Minutes
Academic Standards Committee
February 23, 2012
Present: Dan Burgard, Debbie Chee, Ben Lewin, Sarah Moore, Amy Odegard, Kali Odell (student), Brad
Tomhave, Maddi Werhane (student), Ann Wilson, Paula Wilson
Guest: Bill Barry, Faculty Senate Liaison
The meeting convened at 8:15 a.m.
Minutes: The minutes of February 9, 2012 were approved.
Petitions Committee Report: The following report was prepared by Brad Tomhave, University Registrar
for the Petitions Subcommittee and the Petitions Preview Team meetings on February 7 and February 14.
The petitions work for the two aforementioned meetings, combined with three meetings of the Petition
Preview Team yielded the following results:
24 Approved Late Registrations
5 Denied Late Registrations
2 Registration Changes from Graded to Audit
1 Approved Registration with a Schedule Conflict
1 Approved Medical Withdrawal
1 Denied Waiver of Class Standing Restriction on Comm College Transfer Credit
1 Approved Request to Revise Credit Value of an Independent Study
35 Total Petitions
Registrar Approved: 13
Preview Team Approved: 12
Sub-Committee Approved: 4
Total Approved: 29
Sub-Committee Denied: 6
Total Petitions: 35
YTD, 151 petitions have been acted upon with 40 involving late registration and 29 involving registration
with a schedule conflict. For comparison, by February 11, 2011, 120 petitions had been acted upon with
17 involving late registration and 24 involving registration with a schedule conflict. Of the 151 total
petitions to date, 118 have been approved and 33 have been denied.
Of particular interest was a late add petition denied on February 7. The student appealed the decision and
appeared before the Committee on February 14 with the appeal denied.
Also of interest was the medical withdrawal petition as it was approved retroactively for a student who
was not in a position to submit the petition at the end of the fall semester.
Staff Reporting of Violations of Academic Integrity: Bill Barry, in consultation with members of the
Faculty Senate, provided the following revision to the language proposed by the ASC on 1-26-12
regarding staff reporting of violations of Academic Integrity:
“If a staff member has reason to suspect a violation of academic integrity, the following actions will be
taken:
A. If the incident took place outside the context of a course, the staff member will report his or her
concern in writing to an Associate Academic Dean not otherwise involved with the appeals or
hearing board process. In this context, the Associate Academic Dean will follow procedures
outlined above for the faculty member in responding to the allegations. If the Associate Dean
suspects that a violation of academic integrity has or may have occurred, he or she will submit to
the Registrar an Academic Integrity Incident Report and will request that a Hearing Board be
convened to investigate and possibly impose sanctions if appropriate.
B. If the incident took place in the context of a course, the staff member will report his or her
concern in writing to both the instructor of the course and to an Associate Academic Dean not
otherwise involved with the appeals or hearing board process. The instructor of the course and
the Associate Academic Dean will consult on how to proceed with the allegation. If the instructor
elects to pursue the allegation, he or she will follow the procedure outlined above in points 1-5. If
the instructor does not elect to pursue the matter further because he or she did not witness or
discover the incident, then the Associate Academic Dean may substitute for the faculty member
in responding to the allegation. If the Associate Dean suspects that a violation of academic
integrity has or may have occurred, he or she will submit to the Registrar an Academic Integrity
Incident Report and will request that a Hearing Board be convened to investigate and possibly
impose sanctions if appropriate.”
MOTION: Replace this version of the language with the version that was approved by the ASC on 1-2612.
ACTION: M-S-P unanimously
Dismissal Policy for New Students: Paula Wilson reported that Ellen Peters in Institutional Research is
re-examining some of the data related to the discussion that the ASC is having regarding a dismissal
policy for students who receive a gpa of < 1.0 for the first semester. Debbie Chee has been working on
this with Ellen and indicated that Ellen Peters will have updated data for the committee to review at the
next meeting.
Report from ASC Subcommittee looking into mechanisms for implementing the Student Integrity
Code: Debbie Chee shared the following questions that the subcommittee drafted for inclusion in the
Spring Survey regarding students’ knowledge of academic integrity, i.e., what they know about academic
integrity and where they learn about it.
We are interested in understanding how and when Puget Sound students become aware of issues related
to academic integrity and where they can go for assistance if needed. Academic integrity is defined as a
code of conduct that values scholarship undertaken in an honest and responsible manner. Behaviors that
violate academic integrity include cheating, plagiarism, and falsification.
1. I understand the University's academic integrity policies.
___Strongly Disagree
___Disagree
___Neutral
___Agree
___Strongly Agree
2. Where have you learned about these policies? (Check all that apply)
Academic Integrity Tutorial
Faculty (discussed in class or in syllabus)
Other students
Puget Sound’s website
University Bulletin/Academic Handbook
Other (please specify) ___________________________________________________
3. When thinking about the methods used to educate students about Academic Integrity, please use the
following scale.
Learned little
Learned
or nothing
a lot
1
2
3
4
5
Academic Integrity Tutorial
Faculty (discussed in class or in syllabus)
Other students
Puget Sound’s website
University Bulletin/Academic Handbook
Other (please specify)
4. In the past academic year, how often did your instructors discuss academic integrity policies?
___In no classes ___ In some classes ___ In half of my classes ___ In most classes ___ In every
class
5. Where would you go to consult about academic integrity issues? (Check all that apply.)
___Instructor
___Course/Lab Assistant
___Course syllabus
___University Bulletin/Academic Handbook
___Friend
___Family member
___Peer Leaders (ex. Residence Life Staff, Peer Advisors, Writing Liaisons)
___Other Staff (ex. Office of Student Affairs, Librarian, etc.)
___Puget Sound’s website
___Other
Sarah Moore wondered if the data from the survey and the data from the library survey that was given to
incoming freshmen in 2011 could be linked to students who have documented instances of violations of
academic integrity to see if there is any predictive value in the information that is being provided to
students regarding academic integrity. Further discussion on this issue was deferred pending further
investigation into concerns regarding confidentiality and which students’ information could actually be
linked since the spring survey is given to freshmen, sophomores and juniors while the Integrity Quiz and
Research Practices tutorial that was given to incoming freshmen only included those students who entered
the university fall of 2011.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ann Wilson