more Academic dishonesty, more As (and A-holes)

The University at Albany hasn't been willing to clearly state in writing whether they consider free riding on group assignments a form of academic dishonesty.

To: crcr@uamail.albany.edu ; McNeill, Clarence L ; D'Alessandro, Sally A ; Lauricella, Nancy ; Murdock, Karen V

UA policy on academic dishonesty, relating to approved group work?

Thursday, May 12, 2011 2:58 PM

To the Office of Conflict Resolution & Civic Responsibility:

The examples of academic dishonesty given in the Student Code of Conduct http://www.albany.edu/studentconduct/appendix-c.shtml don't directly address academic dishonesty within the context of approved group work.

In trying to locate information specifically about that topic, I found the guide "Minimizing plagiarism" http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/assessinglearning/03/plagMain.html by "Assessing Learning in Australian Universities," a resource of the Centre for the Study of Higher Education commissioned by the Australian Universities Teaching Committee http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/assessinglearning/about.html . It states that plagiarism can consist of:

"Contributing less, little or nothing to a group assignment and then claiming an equal share of the marks."

Is that an example with which the University at Albany would agree? If so, is that something that should be referred to your office?

The office replied, but did not answer my question and refused to reply to my follow-up question entirely. I'm not sure who from the office replied; not infrequently UAlbany staff will use an office e-mail address and not provide their own name.

Thursday, May 19, 2011 5:24 PM

Thank you,

At the moment, e-mail is the only good way for me to communicate.

I understand approved group work is acceptable. The type of situation I had in mind, which is what I believe the "Minimizing plagiarism" guide had in mind as well, does have to do with approved group work. A situation where there is approved group work that will be assigned a single grade given to each member of the group, and where there are members who take advantage of that single grade arrangement by "Contributing less, little or nothing".

Thanks,

Chris Philippo

On Thu, May 19, 2011 11:54 am, Conflict Resolution wrote:

Mr. Philippo,

This conversation would probably be better suited occurring over phone, but in regards to your question - the information provided in the "unauthorized collaboration" definition should cover it. Approved group work is acceptable, depending on the instructor/discipline/assignment, etc...

If this doesn't clarify anything for you, please call us 442 5501.

"Unauthorized collaboration" doesn't appear to refer to approved group work:

"Unauthorized Collaboration: Collaborating on projects, papers, or other academic exercises when this is regarded as inappropriate by the instructor(s). Although the usual faculty assumption is that work submitted for credit is entirely one's own, standards on appropriate and inappropriate collaboration vary widely among individual faculty and the different disciplines. Students who want to confer or collaborate with one another on work receiving academic credit should make certain of the instructor's expectations and standards." http://www.albany.edu/undergraduate_bulletin/regulations.html

The Office of Conflict Resolution and Civic Responsibility seemed to be taking the position that when group work is approved then "contributing less, little or nothing to a group assignment and then claiming an equal share of the marks" (a written policy at other universities but not at UAlbany) is also approved - but weren't willing to state that more clearly except over the phone (which is harder, but not impossible, to have a record of).

I'd asked because it had been my experience with group work at UAlbany, particularly when it came to the use of "Team-Based Learning" (TBL), a proprietary group learning system that the Institute for Teaching, Learning and Academic Leadership at UAlbany actually offered professors monetary bonuses to adopt. The Trouble with TBL is a topic that requires detailed description, but for now:

From: Trudi Jacobson

Subject: Remix project

Date Sent: April 25, 2011 9:32 PM

To: Christopher Philippo(CP113322)

CC: Gregory Bobish(GBOBISH)

Hello Chris,

Prof. Bobish and I have been in touch about the team remix project potential problem. Participate in the meeting tomorrow evening, and see how the resulting remix turns out. If it is not something you are satisfied with, you may create and submit your own, with a due date to be determined, but probably by the weekend. We just ask that you not share this back-up arrangement with the rest of your team.

Please let us know what you decide by Wed. after class.

Prof. Jacobson

My reply:

From: Christopher Philippo

To: Trudi Jacobson(TJ662)

CC: Gregory Bobish(GBOBISH)

Subject: RE: Remix project

Sent: April 26, 2011 1:04 AM

Thank you again for meeting with me today.

I am more or less happy with what I've done for it on my own for the remix. I regret that it hasn't worked out so far as a group project. I certainly think it's possible, with teammates more engaged with or concerned about the class, or the team, or the grade, that interaction during production could result in something better. Though creative work like a remix is, I think, more easily done on an individual basis, but there have been very creative teams too, Monty Python's Flying Circus, The Daily Show writers, art movements, etc. Perhaps it requires more similar-mindedness, but maybe you can think of examples of creative teams didn't need that. I did collaborate on a Wikipedia article once with someone whose politics were largely opposite mine, but in that case there was mutual self-motivation and I suppose a mutual respect of sorts, a recognition of the validity of each other's knowledge and contributions. More the exception than the rule there, in my experience at least.

I have been frustrated and I suppose sad that the collaborative aspect hasn't worked for our group so far. I wasn't complaining about the little extra work I volunteered for, an introduction for our piece beyond my individual contribution. I was concerned, given the single group grade being given out, about the prospect of (possibly) good individual work (regardless of the team or individual or course) being pulled down by (possibly bad) last-minute work. I don't know what I'll be seeing Tuesday afternoon, if it will meet the requirements for the assignment, be a remix, be any good, or if I'll be seeing something like "Twitter is a search engine" again (something from a group project in another class).

I was also concerned about how a group grade might be more of a demotivator than a motivator. Some students want As, some are satisfied with less, some only wish to pass, and some may be avoiding thinking about it. If people can do little or nothing and get a mediocre or even good grade for that, surely there are some people who will.

On the subject of "free-riders." Appendix A to Team-Based Learning: A Transformative Use of Small Groups and http://tblc.camp9.org/FAQ states, though I don't see the sources to back the claim, that the two tendencies of concerns about "free-riders" originate with (1) better students refusing to let others do the work or (2) group grades disproportionately raising individual grades if overweighted. That those are described as tendencies seems to imply a familiarity with other scenarios which are implied to be less common.

I can imagine the former sometimes happening, but it seems to me that the more common variation on that scenario is better workers having to do more because the others refuse to, not that the opportunity is taken away from them. This happens even with something as little as the non-smoking restaurant worker who always has to do the additional work of the smokers while they're on a smoke break. I don't think one would say the non-smoker took away the smokers' work, and so they decided to have a smoke instead. But in practice, the non-smokers who don't do the smokers' work while they're gone would lose their jobs, but doing the extra work doesn't result in higher pay for them, or lesser pay for the smokers. Nor are "fresh air" breaks offered. I'm not sure that's fair.

The second scenario I wasn't entirely sure I understood. If I described it correctly above, it would seem that even if one weighted a grade more towards individual work, it would still result in a grade that is raised on the basis of work in which one had little or no hand. Consequently, the problem, if it is seen as such, doesn't seem to go away.

Thank you for the offer about an individual project, though I have mixed feelings about that. I've done extra work as it is (unbeknownst to my teammates) to cover the possibility of my teammates coming up with nothing. I'd also made the multiple attempts to try to get us moving as a group, sent in different ways, written in different ways, written at different lengths from short to long, the longest of them being an attached document with nearly 1,800 words. But if teammates can affect grades, and more extra work is the only way to address the problem, then I expect I'll accept the offer.

I hope I'm conveying my distress, concerns and skepticism in a fair and reasonable way. I wanted to raise the concerns I was having, something I do think I am probably more motivated to do by virtue of being an older student.

I appreciate that there's innovation in instruction and by no means think the old ways are necessarily best. And I do appreciate the materials you've introduced to us. (I do remain attached to the printed word, to vinyl, to celluloid film though!)

Regards, Chris

Was the sarcasm in my response clear enough amidst the sincerity? Aside from the inappropriate nature of the offer my professors had made, with respect to grading there were a number of other problems with the course. E.g. TBL involves changing, during the semester, the grading criteria that had been on the syllabus at the start of the semester. It involves students in the class coming to an agreement with the professor about how they would like the grading criteria to be changed. That's not exactly consistent with UA policy on grading:

"Students must be informed (see section on Course Syllabi) of the criteria for determining final grades at the very beginning of each semester. The criteria may not be changed while the course is in progress." http://www.albany.edu/undergraduateeducation/grading.php

"The grading process is not, and should not be allowed to become, one of negotiation between faculty and students." http://www.albany.edu/undergraduateeducation/grading.php

Deviations, especially in grading criteria, cannot occur during the semester (Regulations of the Commissioner of Education). http://web.archive.org/web/20100527113414/http://www.albany.edu/undergraduateeducation/policy_reminders.html#grading

"Academic policies applicable to each course, including learning objectives and methods of assessing student achievement, shall be made explicit by the instructor at the beginning of each term."

Regulations of the Commissioner of Education Title 8 Chapter II § 52.2 (e) (4) http://www.highered.nysed.gov/ocue/title_8_chapter_ii_regulations_o.htm#§ 52.2 Standards for the registration of undergraduate and graduate curricula.

Not long thereafter, SUNY Chancellor Nancy Zimpher recommended to the SUNY Board of Trustees soon after Ms. Jacobson had permitted students to free-ride on group assignments, inflate their grades, offer me , etc. that they adopt a resolution stating, "Whereas the State University of New York Board of Trustees has proudly established a historic tradition of acknowledging and honoring extraordinary faculty achievement through appointment to Distinguished Faculty Rank", etc. http://www.suny.edu/Board_of_Trustees/webcastdocs/Distinguished%20Librarian.txt

"UAlbany Faculty Members Frank Vellutino and Trudi Jacobson Are Awarded Highest Academic Rank by SUNY Board of Trustees." http://www.albany.edu/news/13451.php

But for Ms. Jacobson's misplaced devotion to Team-Based Learning and but for her academic dishonesty, she might well have deserved the award. The course was an interesting one; the final assignment challenging and fun.

I had actually reported Ms. Zimpher to the NYS Inspector General. That office being a black hole where complaints go to die, nothing seems to have come of it.

How on earth did Clarence L. McNeill become the head of the SUNY-wide judicial administrators group? What does that group do, anyway?