Claire is in her first year at the University of Ottawa. When she returned from the holiday break after her first term, she received a letter from her professor informing her that an allegation of academic misconduct had been made against her. 

 

In this letter, Claire's professor claims that she committed academic misconduct on her final exam. As he was marking the exams, he noticed that some of Claire's answers were identical to those provided by two other students. Although he had not included information about the Regulation on Academic Integrity and Academic Misconduct in the exam instructions, the professor had provided a warning about plagiarism. Claire then recalled that he had in fact warned the students that their answers would be checked for copying since this was a take-home exam. 

 

Having confirmed that it was the first time an allegation of academic misconduct was made against Claire, the professor wanted to talk to her directly to find out what had happened. During this meeting, Claire argued that she had never intended to commit academic misconduct had simply tried to help a friend who had been struggling in the course. In addition to studying together, she had agreed to share her answers with him after he specifically told her that he would not copy them word for word. Claire was therefore upset upon finding out that he had stolen her answers. She asked not to be punished for his actions. 

 

After allowing Claire the chance to make herself heard, the professor informed her that approximately 50 lines of text in her answers were identical to those provided by two other students (one of which was not mentioned in her story). When asked to explain how this happened, Claire had no explanation. She did, however, want to make it clear that her answers consisted entirely of her own words. When asked about the identical number of lines, Claire admitted that it could have been the result of online collaboration. She and the two other students shared a document that any of them could edit at any time via a Web-based application. After she acknowledged that she had posted her answers in the shared document, Claire again insisted that her answers were entirely written by her. 

 

Since the professor could not verify who wrote what in the shared document, he could not validate Claire's claim that her answers were entirely her own. He addressed Claire's request not to be punished for the actions of others by explaining that academic misconduct includes any act by a student that may result in a distorted academic evaluation for that student or another student. Therefore, by sharing her answers with other students, Claire had indeed committed academic misconduct recognized her error and agreed to retake the exam. 

Question 1 (1 point) 
Which approach was used to deal with this case of academic misconduct?

Question 1 options:

The pedagogical approach


The disciplinary approach

Question 2 (1 point) 
Which form of academic misconduct did Claire commit?

Question 2 options:

Cheating on an exam


Claiming ownership of someone else's work (plagiarism)


Handing in the same assignment in more than one course


Presenting falsified or invented data

2. Read the scenario below and answer the questions that follow.
Guiren is a fourth year undergraduate exchange student who arrived from China a few days before the start of the term. Upon attending his first seminar course, he was pleasantly surprised by how small and intimate his classes were. Two weeks after handing in his first assignment, he received a letter from his faculty's dean informing him that an allegation of academic fraud had been made against him. The letter had been sent by a seminar course professor who deemed the conduct serious enough that it needed to be handled through the disciplinary approach.

 

According to this letter, Guiren's professor claims that he committed academic misconduct on his assignment. As she was marking his paper, Guiren's professor noticed the absence of in-text citations. She found this odd considering that his bibliography listed more than 20 sources. After looking up these sources, she found that Guiren had copied several passages word for word without placing them in quotation marks or providing references.  

 

Having determined that there were reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the allegation made against Guiren was founded, the dean forwarded Guiren's file to an inquiry committee. The members of this committee invited him to respond to the allegation in writing and to attend a meeting during which he could make himself heard.

 

In his letter, Guiren expressed confusion regarding the allegation. He said that he had earned his high school diploma from a prestigious school without ever having his integrity questioned. He argued that he could not possibly have committed academic misconduct because his assignment included a bibliographic entry for all the sources that he had consulted during his research. 

 

The members of the inquiry committee started the meeting by comparing the highlighted sections of Guiren's assignment and the source material excerpts that his professor had provided as proof. After close examination, they determined that approximately four pages of text in Guiren's paper were identical to his source material.

 

When asked to explain how this happened, Guiren simply said that he had copied and pasted relevant passages from his sources to show what he had found during his research. Upon hearing his answer, the members of the inquiry committee began to suspect that Guiren did not have a clear sense of what he had done wrong. When asked to explain why claiming ownership of other people's work was a serious offence, Guiren responded that he had never intended to claim ownership of anyone's work, and that the bibliography he prepared should be evidence of this.

 

Even though the inquiry committee believed that Guiren had unintentionally committed academic misconduct, its members still had to impose a sanction because the fact remained that he had broken the rules. They stressed the importance of reading the course syllabi prepared by his professors and asking for their feedback before handing in any other assignments. 

 

After the meeting, the inquiry committee submitted a report to the dean including recommendations for appropriate sanctions. Guiren expressed regret for his actions and did not submit any additional comments. The dean then forwarded the final report to the faculty's executive committee, who decided the sanctions to be imposed.

Question 3 (1 point) 
Why was Guiren not eligible for the pedagogical approach?

Question 3 options:

Guiren did not respond to the allegation made against him.


Guiren had already been accused of academic misconduct in the past.


The professor of the course deemed the conduct sufficiently serious to merit the disciplinary approach.


Guiren refused to acknowledge having violated the University's rules and did not believe he had committed misconduct.

Question 4 (1 point) 
Which form of academic misconduct did Guiren commit?

Question 4 options:

Cheating on an exam


Claiming ownership of someone else's work (plagiarism)


Handing in the same assignment in more than one course


Presenting falsified or invented data