Committee on Intellectual Integrity
Minutes of January 23, 2006

Minutes for Committee on Intellectual Integrity
January 23, 2006

Present:  Gwen Kay, Michael LeBlanc, Paloma Jalife, Jean Chambers, David Bozak, Mike Ameigh, Barbara Shaffer

Future Meetings:  Tuesday, Feb. 7, 1:00 ;  Tuesday, Feb. 21, 3:45

Dave distributed several documents for the committee’s information, including:  College Policy on Intellectual Integrity (which appears in the current catalog and student handbook—and needs to be updated there), summary of Student Opinion Survey (SOS) answers regarding frequency of observed dishonesty, statistics on faculty reporting of academic dishonesty for Arts & Sciences, summary of CAI International Conference attended in October, and SUNY Oswego’s “vision statement.” 

Discussion followed regarding the conclusions/implications of these documents.  Jean proposed an addendum to the requirement for retention of materials if reported for plagiarism, suggesting a 5 year requirement.  SOS, as of spring 2003, ranked Oswego highest for observation of dishonesty. 

The possibility of adjuncts impacting this data was raised, but we are lowest among SUNYs in adjunct % of faculty.  Another issue considered was inconsistent high school training, and the improvements that might be possible by working with high school English teachers.

Dave informed us about the SUNY committee he is on, which is charged with reporting data to the Board of Trustees.  They are considering how to collect data, and what to present. 

Mike reviewed conference plans for those attending the March 23-24 Academic Integrity conference.  For more details, he pointed us to the website  Barbara, Paloma, Rhonda, and Dave will be attending from our campus.  Mike will send tax-exempt forms, and has made hotel and conference reservations. 

The upcoming survey on academic integrity was discussed.  We will be offering this online survey for a month, and encouraging as many as possible to complete.  Based on the standard survey, the group considered additional questions that might be important in individualizing of this instrument for our campus. Several possible questions were suggested, including:  a question on instruction received; question for faculty on whether they had read the Oswego policy; distinction of FT vs. PT faculty respondents (rationale would need to be clarified first); clarification re. student p. 6, #1 – to what “reasons” does first “free response” question refer?   We also want to look at full survey to see whether “moderate cheating” is the strongest choice offered, or just the last printable on the screen.  Much discussion surrounds these questions.  Dave asked us to get other suggestions to him for possible inclusion.

We will get data from our campus and also national data, for comparison.  A letter will go out to encourage participation.  This could include information on the location of current policy statements, but there was some reluctance to do this since it could impact survey results.  Perhaps a question on familiarity or awareness of policy would be better.

Future meeting times were discussed.  Tuesday seems generally agreeable, times with alternate at 1:00 or 3:45 to accommodate teaching schedules of various committee members.  Next step could be to focus our immediate energies on educating faculty.

Submitted by Barbara Shaffer




 Last Updated: 7/9/07