On September 26, 2023, the Senate Governance Committee approved the request to review the Student Academic Misconduct (70) policy. The policy request is available here.
A working group has been established, comprised of faculty, staff, students, and administrators. Policy 70 Working Group membership list.
Meeting Updates
February 20, 2024
- The Policy 70 working group had its first meeting together on Feb 20, 2024 to review the work and commitments as directed by Senate Governance Committee on Sept 26, 2023.
- Activities will be for 2 years with the outcome of informing a revised Policy 70 (including Regulations and Procedures) that will be brought to the UFV community for consultation and then Senate for decision.
- Approach and design is as a “hub & spoke” where, monthly, members will take information/ideas out to the university community to share, test ideas, and gather feedback to bring back to the working group to process and collectively make decisions that reflect the university community.
March 8, 2024
- Policy 70 working group received two presentation to help inform decisions related to the review process and areas of focus. Presentations were from Dr. Alisa Webb, UFV’s past Policy 70 revisions chair (2017-2019) and Dr. Brit Paris, Capilano University’s Academic Integrity policy revisions chair.
- Process. The following was identified as important: ongoing feedback, engagement, and testing ideas with the UFV community throughout the revisions period (e.g. surveys, forums, listening tours, including staff, students); engaging staff, students, administrators, and faculty in revisions process; and, recognizing that greater education, training and support for faculty, staff, and administrators to support policy 70 is needed. Other activities to support revisions include: audits of academic misconduct complaints and results from the past 2 years, wide scan of academic misconduct across Canada and internationally, and review of academic misconduct policies that were revised in the last year that address generative artificial intelligence.
- Areas of Focus. Policy 70 working group discussed potential areas of focus for the revisions based on what they learned from the presentations and the feedback that was collected from the UFV community in June – September 2023.
- Members of the UFV community who would like to keep informed about the progress of the Policy 70 working group can view updates on this webpage.
May 2, 2024
- Information regarding the process for reviewing Policy 70, including the regulations/procedures, and the areas of focus will be summarized and shared with the P70 Working Group prior to presenting to Senate for information at the June 7 meeting.
- Communication strategy differs from traditional consultation strategies at UFV. The working group is using a ‘hub and spoke’ strategy, where P70 working group members use their established communication networks to share out key information of the review process and collect and share back feedback as ideas are being explored and strategies are being tested. Many cycles of communication to share and gather feedback, will inform the final draft of a revised policy and regulations/procedures that will then be shared through traditional consultation activities (e.g. faculty councils) and governance systems (e.g. CWC, Senate).
- Working group members explored individual and shared beliefs, assumptions, practices, and values related to academic integrity and misconduct.
June 3, 2024
- Share back of feedback received from member’s spheres of influence.
- Identified gaps in P70WG member’s spheres of influence and began to develop strategies to support our goal.
- An update on the process and areas of focus was provided to Senate at it’s June 7th meeting. A fuller presentation will be provided to Senate in November 2024.
- The working group will resume in September.
September 23, 2024
- Share back from working group members on observations of academic misconduct activities over the past 4 months that relate to faculty and student communication, inconsistent application of policy 70, and an interest in building awareness of rights and responsibilities.
- Repeated requests for direction on detecting and investigating the use of AI in student academic work. The direction and decisions regarding the use of AI is the responsibility of the AI task force. Also, refer to the AI guidelines. Current policy 70 addresses the use of AI, referring to it as 'unauthorized technologies.'
- Identified the need for the creation of resources to support students and faculty in navigating the process.
- Demonstration of the new digital reporting for academic misconduct and student appeals and an introduction to the new Student Rights and Responsibilities Office.
- Ideation of a revised process for responding to academic misconduct at UFV
November 25, 2024
- Share back from working group members on suggested revisions to Policy 70 that reflect the language and tone; and, feedback regarding the early ideas about the academic misconduct process to help inform revisions to the Regulations and Procedures.
- Presentation from Bryanna Anderson, Associate Director, Student Affairs, on Investigative Practices. Take aways included:
- Informing students of the allegations against them
- Giving students access to the information and evidence that could lead to a negative consequence and the opportunity to respond
- Clearly defining the 'why' - has to be linked to the evidence
- Including rationale for decision - has to link to the evidence and rationale for the weighing of evidence and exclusion of evidence
- The role of the investigator is to gather as much information that is needed to get to the closest version of the truth
- Standard of proof means 51% / 49% measure
- Discussion facilitated by Ben Vanderlei on how we apply concepts raised in the presentation.
- Opportunity for the creation of Template and scripts to support communication among faculty, students, DH, Deans
- Document the process
- Ensure students are brought into the process early
- Reinforcement for more support for students and faculty upfront
- The need to increase transparency and unbiases in the resolution meeting
- Discussion outcome: reference in P70 to 204 regarding student behaviour of retaliation and conduct
January 20, 2025
- Share back from working group members was limited due to time. Some of the items raised include:
- Recent reports of academic misconduct rely heavily on the use of AI detection tools; recent student appeals argue that use of Grammarly is not academic misconduct
- Early ideas about differentiating between a minor and major academic misconduct and where responsibility for penalty decisions should lie
- We need to start talking differently about academic misconduct with our students. It is not about a violation of rules but a breach of trust within the academic community. Aim to acknowledge the damage of trust in the student-faculty relationship and place accountability in repairing relationships. Helping students view education as a transformative pursuit (and not transactional).
- Presentation from Leanne Joe, Indigenous Curriculum Developer, on Decolonizing P70. Take aways included:
- Language matters. The term ‘misconduct’ feels negative and the language of policy 70 places emphasis on the academic unwanted behaviours. Indigenous worldviews often emphasize relational accountability, restoration, and collective well-being rather than labeling behavior as "bad." Consider using positive (Academic Integrity) or neutral (Academic Conduct) language in the policy name and content.
- Create greater balance in the policy to report both the positive and negative student academic conduct. Suggestion to make room in the Registry to record incidents where students have positively contributed to the academic community.
- Consider restorative and proportional responses. Emphasis on how the faculty-led approach is conducted—creating pathways to recover from the misconduct, emphasizing the teachable moments, ensuring penalties are proportionate to the misstep. Include an "expiry date" for misconduct records in the Registry (e.g. a student who returns 10 year later). Update the misconduct registry to include notes on conversations, warnings, and teachable moments ensuring that minor cases are tracked but not overly punitive.
- Address power imbalances by clearing defining both student and faculty rights and responsibilities. Make explicit what students can and cannot do in the policy to eliminate ambiguity. Allow for faculty discretion in handling minor cases while maintaining accountability through a transparent process.
- Assessed our current policy, regulations and procedures against the rubric toward decolonizing academic integrity. Longstreet, S., Ives, C., & Martin, P. (2023). Taking the policing out of our academic integrity policies. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VIs96_m4-lP4mN8QfzPymO6aOmo1pnZA/view
Please check back for regular updates.
If you have any questions, please contact Liana Thompson, Executive Director, Student Academic Affairs