1. Continued discussion of Academic Honesty/Dishonety

Lucia Stadter, one of the Faculty Council representatives on the Judicial Hearing Board led the discussion. She again presented the definition of academic dishonesty that was stated at the last Faculty Council meeting; "Presenting work as something other that what the student knows it to be" -

An alternative was also proposed; " Presenting the work of another as if it were your own." In trying to refine this definition and anticipate instances where these definitions may not be clear several situations were mention. First, with increasing use of the Internet, ownership or authorship of information is not always clear, however students should certainly know that work and ideas take from a web site belong to someone other than them. It was also pointed out that fabrication facts or data does not seem to be covered by either of the above definitions. Likewise neither definition addresses one student facilitation another student in a dishonest act. This prompted a discussion about expectations on assignments. The students stated that sometimes it is not clear what help they can get on assignments. The students mentioned that some teachers are very careful when giving an assignment to tell students exactly what kind of assistance they can get. As we do combinations of individual work, graded and no-graded homework, and group projects, it is very important to make expectations clear. The students and faculty mentioned the difficulty in giving fair credit to all members of groups for group projects. Several suggestions were made to insure that all student do their fair share on group projects. While some students fail to do their fair share, others seem to dominate groups.

While many students are aware that using someone else's words is dishonest, many do not seem to realize that using someone else's ideas without giving them credit is also dishonest. We need to do our part to teach student what constitutes using the words or ideas of others and how to give proper credit for those words or ideas.

The Hearing Board members were charged to continue to work on a definition of academic honesty and dishonesty and to provide scenarios that will help students to understand the broad definition. It was noted that we do not want a legalistic definition that could be interpreted as all-inclusive, but rather a broad definition that conveys the spirit of our discussions.

When the Board reports back to us with their definition, the remaining question of how we will handle cases of academic dishonesty must still be discussed. Please email Lucia Stadter or Robin Cunningham with suggestions. ll work on broad definition , not so specific so as to suggest inclusion of all types dishonesty. Examples, not limited to. May be very difficult to come up with one definition, other that knowingly violating terms of an assignment. We want to use this opportunity to teach students what honesty is. Please email Lucia or Robin with ideas.

Mini-term Discussion:

After several other meetings in which the merits of the mini-term have been debated, we were asked to focus on two issues, (a) the duration and (2) the placement of a mini-term.

Dr. Warshaw gave an update on the Curriculum Council proposal. A list of the goals for the mini-term have been placed in all teachers' mailboxes along with a ballot. The first question on the ballot asks if we can support a 2-week mini-term in January, 2000. The second asks if there is not enough support for the January, 2-week term, would we support 1.5 weeks in March 2000. The third question asks for our preference, including neither term. The Curriculum Council also wanted to know who had been present at this meeting to hear the discussion. They would like ballots returned by noon on Thursday, November 5th.

Several faculty objected to the wording of the ballot. It seemed as if the ballot was "loaded". "Supporting" does not mean "preferring". Dr. Warshaw said that we should consider the first questions as preferring the January date.

The question about where the days for the 2-week term were coming from was asked again. The sample calendars showed that we would have the same 151 class days as we currently have. Classes would end on May 25th with a June 3rd graduation. There would be 3 days prior to the mini-term for preparation, one of which is currently in the calendar and two new days. There would also be two additional preparation days after the mini-term. These new days come primarily from in-service days that are normally scheduled at the end of school. There was some concern expressed about grades, comments and grade verification, which would have to be done in several fewer days or perhaps after some of us have left campus for the summer.

Dr. Warshaw asked us to discuss the sabbatical advantage of the January mini-term. It was noted that with extensive grading and family activities over the holidays, the idea of a 4-week sabbatical seems like it might be an "illusion." Others felt like with advanced planning this period could be very productive.

Dot Doyle, in questioning whether the mini-term idea really enhances our academic program, made a motion that we have a 6-day term in March of 2000 in which students are expected to work 40 hours on projects or mini-courses and that projects be subjected to tighter standards. She added that no extra work days would be added. Loren Winters second the motion

After a brief discussion in which the merits of the January term were recapped; more logical placement in calendar, the opportunity for sabbaticals, and the opportunity to do things that we cannot currently do in SPW or our regular courses, a vote was taken by paper ballot. The motion carried with 20 votes for and 9 against. No further action was taken and faculty were asked to vote on the Curriculum Council ballot.

The meeting adjourned at 5:06 PM.

Respectfully submitted,
John Goebel, Secretar