Skip to Navigation
University of Pittsburgh
Print This Page Print this pages

April 27, 2006

Does new technology demand new policies?

With Pitt’s recently announced commitment to implement wireless network service across the Pittsburgh campus, will the technologies that are used in a wireless environment make it easier for students to cheat?

(See March 16 University Times.)

That was one of three issues that the University Senate educational policies committee (EPC) tackled at its April 11 meeting.

EPC, at the request of Faculty Assembly, had agreed to investigate whether additional academic integrity policies were needed to govern the use of newer technologies in the classroom.

Assembly members had expressed concern that with the proliferation of cell phones, PDAs (personal digital assistants) and laptops, among other technologies, cheating has become easier for students and more difficult to detect for faculty. In addition, communication devices potentially can be disruptive in the classroom if cell phones ring, for example, or if students are surfing the Internet instead of paying attention to course work.

A wireless campus could exacerbate those problems, Assembly members agreed.

EPC found that the University’s academic integrity policy (policy 02-03-02), which was revised in September 2005, covers the misuse of technology by students and spells out the authority faculty have to prohibit that misuse.

EPC co-chair Susan Sereika expects to give a report on the EPC findings at a future Faculty Assembly. That report will include some recommendations to augment the academic integrity policy, she said, including:

• That faculty should make a statement in class at the beginning of the term regarding their expectations for using technology as part of the course;

• That the course syllabus should state clearly and in detail the rules governing technology use in the classroom;

• That additional discussion may be necessary with international students to ensure no misunderstanding of the rules;

• That multiple proctors be used for examinations, and

• That faculty consider using alternate versions of exams, such as re-ordering the questions, or varying seat assignments from one test to the next to inhibit cheating.

In a separate exchange, EPC also discussed the implementation of recommendations that resulted from a survey of some 700 part-time faculty members the committee conducted in 2002.

Those recommendations, which were endorsed by the provost, included:

• Computing Services and Systems Development and academic departments should distribute memos describing computer resources available to part-time instructors. Also, the Center for Instructional Development and Distance Education (CIDDE) should make a special effort to inform part-timers of Course Info/Blackboard web-based instructional resources.

• Each department should issue a statement on grading policies for specific courses and general guidelines for courses and distribute that to part-time faculty.

• Each term, departments should inform part-time instructors exactly how their teaching will be evaluated, and whether Office of Measurement and Evaluation of Teaching (OMET)-conducted student evaluations are required.

• Any department or school employing 10 or more part-time instructors should consider forming a committee to facilitate communication among full- and part-time faculty.

Relying on anecdotal evidence from committee members, EPC noted that implementation of those recommendations varied by unit. For example, at its faculty orientation sessions, the School of Nursing does inform part-time instructors that they are required to use OMET student evaluations of teaching.

“So some of the recommendations have been implemented in our school, but we don’t have a committee to help part-time faculty,” said Sereika, a nursing faculty member. “I don’t know that that’s a big problem, but maybe it indicates that it’s time to remind people of [these recommendations].”

Ellen Ansell, a Senate liaison to EPC, said her education school department (instruction and learning) sends detailed information to part-time and adjunct faculty as part of the employee contract materials, which are mailed out a couple months before a term begins.

“In a letter that accompanies the contract, everything is described: support services at CIDDE, who the department secretary is, and information on office space, grading, OMET requirements, I.D. cards, mailboxes, parking, paychecks,” Ansell said.

EPC members concluded that Ansell’s departmental materials could be used as a model for distribution to other units, most likely through the Dean’s Council. The committee agreed to invite James Knapp, associate dean for faculty affairs in Arts and Sciences, to a future meeting to discuss continued dissemination of the EPC survey recommendations and potential avenues for distributing information to part-time faculty.

Introducing a third issue, EPC member Neepa Majumdar of English asked the committee to request clarification of the precise meanings of certain grades.

“I thought we might discuss grading categories, specifically the ‘G’ grade, which is a form of incomplete and can be given for a number of legitimate reasons or [personal] circumstances, such as illness,” Majumdar said. “At least in my four years here, the ‘G’ grade does not lapse into an ‘F’ automatically, which I think is not good.

“Most universities have that happen. It’s not an incentive for students, even those who legitimately got a ‘G,’ to go back and finish in a certain time. A ‘G’ doesn’t affect the GPA (grade point average). I think it should have a limited time and then be converted to an ‘F.’”

Majumdar also found fault with the ambiguity of the “F” grade. “We don’t have a separate category for students who just never came to class at all. They also get an ‘F,’ which is mandatory,” she said. “Other universities have a different designation for that, so at least when you look at the transcript you can make a judgment about whether somebody failed to master the material in the class or it was someone who just never showed up. Those are two different kinds of problems.”

If a student withdraws from a class within the designated time period, the student gets a ‘W’ — withdrawal — grade, Majumdar said, “but we have students for whatever reason enroll and just never show up.”

EPC members noted that grading policies also can vary among units. “For example, we don’t give any pluses or minuses — like B+, B- — with our grades,” Sereika said of the School of Nursing’s policy.

EPC agreed to discuss the grade categories further and to contact the Registrar’s office for clarification of letter grade meanings and for procedures that would be required for any grading policy emendations.

—Peter Hart


Leave a Reply