had remained S/U. Believe it or not, the student actually obsessed for days over whether he wanted a B on his transcript or a U! So we made the decision for him and imposed the B. He then argued that if he was being given a B, that should entitle him to get an S in the course. So we had to spend time rectifying that misconception and enforcing the B.
A few other students whose grade option was changed from S/U to letter grade in order to impose a fair non-failing grade penalty asked for AI appeal hearings in order to get their grade option changed back to S/U so they could (mistakenly) get an S which they thought they deserved based on the non-failing letter grade penalty assigned to them. Basically, students didn’t understand how the penalty grade process works amidst the option granted to us of changing their S/U option back to letter grade, so they used the administrative system to create lots of unnecessary work for themselves and all of us in order to sort things out.
If the choice for change of grading option following a guilty decision is indeed left with the student, then at the very least the procedure for assigning AI grade penalties has to be made very clear to students so we can all avoid unnecessary misunderstandings and complications in the process. Perhaps a clarification needs to be included in the resolution’s wording: “An imposed non-failing penalty letter grade shall not subsequently serve as the basis for further conversion of the course grade back to S.”
I’m not sure you are correct that a penalty drop in grade to B should not mean the student enrolled for S/U grading can not receive an S. It is my understanding that a grade of C- or higher qualifies for an S.