In July I referred three students to the University’s Central Panel for Academic Integrity. Now all cases have been heard!
It was frustrating that these students had to wait so long. But at least it now was sorted; in no time even. One student didn’t appear for their meeting, which was a pity, but it does mean the panel has to decide only on information they already had. That’s quick!
The two others did, which is better, but their meetings were brief too. They just briefly explained what had happened and why. And then the panel could go and make up its mind.
The decisions are made when I'm not present. I suppose I am equivalent to the public prosecutor, and the panel is the jury. And the judge. Somehow. So I make my case, the jury withdraws, and then decides what penalty should be issued. And in all cases, what they decided was the same as what I had recommended. Did my recommendations make any difference here? I doubt it. I think it reflects we're both sticking to the same set of regulations.
All these students will now have to redo these assignments, and only after they have done that successfully, can they graduate. So more work for us, the people involved in the modules. One of these modules is mine. I made a new assignment for the purpose.
I think the students know we will look very closely at what they produce now! I don't think they will dare to use AI for anything more fundamental than proofreading or literature searching. And I don't think they can graduate this winter. But if they get their brains into sufficiently high gear, they can get this over with, and graduate next summer. With quite some learning acquired at the end…
No comments:
Post a Comment