1. Putting Students First Doesnt Mean Letting Students By Paul Sopcak & Susan Mills MacEwan University sopcakp@macewan.ca

2. Overview – Factors that deter faculty from buying into the culture of AI and its related procedures – Potential consequences of faculty doing their own thing – Ways to encourage faculty to buy into and promote a culture of AI that puts students first Administrative ways Principled ways – Conclusion: Putting students first does not have to mean letting them by

3. Factors Keeping Faculty From Buying-In Time Fear of ruining students career/future Lack of knowledge of policy and procedures Feeling of breach of trust Feeling of violating their teaching mandate/vocation Feeling of turning their students in/hypocritical Resistance to what is perceived as a culture that puts rules, not students, first

4. Dangers of Faculty Not Buying-In Inconsistent Dealings with AI violations across institution Undermining culture of AI and student buy-in Undermining students rights Making institution vulnerable to lawsuits …

5. Administrative Ways of Encouraging Faculty Buy-In Make procedure and resources intuitive, easy, quick (templates and flowcharts) Educate faculty on curriculum development, classroom management, policy, procedures, statistics, and dispel myths Put penalty decisions for first offenders in their hands and remind them that they are in control Get provost or dean to stress importance of following policy procedures

6. Principled Ways of Encouraging Faculty Buy-In Stress potential consequences of dealing with cheaters in their own way Stress their teaching mandate/vocation and the learning opportunity that AI violations provide Remind faculty that half of AI violations are unintentional (lack of skill & knowledge) Encourage faculty to treat AI violations as policy violations rather than ethical transgressions, when appropriate Get faculty to reflect on the power of their language to encourage or stifle learning: dishonesty, misconduct, penalty should not be used lightly, for instance

7. Possible Objection and Response Objection: We are letting students by, when we focus on prevention and education over punishment. Response: 2-step approach (separate procedures for first and multiple violations) ensures: – Penalties for multiple cheaters are appropriate and consistent across the institution – Faculty has control over consequences for first (not serious) violations – Best of both worlds with a focus on student learning

8. Conclusion Being fair, consistent, sensitive to unintentional violations, and focusing on the learning experience, puts students first and does not have to mean being soft or letting students by