 Welcome and good morning. I'm Lauren McNeil and I'm presenting today you signed up for this session on academic integrity and EDI or as I like to call it since I like acronyms AI plus EDI. So welcome and thank you very much for coming. I'm presenting today from my home in Vancouver, which is on the traditional ancestral and segregated territories of the Musqueam, Squamish, and Slilwood Tooth Peoples. If you're joining us from elsewhere, I would welcome you to post your own acknowledgement in the chat. And as I make that acknowledgement, I'm recognizing that I'm a settler on Stola land and I commit to the ongoing and urgent work of acknowledging and addressing systemic inequities that higher education as a colonial institution too often easily and unquestionably reproduces. For me as a faculty member, teaching and learning with integrity includes the challenging and ongoing work of thinking and learning about how education has been exclusive and inaccessible and how it has done harm. Integrity here requires us to recognize our own privilege and our power as agents in the system and the power that we therefore have to intervene. And it's that place of thinking about the power to make interventions that I'll be using to think about the kinds of reframing we can do as members of the institution to connect academic integrity and equity diversity and inclusion. Just to give you an overview of what we'll be doing today, I'm going to open with some myths and we'll do some myth busting before concluding by thinking about how we can connect those we can move forward with a culture of integrity. I'm going to pause mid-session for a check-in and questions or comments. I'll be looking in the chat and then we'll have a longer Q&A session at the end. The session as you've heard is being recorded. I have a resources and reference doc that Asuki is going to pop in the chat that you can take away and the slides will be shared as well. Okay, let's get going. I wanted to explain how I came to this intersection of equity diversity and inclusion and academic integrity. And that arises from a project I ran at UBC in the Faculty of Arts first year programs that I did with a number of faculty members and with the support of TLEF funding. It was called the Cheating Hearts question mark project. And it was a project that developed implemented and assessed explicit and enhanced academic integrity instruction and writing courses through what is known as an educative approach rather than a disciplinary or punitive one. This project has generated a number of resources including a website with instructional materials and I've just published a book chapter in the fabulous collection academic integrity in Canada. That's an open access book. It's an open access book chapter that discusses the findings of the Cheating Hearts project and that information again is in the handout I've just circulated that Asuki's dropped in the chat. So that project arose because I had been a faculty member for a number of years but I also was in an administrative role. I was the director of first year programs and being in those two different roles at the same time including a role in which I was meeting with students in misconduct settings. I led to some some really transformative insights for me about how we as an institution we're doing some things less effectively and in fact harmfully. So I wanted to move from a default model of distrust suspicion and moral outrage that is often the terrain in which we find ourselves in an academic misconduct setting to realizing that academic misconduct is an educational problem and that's an opportunity. We could invite our students to take up academic integrity while we're asking them to join us in the academic community and we could give them a better rationale than don't get caught while providing them with the skills and confidence they need to meet those expectations. So that led the group of faculty members we were working with many of whom presented yesterday in the session on academic integrity to think about what we could do differently. This was about a project that was really interested in shifting our support as Cheryl Cure has written from blaming students for what we're not teaching them and also working against the dominant attitudes that students commit misconduct from a wilfulness or dishonesty more often than ignorance and that certainly was the a big unlearning or relearning work for us in that program. This is also a way of modeling an ethical pedagogy that addresses the needs of diverse student body and that last point thinking about an ethical pedagogy a pedagogy of integrity has been a real major takeaway for me from the Cheating Hearts project and ones that I continue to develop and to think about how academic integrity or more accurately academic misconduct intersects quite critically with these issues of equity diversity inclusion because academic integrity too often plays a gatekeeping role in the academy debates about and approaches to this topic are often replete with coded terms and they replay unchecked and problematic assumptions. This happens for a number of reasons but I think a major one is that how and why to teach academic integrity is just not something many of us have thought about up until this point or really have been trained to think about it. If I reflect on my own disciplinary training in English literature we've never talked about those aspects and we tend to reproduce what we have learned but we're all here together today to think and you've been doing your own thinking as well and that's an opportunity for us to do some of that work together. So I'm going to begin with some of the dominant ideas about academic integrity or more accurately misconduct and then respond to those ideas stereotypes and myths with what the research and academic integrity studies and higher education actually shows us and this is the importance of bringing an evidence-based rather than an anecdotal and often hysterical lens to this topic. I've begun with this comic. Comics are very good to the academic integrity researcher because there's a lot of comics about plagiarism and cheating and this one with these two men in a prison cell one of them in there for Grand Theft Auto and the other because they've committed plagiarism really for me encapsulates the first myth that academic misconduct is a moral failing a major crime that and that approach to it that requires a substantial significant punishment and that's a kind of crime punishment model that seems like a fair and equitable approach of course the that's the default framework the one that's most often used by university policies and one that we see circulating in department instructor syllabus language often because we just stop looking at those and we also see that often in the news as well there's a scandal or a moral panic as I like to call it about cheating and its endemic qualities we talk about this is the quasi-judicial and or moralizing framework and this is one that assumes students will commit misconduct and that they'll do so with malicious intent certainly it is true that some students will and do commit misconduct and that they will do that with malicious intent but many students who do end up in misconduct situations got there for other reasons and we'll talk about that more later on but the language they face from us as an institution is scary and intimidating it's a scared straight approach like the one that we've seen in the war on drugs which we know hasn't worked very well either so thinking about some of the research here and see if I can make my slides work yes I can this is a what Penaluna and Ross talk about is the morality and rule compliance so thinking about how that creates a binary between just people people who are or morally um following morally following the rules versus those who are not so we can think about other binaries that are are created by this insider outsider cheater good person uh binary that's so dominant and if we think about the moral positioning that's inherent in that language as Mulholland's looked at in policy documents in higher education that often use language like someone being dishonest or unethical the messaging is not that you don't know how to do something or that you did something badly like you you cited badly but that you are a cheater you are a bad person which is really loaded language that's also harmful this is the link the identity that we are thrusting on students in these cases of cheater is an identity that can be demoralizing it's alienating it's isolating and it's it's shaming this is the blame and shame model that Cheryl Cure discusses and it doesn't come with any real understanding of why some of the students might end up in a misconduct setting for example because they came up through different knowledge making systems or possibly we didn't explicitly say this is how we do things here in this institution or in this assignment and it takes time to shake off years of entrance practice in other methods that they will may have come through from K to 12 or other educational settings because this does harm I really love for us to root out this moralizing language um both in policy and in our our our own our own classrooms and to think about moving to from that place of moral judgment to thinking about that educative practice in the Cheating Hearts project we deliberately use the language of academic integrity when possible um because that's an aspirational quality it's the thing we were inviting our students to to take up um as part of the identity and practices of this research community the things that we were looking for and that was a way to foster uptake and belonging in the academic community maybe you'll also see this in the new UBC Academic Integrity website which I've linked in the resources handout and there's also efforts underway to update UBC policy language um which as Mary Davis has argued is an important aspect not only to move away from that cheating not cheating binary but also to make those documents understandable by students that um maybe have the lawyers back off a little bit on the um on the language front so that students can actually understand what we mean in these documents and also to think about as UBC and other institutions are to looking at other models for um dealing with misconduct situations okay next myth um in this comic where someone a child feels that their brother is copying them because they have both written the common knowledge the first three letters of the alphabet um this ties to me into the idea that everyone already knows what academic integrity means and how to meet those expectations or um so we don't need to teach it or someone else is going to or has already taught them but what does the research show us actually um students do not come into our classrooms whether in first year fourth year or grad school with the same or a sophisticated understanding of academic integrity and how to meet those expectations um often their knowledge is focused on the mechanistic aspects like how to actually format a citation and they don't have any rationale for why you would care beyond where to put the period in your footnote or bibliography these kinds of things um Peters and Kiju have done a study in um 2019 that really puts a finger on the problem there is a massive gap students think that we're going to teach them how to um use these skills to apply these skills but faculty think they already know that means that there is a big gap that is harmful um so if we're thinking about a gap students expecting for us teach them we're not assuming that that um we have to because they already know whether they've learned it in high school or first year English or maybe in a module that's harmful for a number of reasons one is that um we are not providing them with the knowledge they need which means we are suggesting that everybody already knows that so if you don't know that you don't belong you're you're already sort of internalizing this sense that you're an outsider not smart enough not good enough so if you are in that situation and you feel like you can't ask a question and you don't have the knowledge you need and you make a mistake and then you get caught then you become a cheater and we see how that um just perpetuates those those kinds of harms but we're also by not acknowledging the need to teach these skills um provide that kind of contextual understanding in all of our courses we're also um suggesting inaccurately that learning about academic integrity is a one-off something you could do in high school once first year um writing course once in a library module once um and that denies the complexity the nuance and the discipline specific applications that in fact attach to academic integrity that attitude also reinforces for academic integrity that for students that academic integrity is a set of rules that's both kind of easy and inconsequential unless you get caught um as well as again the fact that they should already know this another result of our harm that can be done is if we aren't helping our students predatory companies are and this is the big problem of contract cheating sites homework help sites like um chag and course hero that um seem to step into support students um because we're not providing that help okay next myth particular groups of students are more likely to engage in misconduct i'm just going to give you a second to think about what particular groups you think or you hear about as being more likely to commit misconduct you can put a guest in the chat if you wish the Judy says as to clarification more liking to engage and more likely to be caught Judy you are getting ahead of the class because that is in fact um well we'll take both answers so three people said international students uh of instance students of color yes okay so these are the more likely but the question actually to go to Judy's point was the moral panic is about um who are the cheaters but Judy's put a finger on it research and academic integrity studies in higher education looking at rates of cheating self reported um you know doing sort of anonymous surveys of students focus group etc um looking at actual rates of um misconduct um reports by instructors things like gender race religion uh first and family etc do not necessarily show those demographics of students as having higher rates of committing misconduct but there is a massive difference in who gets reported um with international students being the ones who are most over represented even though rates of actual misconduct committed are about the same as with domestic students within groups of and this was actually true for another factor that Sarah Eaton has looked at men are more likely than women to be reported and in particular the least likely group to be reported are as and this is directly from Eaton white women native english speakers she calls this the angel effect which is a provocative way for us to think about who is not getting reported and why they are not getting reported of course we understand this as reflecting implicit bias we can think about the ongoing discussions debates provocations around online proctoring systems like proctorio there was actually an article out this just this past weekend about an online proctoring um the platform that flagged a student of color of because it was algorithmically finding her her behavior abnormal so what are they looking for what is seen as normal what is even seen so thinking about these these groups we can think about um how harmful it is when certain groups are more often reported the study studies have shown that once international students are identified they are more likely to be to drop out or be expelled um Mary Davis has pointed out that misconduct referrals for students who are new to the universal versity um have the result of alienating students new to the university by making them feel like outsiders they will disengage they often don't go on to finish um a few reminders here as Tracy bread tag reminds us that diversity means more than international students we've talked a little bit about um gender is one one aspect sara eden is undertaking work to look at disabilities as another aspect which is something that um the proctorio debates have have raised thinking about um the ableist and normative assumptions there um but we have a real disconnect again between assumptions possibly built in to our platforms policies and practices that are looking for assuming some kinds of students uh to be distrust worthy versus others and that's definitely something that we want to um be sounding the alarm about okay i think this is my final myth and this is about the word rigor because we often see um hysteria again about um if we change our practices if we have an open book exam if we have a take home exam or we don't have an exam at all we will compromise the rigor of our courses i always want to know what does rigor mean rigor often um seems to be a coded term a code for something else something that's sequestered if it means in the context of academic integrity uh is to police against cheating then i think that's a pretty poor metric for learning for assessing learning and uh we can do better and we can think about other ways to be inviting and assessing knowledge making in our courses before i move on i just want to to check the chat and see if there's anything happening i see lots of more votes for who is getting um caught um oh michelle is no i'm not sure which myth michelle is referred to but uh certainly these are the myths that our students are hearing about too so you can think about how if we as instructors are internalizing these um these myths we are reproducing them for our students who are then hearing them and thinking um and thinking about what the implications of us reproducing those myths might be um i agree jackie that rigor and research is indeed very important but we want to think about um rigor as opposed to rigidity how about that or or thinking about um how we're using that term okay we have busted some myths and we are thinking about how to improve um academic integrity and we want to do so in ways that will recognize the intersections with equity diversity and inclusion so what can we do i'd like to propose some some questions for us to be to be taking away from the session and thinking about um as we think about how to build a culture of integrity that upholds a responsibility to think about uh equity diversion and inclusion accessibility so one is what would it look like if we began from a place of trust and thought about the job we have to do the to help students do work with integrity in this space and also to be thinking about what that changes when we begin from opposition of trust thinking about an assessment piece how could we invite students to participate in knowledge making in ways that are rigorous but that also invite genuine informed ethical participation and that we also have to think about our scalable work in in the kinds of courses we're teaching the kinds of students we have but again thinking about assessment that works from a an opening premise of trust i would encourage some reflection about the our our part as members of this institution but thinking about the institution as um reproducing creating and reproducing systemic inequities and thinking also about bringing everybody on board and supporting them this is a a universal design for learning approach student-centered um this is about also listening to students listening and learning from from our students as Trisha Bertram Garland points out when we move to a teaching and learning focus this allows for an understanding of students as learners learners who are grappling with new ways of knowing and presenting knowledge and thereby that presents greater opportunities to engage students in discussions about academic integrity in all its complexities so this is a way for us to think about how to build and develop an academic and culture of integrity that's informed by edi this is also a way for us to think about shifting the labor of a misconduct process we can kind of preload that by um building spending the time instead and building the the culture of integrity we've heard a little bit about this in yesterday's terrific session on how when and why we do academic integrity um oh michelle's just asked um edi is equity diversity and inclusion thanks michelle i appreciate the the chance to to re-explain that i want to pull this together and we we sort of presented the opposite of all of these planks um to think about um building that that culture of integrity let's let's begin with the premises that students don't know what we mean or why we care they end up in misconduct situations through a number of reasons some of those reasons are are academic some of them are not but misconduct is not inevitable so again we'd be open by trusting our students we can reduce its occurrence um and is something that we can teach and that we should be teaching this means we have if we think about these these planks we have the opportunity to address a problem maybe run one off by giving ourselves and our students the knowledge of what our expectations are and how to meet them and why they should and why we should too and that's something i'll talk about in a moment as an institution and as individual educators we have an opportunity and we have a responsibility to help students do their work in this way we can reward integrity this is that uh shift from from or two i should say to a position of trust to think about um how students come to us the different experiences they bring um the different experiences they're working through in addition to being in our courses their life circumstances what i call a pedagogy of integrity is embodied in that position of curiosity and humility that we bring to this topic and that recognizing and teaching and learning with integrity is an ongoing and responsive process one in which we need to listen to our students and i do want to pause here and um i often uh want to emphasize that i'm not suggesting that we will we will eradicate cheating this is not that's not a realistic goal but we certainly can reduce accidental cases which are really devastating the most devastating perhaps for students and faculty and we can invite other students to make different choices by helping them become invested in in this way of thinking and by changing the culture um in which the the normal is academic integrity versus a normal of academic misconduct okay so we've got the planks let's think about um the different elements of a culture of integrity and i've talked about all these pieces so i'm bringing them together here thinking about the importance of um establishing see if i can get my pointer to work oh i can laser pointer let's do that um the idea that we are moving to an educative model versus a punitive model whereas um sarah eaton calls it a proactive rather than a punitive approach and i love that language of proactive versus reactive kind of framework because that gives us some some agency some opportunity some power to think about we can get ahead of this and do something differently we've talked about um ways that we can reward integrity um changing to teaching skills and giving practices and how to reach them um thinking about uh savvy assessment design course design always through um a lens of recognizing the ways that we are budding up against intersecting with um issues of activity diversity and inclusion making sure that we're being really clear about expectations and i'll say more about that in a moment um and that we are upholding those expectations ourselves and those expectations are about the expectations of the university around academic integrity and that is in our own scholarship that's in the in the practices of our own teaching um and also in how we respond when we have um misconduct cases or cases that are of suspected misconduct and just to return to thinking about um this this combination of factors some of this is just again reflecting that shift of trust beginning with um a focus on students as learners rather than cheaters and waiting um and that can include things like welcoming and then honoring students accommodations for example or having flexible due dates student choice and assignment these are all aspects of uh that build the practice of of of a culture of integrity but also recognize edi implications okay i wanted to to focus right now on thinking about i'm going to turn this pointer off if i can do that oh i can um what roles faculty can play in um faculty and staff actually in in constituting a culture of integrity there's lots of research that shows that peers attitude to cheating uh are a major and sometimes the most compelling motivations for students to cheat or not um if everybody if everybody is doing it um then uh why wouldn't i um eaten at all's research has also looked at um cultures of help that might um happen particularly in like a cohort program or something where students work really closely together and the sense is you're not being a good team player if you are not going along with the others so those are some of the social dynamics that can be at work in a peer setting but research has also shown the major role that um faculty attitudes play and whether or not students take up our invitation to do their work with integrity um julia christensen hughes in a landmark study pointed out that students cheat when they feel cheated and some of this has to do with their that they can be you know discontent about what they see as um instructors are recycling exams year after year or using test banks without um modifying them in any kind of ways and certainly we we're all going to recognize that there we do recycle materials because we we've invested a lot of time in putting those in designing those materials in part so that we can use them year after year but um an ideal setting is that we would be updating them they would they would live again in the context of of course that we are teaching uh not by row but for each group of students but it's also beyond that in the research the cheating when students cheat when they feel cheated is they also will do that when they don't think the institution or in particular their instructor cares um about whether or not they they um they or anyone else is committing misconduct um just another point on that if they feel that everyone can get away with it or that if they have reported it and it wasn't taken seriously then what's what's the point what's the point doing your work with integrity so one of the ways to run this off is of course for all of us as instructors is to teach academic integrity in every single course that returns to that myth of everyone already knows it so I don't have to teach it or everyone is everyone is getting this lesson somewhere else high school first year library so I don't have to be responsible for it um it does need to be renewed and relevant in each course that allows for a disciplinary in context specific nuance it addresses those changing degrees of complexity and it affirms that as an institution and in our particular courses we do care very much um that our students meet academic integrity expectations this is a collective investment and it's not arbitrary there is not going to be a difference in expectations across courses uh just to to deal with these these ideas in more detail one of the impasses that we run into is when there is not consistency in articulating and upholding that expectation it does begin to seem um arbitrary and there is a cost to non-compliance and that cost um again intersects with these concerns about equity diversity inclusion who it affects why it matters how not knowing or following the rules can be exclusive and harmful um what's okay in one class has to be okay or or what's not okay I think it's probably the better way of putting it what's not okay in one class needs to not be okay in another unless there are disciplinary reasons for these kinds of things so we can think of a group work as a place that is really really challenging for students and instructors around um thinking about academic integrity that's a place I've always talked about is needing to have a conversation led by led by you but um with solutions provided by students how are we going to uphold academic integrity in the setting of a group project for example um making those those kinds of things explicit but also saying we are going to that is still applies here and in a group project um if this the the system seems inconsistent um then it becomes unfair inherently I I will deal with misconduct cases but another instructor won't that seems unfair and it also becomes divorced for for any meaning um so some things that you want to think about in your own course in conversation with your department what is the benchmark for a reportable case versus a teachable moment that has to be consistent within practices so let me turn to a little quiz I like to do um and it's not a real quiz there's nothing fancy like no poll this is just some some takeaway questions for you about being ready to take up that responsibility of providing um consistent academic integrity experience do you know when to report a case of academic misconduct again what's that benchmark we're past the teachable moments at what point when when do I need to report a case you might also think about um do I know actually how to report a case of academic misconduct and also if I don't know those things who do I ask who is the person in my department who can help me or if I'm not sure whether something should be reported or not who can I ask um if you don't have a person in your department like the often um that might be your unassociated head for example or your department head uh you might have an academic integrity officer in your department and that's not very common at UBC it's really important to ask for one or to ask who that person might be because and to ask now to ask before your your semester starts so that you are prepared in advance why is this useful one is that um you need to know what you're looking for you need to know what the process are so that you understand the expectations that um you are expected the expectations that the university has for instructors it's also really helpful to have a better understanding of what the UBC policy and process looks like that is being updated I think Ainsley Rouse is here and so Ainsley knows very very well um that we are working as an institution on updating on that process but find out what it means to report somebody because a barrier for faculty in reporting is that they don't want to make unnecessary trouble for a student many students who are being reported for the first time only will receive a warning but they are then flagged uh in in the process which is important for thinking about that coherence across the institution as actually better building a culture of integrity because we are ideally pairing that with this educative approach when how and who do I ask and why should I do this these are the things to to make sure that you have the answers for in advance that the idea about the uh being able to pick up the phone or to write an email to someone to say hey I've got a weird situation can I talk to you about it is also important because sometimes we run into things that make us really upset or really angry we were there's an emotional quality to running into a misconduct situation and sometimes you just need a someone to talk through the possibilities with you and you may need some coaching about how to to to handle this um tough conversation in ways that are informed by proactive, educative, and EDI lenses as well and I can talk more about that in the chat and always with the caveat that you'd want to make sure you're doing it in the way that your department um and your faculty are are following this is a personal responsibility but it's certainly one that you are sharing with your department okay just a couple more things in closing um one is to return to this idea about who knows and who does not know but to expand that to think about academic integrity in that broader umbrella of hidden curriculum not just about the particulars of doing work with integrity and meeting the expectations of ethical research but just how does the university work and how do I as a student negotiate all of these expectations about what I call how do university so for my own practice I make these things I make these things about academic integrity but I also tie those things explicitly into um spelled out lessons in how the university works and I do various versions of that first uh for second third and fourth year I think that's also useful for TAs and graduate students again this is a UDL framework of assuming that we're inviting people in and giving them the knowledge um they need to to to belong at this place so normalizing questions about how the university and normalizing questions in general we heard yesterday about the value of talking about related skills to academic integrity about note taking time management um because many students end up in misconduct for reasons that are about you know I had 40 tabs open and I forgot which tab I'd found it on your note taking you know just sort of those kind of practices um thinking about the hidden curriculum of how to navigate resources and supports uh for students in crisis because many students end up in an academic misconduct setting because there's this dealing with extraordinarily challenging circumstances don't know about um help they can seek out or don't feel that um they are worthy of that help because they have that lack of belonging so thinking about always what are the barriers for students what do we know what do we not what do we okay how do I get this this in what do we don't know that we don't know what can our students help us find out that we have you know we often have and have just a kind of internalized set of knowing how to work through the university and we don't always pause to think about what might be hidden from them um some questions for you for you to take away before we turn to our own question period is just thinking about as you put this into practice in your own course if you've come to this thinking uh you're you're getting ready to design your syllabus you can have a have a look at your your 13 weeks or um six weeks if you're teaching a summer course and think about the expectations around academic integrity that are implicit in how you do your own work at the in your in your discipline sociologists for example um I had a conversation with the department of sociology about how they needed to build in thinking about academic integrity in relation to third-year students beginning to do work with human subjects for example um what are your expectations of a third fourth or graduate level student around ethical knowledge making for first year if you're in a in a program uh Pete um a stephach it gave a terrific presentation yesterday thinking about engineers and how they think about academic integrity in relation to their their professional commitments as as engineers think about those and how to to build in to make to surface uh those expectations throughout the semester this is also a moment as you're doing that kind of um survey to really think about what are the places where we might not be explicit enough um in first year programs one of the um things we discovered to the cheating hearts program was that students were very confused when we kept asking them for them for original work at the same time we were asking them to conduct um maps of the state of knowledge to to do literature reviews in their field um and to think about their knowledge their original research as extending existing knowledge to many students those things were incompatible and that was an opportunity for us to talk more explicitly about what original research means what does research even mean that can be important um to clarify particularly if you're working in a multidisciplinary setting where students bring different understandings of that term as i've discovered in um large classes that are for non-majors where uh science students and humanity students for example understand research differently thinking about again what might not be clear enough do have a think about what forms of accept help are acceptable so um in yesterday's session on academic integrity um Brie or Alvarez talked about translation software in the context of a language course that's a great illustration of how google translate might be fine in i don't know a chemistry course maybe it's not but it might be because it's serving a different function there than it is for a student who is learning to work in a language that's new to them and needs to demonstrate their learning we can also run into some um kind of gray areas if we think about if you do a peer feedback session i always do peer peer feedback um peer review sessions in my courses and i make really clear the distinction between a session i've offered or that i encourage students to to seek out feedback from classmates or from other readers feedback as distinct from editing and which feedback is okay but editing is not okay and why many students work with tutors thomas line caster is an academic integrity researcher talks about toxic tutors we need to distinguish a toxic tutor a tutor who might be providing editing or in fact maybe working for a contract cheating site we need to distinguish that kind of tutoring from the kind of help students might find at a writing center or with working with the tutor with whom they can set those expectations help students understand what a homework help site like chag course hero really is and understanding those connections to contract cheating and we have on the academic integrity um at ubc website um some language for you um to help you understand yourself and to share with students about what contract cheating is and as you're doing this course review thinking about your assessment and course design taking every opportunity to reward integrity uh susan ben talks about how we need to have the um to set a condition set the conditions for students to feel comfortable to ask questions about the rules for academic integrity without repercussions or negative reactions that was one of the great joys of the changing hearts projects that um our faculty reported was that they did have those conversations with students that students did feel much more comfortable um asking questions about academic integrity and then it turned into asking questions about all kinds of things so it really did change the conversation um as we'd hoped and so um hoping that we have set up in a context here in which you feel comfortable asking questions um yourself i want to turn things to um uh so we have some looks like 12 minutes for for q and a and i see there's been a lot of activity in the chat so i'm going to stop sharing and look at uh the chat and give you a chance here as i'm doing that to just think about if there's things that you wanted to add or questions that you might have um for me okay my goodness a lot has happened here oh that's mirrors reminded me yes i started using ai yes is ai not although sometimes we have ai as artificial intelligence and ai as academic intersecting if we think about proctorial that's that's a bad intersection um i mean it's asked about uh if i agree or we'd agree collectively capitalist society is grassroots that uses education system to produce obedient labor yeah okay so um i mean i'd invite you to say more about this but this is where i see a really productive set of conversations emerging around academic integrity but also um around grading practices for example um there's tomorrow there is a session on implementing alternative grading practices that that might be a productive shared ground here for thinking about how we're reproducing students who aren't just good rule followers but who are also um not who are also that we're not putting all of the effort into making sure that students are compliant rule followers but they're thinking about the why piece why are we why does it matter whether or not students do their work with integrity that's really the piece that can i think can move beyond rule compliance to thinking about these as the integral practices of knowledge making at the university and then beyond um to broader questions of sort of ethical citizenship um being an ethical community member in whatever professional personal um situations we are in it is it is a i think that's that's the opportunity we have um to move beyond simple simple compliance or non-compliance um Tamera has pointed out students um tell her that her exams weren't fair because the questions aren't searchable and chag yes that is um that would be an interesting place to have a conversation about why they would assume that would be more fair what are their expectations around assignments i would love to hear more from students about that um Tamera has pointed out so those of us who are consistent reporting cases are disadvantaged by the extra work and in fact that is a something i've forgotten to say i got caught up in my own um slides is that there is an equity piece here too and that around faculty needing the support of the institution and the resources to deal with misconduct cases but also to make the shift to um an educator framework because it does take time there's labor in the cheating hearts project one of the things that we did as a group was we produced and shared plug-and-play resources many which we've made open access they're in the the link to our website is in the handout that Suki has shared but the idea that we should not all individually being need to needing to rethink these kinds of things um maybe as a department you as a collective could come up with department level uh test banks for example i know that's been a practice at the university um since since 2020 that's just an example but we also really need to be supported in this effort and that labor will fall um let's acknowledge that labor will fall uh with more weight on um faculty and staff members who are um part of equity deserving groups and who are already doing additional kinds of labor and dealing with additional um challenges to their authority so um let's let's acknowledge that piece and also think about how the institution could intervene in that in that way as well um okay i see there's three new messages and i'm going to okay Suki's put the the handout back in the chat and oh Suki's also put in the registration for the alternative grading session thank you um okay i'm going to work bottom down again oh and i see that tomorrow you've got a hand up lori lori i just wanted to comment super quickly on on the last comment you made about um you know the the burden or the onus of the extra work falling on maybe inequitably on on certain members of our of our community and i just want to add there that lecture sessionals adjuncts are often and as i understand it one of the largest body of those of us in the classroom who see these things and we are already precarious employment so definitely there is an equity piece so i just wanted to acknowledge that and thank you for acknowledging that yeah thank you uh Tamara um that was one of the things that was a motivator for us in our project was thinking about uh the members of the pilot group were were all um lectures or tenure track or tenured faculty members and thinking about how do we take that labor away not that we you know not that we were thinking about ways to take the labor away without taking away autonomy and choice for our colleagues um and you know that's always a balancing act but recognizing that we were in a unit where we did employ many uh contract faculty members and not wanting them to have additional work on on top of the fact that yes as you say they have high teaching loads high marking loads and are in those face to face uh kinds of ways in a in a precarious kinds of position um i don't see any other hands uh Laura has asked a final example as these often misleading and misinterpreted oh okay maybe that's in response to to something else oh Kiran you've asked a question i see okay how do my tas know how to deal with academic conductively come across and student work do they want to approach me about this yes that is a huge question and when they came up Jackie Brinkman um asked how do we bring our tas and grad students into this conversation about teaching for integrity rewarding integrity that is the missing piece and something i think we need as an institution to be thinking about because it will help them as graduate students it will help them as students as well as um in in their their teaching roles and i remember well my experiences as a graduate student as feeling like how do i gain authority and one of the ways i thought that i needed to be authoritative was to be like a super hard ass about things um and catch cheaters um in these ways which i did in fact actually had three cases of misconduct and the first year i was a ta in another another institution um but if i'd had some i would have been very helpful to have had some some training around that and that's something we could be thinking about as a as an institution um oh jackie says teaching for integrity would be a great workshop awesome okay let's let's do that uh we've got we've got lots of people who would be willing to be facilitators i'm sure uh jackie says how do you balance being able to ask about a specific situation the need to report academic was conduct if you discovered an incident through the question and a need to report um jackie do you want to say a little bit more about that i don't sure if i understood yeah so you know it's it's that balancing so sometimes we've had a situation you know where a student approached us in the scholarly integrity course and said you know i didn't know that um i wasn't sure that this wasn't right but now that i've attended this course i know this isn't right uh and so then it did move forward um as a as a case but the student couldn't be protected because they were implicated in the situation so it was just a fine balance right so what you know with a student and there's uncertainty um you know that sometimes that uncertainty could actually be um part of um a misconduct like unintentional cheating like you say and so it's this balance between being supportive and yet also this duty to report and so just i don't know if you've ever been in a situation like that and and how you balance that i mean surely you might be able to speak to that because sometimes with the ombud's office so it's um you know for some students they're nervous about approaching because they don't want to be a whistleblower or i guess this comes around whistleblower protection really is my question surely did you want surely or i think you are still here um do you have a perspective on that surely is the the ombud's person for the the university yeah she's not here anymore yeah i can oh she's been a little bit jackie i think that's a great question and um for those reasons i guess the ombud's office is a bit of a unique unit on campus in that we are not an office of report or record so students we would encourage students to come to our office talk about these things explore the issues and you know we do encourage students to be honest and forthright if they've made a mistake to go forward acknowledge them work with their instructors and move in a way that will enhance their academic progress even if they have made a mistake so jackie i'm not sure if that answers your question i think that's a really complex issue and puts people in a lot of difficult ethical situations as well lori i don't know if you can answer that as well in terms of from the instructor point of view well i'm just going to add like i just think that part of it is that as you know maybe that's the building of the educative approach is having that you know building in ways to ask questions and then you know asking early on as preventative ways so building that you know culture of trust and also um helping them know who they can ask i mean that's one thing i'd like to see more and i've talked about it with members of the academic integrity working group is more peer to peer uh support around this because you may not want to go to your instructor and say i did the thing or i'm about to do this thing um that i think probably might mean i don't know i don't know if this is violates um academic integrity or not i think you would probably feel more comfortable chatting about that with peers who i think you might feel less judgment from as long as they were peers like not some random person on reddit but a person who has um gone through some some training uh with us through you know through ubc through the scholarly integrity office for example um but having a range of answer people or sounding boards consultants for students who include us absolutely because we have set the tone and said yes come ask us no stupid questions let's have a chat before there's a problem and there is somebody at 4am who is the ask away equivalent um that they could log on and say hey would this be cheating would this be misconduct i think that will be a super helpful way to provide uh wraparound support for students i do see that it is 1203 and i've held you on past uh the hour i'm happy to stay on and and answer questions and i know i know there will be questions and comments that i've missed in in the chat but um i think i will close this formally and we can stop the recording but i wanted to thank everyone so much for for coming