Issues Related to Student Conduct: Academic & Non-academic

The  Student Academic Integrity Policy (SAIP) that was approved in September 2024 replaces the former Code of Student Behaviour. SAIP "describes academic supports that enable students to achieve academic success in alignment with the principles of academic integrity" (p. 1). Shifting from a punishment approach to academic misconduct, SAIP aims to be an educative approach where students take responsibility and that reduces workload on submitting cases for evaluation.

To learn more about SAIP, you are invited to enroll in an eLearning opportunity on Canvas: Foundations of Student Academic Integrity. This module is designed to enhance understanding of the fundamental concepts of academic integrity and to introduce an overview of the new policy. It is available to any U of A community members. Click here to register.

New to this policy is the inclusion of a non-disciplinary accountability route, in addition to the common disciplinary process. Both routes retain student accountability. The two routes are described below.

Non-disciplinary Accountability Option (NDAO)

This route is described as: "Voluntary, collaborative facilitated processes to explore personal accountability options outside of a complaint. Designed to assist an individual in identifying and ameliorating negative consequences of their behaviour and/or to align their academic success with the principles of academic integrity. Non-disciplinary accountability options are intended to be flexible and creative, and may include, but are not limited to: remedial, restorative, and other facilitated processes to create space for accountability, with or without a complaint" (SAIP, p. 12). 

A student suspected of academic misconduct is given the opportunity to take responsibility for their actions (i.e., needs to admit to engaging is misconduct) -- and they admit to doing something wrong, the NDAO route may be used. Normally this means a combination of educational activity (e.g., completing a module about academic integrity), reflecting on their actions and subsequent learning, and reasonable consequences (e.g., if a student used generative AI for a paper, then they did not do the work and can still receive a grade of 0). Any record of of NDAO is removed from the student's record at graduation (no history of disciplinary violation).

Disciplinary Complaint Process

In some cases, the academic misconduct is too serious to use the NDAO route or a student is unwilling to admit to their misconduct, and the disciplinary compalint process route is then followed. This process is similar to what existed under the Code of Student Behaviour, where the university makes about a student and sanctions are imposed in response to the academic misconduct. The misconduct stays on the student's record, even after graduation. Case are adjudicated by the College of Social Sciences & Humanities' Associate Dean (Education).

The particular route taken for a case depends on the student's willingness to take responsibility and the Dean's delegate (Associated Dean, Academic & Student Experience) decision given the information provided in the case.

The Student Success and Experience office has posted helpful pages for more information:

• Overview to the Student Academic Integrity Policy

• Student Academic Integrity Policy FAQs

Consult with the Undergraduate Coordinator as soon as you become aware of a potential violation of the Student Academic Integrity Policy (SAIP). Appendix A lists the types of academic misconducts, such as:

• • Plagiarism

  • Examination Cheating

  • Contract Cheating 

  • Unauthorised Collaboration

  • Misrepresentation

  • Unauthorised Resubmission

  • Misuse of University Academic Materials or Other Assets 

  • Research and Scholarly Misconduct

The process for addressing suspectied academic misconduct is described in the Student Academic Misconduct Procedure (UAPPOL). The following steps are a summary from this policy document.

1. Be proactive. Consult the website of the Office of Student Conduct and Accountability for information and suggestions. 

2. Get information and advice as soon as a concern arises: As an instructor, if you suspect academic misconduct as listed in SAIP has occurred, contact the Undergraduate Coordinator for advice on the process. It is important to do this as early in the process as possible, preferably before you contact the student. Do not complete marking the assignment and do not assign a grade.

3. Be sure that you have definite evidence: You must be confident that you can substantiate your suspicion of academic misconduct and have material in-hand as evidence. Instructors may submit a suspicion of academic misconduct, but they do not decide the case. Students are innocent until proven guilty.

4. May contact the student: If you suspect academic misconduct, you may contact the student. You may email the student and share that you are concerned about their conduct (e.g., possible use of AI, lack of citations to sources). You may tactfully inquire and if they acknowledge responsibility, then this can be included in your submission. The initial contact often causes distress for the student so it is best to do it during a weekday, when they can access some immediate support from the Office of the Student Ombuds and, if necessary, Counselling Services. The student is not obligated/required to participate in the complaint process.
   
   If meeting with the student:  Students must be informed of the purpose of the meeting ahead of time. (For example, “I have some concerns that you didn’t cite all of your sources in your paper.”) Although not required, you are strongly encouraged to have someone else attend (e.g., Undergraduate Coordinator or another experienced faculty member). Advise and encourage the student to contact the Office of the Student Ombuds for advice. Students may also bring another person or an advisor to the meeting—preferably someone from Ombudservice. This is always preferable, as the Ombudsperson will ensure the student has full information and will be able to debrief with the student after the meeting. In the meeting, provide more information regarding the concern and provide the evidence. Allow the student to respond to the concern. Ensure that the student understands the process that will occur after the meeting. Ensure the student knows of counselling support services and encourage the student to get support if they are distressed. If more than one student is involved, contact and meet with them individually.

5. Submit the case: If the instructor suspects that there was misconduct they are required to report the incident for further investigation. Fill in the Incident Report Form.
   In the report include the following: 

• • Information about the course, student, and type of assignment

  • A description of the academic misconduct (type into a textbox):

    • • What you suspect the student(s) did and a brief justification for why you believe their actions constitute a policy violation. In cases where multiple students are involved, please clearly explain who did what.

      • Where, if at all, the student veered from explicit instruction (e.g., how the assessment was to be completed and submitted).

      • Pertinent dates as they relate to the case (e.g. assessment due date, when suspected violation was discovered, dates of correspondences, etc.).

      • A summary of any meetings held with the student(s), including the date, location and attendees. If you received a statement or held an email exchange in lieu, please provide a copy in ‘Supporting Documents.'

  • A brief summary of the academic misconduct (250 words) that is shared verbatim with the student.

  • Type of academic integrity concern (from Appendix A)

  • Any supporting documentation.

8. The form submission is reviewed by the Academic Integrity and Discipline Coordinator for the College of Social Sciences and Humanities (cssh.acadinteg@ualberta.ca). The Coordinator forwards the case the the the Associate Dean (Academic & Student Experience) in the Faculty of Education.

9. The Associate Dean will contact the instructor and student to investigate the allegations further. The Associate Dean can impose the following sanctions: reprimand, academic integrity conditions, grade sanctions (e.g., zero on assignment/exam, grade reduction or an F in course), refusal to consider applications, and rescission of an admission offer. A Student Conduct Officer can impose similar sanctions along with more severe sanctions (e.g., suspension, expulsion, suspension of a degree, rescission of a degree). Appendix B of SAIP contains a description of sanctions and their impact.

9. If a more severe sanction is recommended by the Associate Dean , a Discipline Officer may conduct an investigation. 

10. The student may appeal the charges or severity of sanction imposed by the Associate Dean or the Discipline Officer to the University Appeal Board. If an appeal is made, the instructor may be called as a witness. 

All written communication relevant to the complaint can be potentially seen by the student under POPA. Therefore, ensure that all emails and related documents contain only the information that is relevant to the case.

Note: If a case is still unresolved at the end of a term, report the student’s grade as IN (incomplete) and do not select a completion date in BearTracks. 

Cheating on an examination is a type of academic misconduct that falls under the Student Academic Integrity Policy. Thus, addressing cheating through a Non-disciplinary Accountability Option our Disciplinary Complaint Process route follows the steps above. With an online proctored exam that utilize Respondus, an instructor can review the report provided and identify a suspicion of cheating after the exam ends.

However, with in-person exams, instructors may notice suspicious behaviour during the examination time. Here are guidelines on how to address the situation at the time, if the exam is held during regular office hours:

1. Send another student up to the Faculty Office (Room 551 Education South) to request that a Faculty Administration Manager come to your classroom to assist with suspected exam cheating.

2. Approach the student immediately -- do not wait until the examination is finished because the student might suppress the evidence in the interim or other students may see what is going on and become agitated because nothing is being immediately done.

3. Confiscate the student’s examination paper and any other hard evidence that might serve as proof that the student was cheating on the exam. Quietly ask the student to step into the hallway with you.

4. Accompany the student to the Faculty Office (Room 551 Education South) and ask someone in the Faculty Office to witness your allegation against the student before confronting the student. If this is not possible, notify the student in the hallway that you have evidence of them cheating on the exam.

5. Advise the student that you will submit a student academic integrity case that will be investigated by the Faculty. Ask the student to quietly leave and that you will follow up with any necessary next steps by email.

If there is any escalation of the situation, you can also contact Campus Security (780-492-5050) for assistance.

Rather than addressing both academic misconduct and non-academic misconduct under one policy, since 2022 these have been addressed under two different policies. Non-academic misconduct falls under the Student Conduct Policy. Non-academic misconduct falls under two broad types, with specific prohibited conduct:

• Interpersonal Misconduct:

• discrimination

• harassment (including bullying and/or racial harassment)

• disseminating information that hinders full participation of others

• threatening or inciting violence

• weapon possession

• creating conditions that endangers others

• physical contact without consent

• physical abuse

• sexual and gender-based violence

• retaliation against others

• hazing

• University-related Misconduct:

• damaging university property

• defacing university property

• unauthorized use of property/equipment (e.g., use equipment without authorization, enter building without permission, obtain equipment fraudulently, information technology misconduct, substance use in banned location, etc.)

• obstruction-related violations (e.g., impede university functions,  disrupt learning environment, incite others to misconduct, refuse to show ID, bribery, etc.)

Procedures 

Similar to academic misconduct, there are two routes (non-disciplinary accountability option and disciplinary complaint process). However, it is a Student Conduct Officer who is the decision-maker, relying on the process carried out by an impartial investigator. Complains are made to dosdean@ualberta.ca. Contact the Undergraduate Coordinator for further information on steps in the process.

Students who Disrupt the Class

When a student disturbs, disrupts, or otherwise interferes with classroom activities, this misconduct falls under the Student Conduct Policy. These actions would be understood as negatively impacting the learning environment and safety of the members of the learning environment. 

Instructors can contact Protective Services if they need assistance with a disruptive behaviour. If it is serious and needs immediate attention, an instructor can also call 9-1-1. Afterwards, follow up with the Undergraduate Coordinator for next steps.