Rule 3358:5-7-11 | Academic integrity procedures.
(A) Clark state community college is committed to providing educational opportunities that promote academic, professional and personal growth in students. Students are expected to behave as responsible members of the college community and to be honest and ethical in their academic work. Activities of academic dishonesty corrupt the process of acquiring the knowledge and developing the skills necessary for success in any profession; such activities are considered a violation of the "Student Code of Conduct" and are therefore prohibited.
(B) Academic integrity is the responsibility of both the student and the faculty.
(1) Faculty members play an important role in maintaining academic standards. Faculty have multiple opportunities to inform students about what academic dishonesty is, to teach students ways to avoid unintentional infractions, to identify and confront violators, and to serve as models of academic integrity. Faculty and students come from a variety of backgrounds and cultures, giving rise to different expectations or moral and ethical behavior. Well-defined and effectively communicated standards in the classroom reduce uncertainty and clarify expectations.
(2) Students must familiarize themselves with the college's definition of academic dishonesty and with the faculty member's standards and expectations as communicated on the course syllabus. Should a student have questions about potential academic misconduct on an examination, test, quiz, or other evaluated work, the student must contact the instructor for clarification prior to completing the assignment.
(C) Academic misconduct includes but is not limited to the following activities:
(1) Inappropriate collaboration on work to be evaluated.
(2) Any unauthorized use of material (books, notes of any kind, electronic media, including cell phones, and so forth) during an examination, test, or quiz.
(3) Using unauthorized or improper methods to determine in advance the contents of an examination, test, or quiz.
(4) Having another person take an exam; having another person write a paper or complete an assignment for which the student will receive credit.
(5) Copying or providing another student an examination, assignment or other work to be evaluated.
(6) Submitting work for which credit has already been received in another course without the expressed consent of the instructor.
(7) Plagiarizing or permitting one's work to be plagiarized. Plagiarism is defined as the representation of another's words, thoughts or ideas as one's own. While it is expected that a student who is engaged in writing shall utilize information from sources other than personal experience, appropriate acknowledgement of such sources is required. Plagiarism includes but is not limited to:
(a) Utilizing a direct quotation without citing the source.
(b) Paraphrasing the ideas, interpretation and expressions of another without giving credit.
(c) Using the ideas of others as their own by failing to acknowledge or document sources. Sources of information should be credited or footnoted by following English language style guide ("Modern Language Association (MLA) Handbook").
(D) When a student is suspected of a violation of academic integrity, the faculty member may talk with the student to determine whether completing an "Academic Incident Form" (AIF) is warranted. If the faculty member determines that an AIF is warranted, the following procedure shall be followed:
(1) The faculty member shall document the alleged violation utilizing the AIF, notify the student of the alleged violation, and provide the student with the AIF and a copy of the academic integrity procedures. The student must be notified and provided with the form and procedures within ten working days of the date on which the faculty member determines that an AIF is warranted. Notification should be via U. S. registered mail or in person. E-mail notification should only be used within an online course shell. The student has five working days from the date of receipt to respond. The division dean shall be provided with a copy of the AIF.
(2) Should the student not respond within five working days of receiving notification of the academic incident, or not schedule, or not attend the conference with the faculty member, the faculty member, in the student's absence, shall make a decision as to whether the student did or did not violate academic integrity using all available information and conferring with the division dean. The decision shall be documented on an "Academic Incident Resolution Form" (AIRF) and given or mailed to the student. Copies shall be maintained by the faculty member and division dean. Students who do not respond, schedule or attend the conference with the faculty member also forfeit their rights to the appeals process.
(3) If, as a result of the conference with the student the faculty member believes that no violation took place, the faculty member shall dismiss the case and the issue shall be considered resolved. An AIRF documenting the resolution of the incident shall be completed by the faculty member and signed by both the faculty member and the student. The original AIRF shall be given to the student with copies distributed to the faculty member and division dean.
(4) If, as a result of the conference with the student the faculty member believes that "more likely than not" a violation did occur, the faculty member may issue a sanction up to a grade of zero for the assignment. An AIRF documenting the resolution of the incident including the sanction shall be completed and signed by the faculty member. The student shall be asked to sign the AIRF indicating that the information on the form is an accurate reflection of the decision(s) made during the conference. The original AIRF shall be given to the student with copies distributed to the faculty member, division dean and vice president of academic and student affairs (VPASA). In the event that the student challenges the sanction, the faculty member shall inform the student that he/she has five working days to appeal the sanction in writing to the appropriate academic dean.
(5) If the student wishes to appeal the dean's decision, the student has five working days to appeal to the VPASA.
(6) When appeals are made to the dean and VPASA, the evidence presented by the faculty and student shall be reviewed and a decision shall be made and communicated to the student in writing within five working days. If the dean or VPASA finds in favor of the student, the faculty member shall reevaluate the student's work based on its merits and assign the appropriate grade. The decision of the VPASA shall be final.
(7) If the faculty member believes that the seriousness of the incident warrants action more severe than issuance of a grade of zero for the assignment, the case shall be referred to the "Academic Integrity Hearing Panel" (AIHP) for further sanctioning. Referrals should occur within ten working days. Student appeals of an AIHP decision are submitted to the VPASA; the student must wait until after the AIHP has met and communicated their decision.
(8) If the faculty member believes that the seriousness of the incident warrants additional action beyond issuance of a grade of zero for the assignment, the case shall also be referred to the AIHP for further sanctioning and the AIRF shall indicate such. Furthermore, any student who has previously been found responsible for committing an act of academic dishonesty according to the records maintained by the VPASA shall also be referred to the AIHP for further sanctioning. Referrals should occur within ten working days of the most recent deadline in the process as it relates to the most recent incident.
(9) In instances when an academic violation is referred to the AIHP by a faculty member or the office of the VPASA because of the seriousness of the offense or a record of repeated offenses, in addition to the sanction that was issued by the faculty member, the student may be issued a failing grade for the course, placed on probation, suspended for a specified period of time, or expelled. The student's cumulative academic dishonesty history shall be taken into account during the AIHP sanctioning phase.
(10) The AIHP consists of six panel members three faculty members representing three different divisions), one academic dean, and two students. The dean and faculty members shall be appointed by the VPASA and should not be familiar with the student's academic integrity violation(s). The dean shall serve as chair. The office of the dean of student affairs is responsible for the selection of the student representatives. The AIHP hearing shall provide the student and college faculty/staff an opportunity to present views, call witnesses, and present documents and other evidence. An advocate of the student's choice may accompany the student to the hearing but the advocate is not permitted to address the panel or to provide legal counsel. The college shall be represented by the instructor(s) of the course(s) giving rise to the incident(s) and/or the dean(s) of the division(s) with which the course(s) are affiliated. The panel shall convene within ten working days of receiving the request.
(11) The AIHP shall provide written notification of its decision within five working days of the hearing via use of the AIHP form and may attach additional explanation as appropriate. Students may appeal the decision in writing to the VPASA within five working days. Students who fail to attend or reschedule the AIHP hearing forfeit their rights to appeal the panel's decision.
(12) If the student appeals the decision of the AIHP to the VPASA, the VPASA shall review the appeal and communicate the decision to the student within five working days in writing. The decision of the VPASA is final.
(13) If the alleged academic violation or the sanction of the academic violation cannot be resolved prior to the deadline for reporting final grades to the registrar, the instructor of the class, with the advice and counsel of the division dean, shall assign a grade of "N."
(14) A copy of all academic integrity forms and written explanations of all actions to be taken shall be maintained in the office of the VPASA while the sanction is in force plus ten additional years. No copy shall be placed with the student's academic record in the registrar's office.
(E) Procedures were drafted using information, materials and form templates obtained from the academic integrity policies of Wright state university, Southern state community college, university of Toledo, Rhodes state community college, Oregon state community college, and Portland community college.
Supplemental Information
Amplifies: 3358