Carleton University acknowledges and respects the Algonquin … · 2015-06-24 · Carleton...

Carleton University acknowledges and respects the Algonquin people,

traditional custodian of the land on which the Carleton University campus is situated.

Carleton University Senate Meeting of June 26, 2015 at 10 a.m.

Senate Room, Robertson Hall AGENDA

1. Chair’s Remarks 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Minutes: a. May 29, 2015 (open session) 4. Senate Administration: a. New Senators 2015-16 (Clerk) b. Clerk of Senate c. Student Representatives on the Senate Student Academic Integrity Appeals

Committee (SSAIAC) (for approval) 5. Discussion Period a. Enrolment 6. Committee Reports a. Senate Academic Program Committee (SAPC) i. Final Assessment Report and Executive Summary: BSc Earth Sciences ii. Final Assessment Report and Executive Summary: MA European, Russian, and

Eurasian Studies and Update on BA European and Russian Studies iii. Revised SAPC Terms of Reference b. Senate Committee on Curriculum, Admission and Studies Policy (SCCASP) 7. Ratification of the Carleton University Committee on Quality Assurance

(CUCQA) 8. Report on Senate Members on the Search Committee for Vice-President

(Finance and Administration) (Clerk) 9. Reports for Information and Comment a. Report of Senate Executive: June 16, 2015 b. Activities of the Board of Governors c. Report of the Academic Colleague d. Appointments Made Contrary to the Advertising Policy (Clerk) 10. Other Business

Memorandum REVISED June 24, 2015

To: Senate From: Katharine Kelly, Clerk of Senate Re: Student Academic Integrity Appeals Committee (SSAIAC) __________________________________________________________________________ 1. Undergraduate Students: (2 positions; 2 candidates) The undergraduate students listed below are being presented for approval, as members of the SSAIAC 2015-16: • Sarah MacNeil • Michael Daudlin 1. Graduate Students: (1 position; 3 candidates) The following graduate students have expressed their interest in serving on the Committee. Please find their biographical information below. A vote will be held at the Senate meeting, on June 26, 2015. Justin Naccarato I am a graduate student at Carleton in the Department of Legal Studies and I will be starting my second year this coming September. My research interests include Legal ethics, justice and diplomacy, threat management, counter-terrorism and national security studies. Currently I am writing my Masters Research Essay on States of Emergency in Canada and the United States, focusing specifically on legislation enacted since the start of the War on Terror. I believe that I would be a perfect candidate for the position on SSAIAC. I am highly organized, responsible and efficient in all the work I undertake. Furthermore, my work as a Teaching Assistant for Professor Dickson-Gilmore for the last two semesters has given me first-hand experience in the academic appeals process. Not only was I responsible for instructing students on how to avoid instances of academic fraud, I had to make a determination as to a breach of the rules in several instances. Through this posting on SSAIAC, I will

1

http://carleton.ca/senate/standing-committees/academic-integrity-appeals/

be able to use my experience as a mature student and a teaching assistant to adjudicate issues fairly and objectively but also compassionately. Marcus Sibley I am currently an M.A. candidate in the Department of Law and Legal Studies and am extremely excited to begin a SSHRC funded PhD in the same program this September. Before beginning my studies at Carleton, I completed my B.A (Hons) in Criminology and worked as an Academic Advisor and Programs Coordinator in the Faculty of Liberal Arts and Professional Studies at York University. I was often tasked with preparing files for Senate review committees, including files related Academic Integrity and Honesty. As part of the admissions team at York, I was also in charge of preparing and evaluating files (albeit at a preliminary stage) for subcommittee review from students who did not meet basic admission criteria. Such files often included sensitive information or letters of extenuating circumstance from students who may come from unique socio-economic backgrounds, which required equitable evaluations in light of our admission policies. Currently working as a Teaching and Research Assistant at Carleton, I am fully cognizant of the importance Academic Integrity plays within our community and its significance in developing strong scholarship. I believe that while students should be expected to maintain a high level of academic integrity, external pressures may influence students into pursuing non-conventional and sometimes problematic means of meeting these academic standards. My experience and lengthy involvement in both the academic and administrative landscapes of post-secondary education allows me to approach individual circumstances with open-mindedness, integrity, and professionalism. Devon Valentine My background is as follows. I am originally from the small community of Osgoode on the edge of the City of Ottawa. I still regularly visit, volunteering my time teach at the local karate club. I am currently at the end of my first year in the Master of Arts Legal Studies program here at Carleton University. Prior to enrolling in the program I attended Carleton for my Bachelor’s degree, majoring in political science, from the fall of 2010 through to the spring of 2014. Throughout my undergraduate career I strove to maintain a balance of academic and extra-curricular pursuits. I was able to achieve many academic successes, such as making the Dean’s List, receiving the

2

Clarence B. Gibson Scholarship, and presenting my research at various conferences to my peers and professors. In addition to these experiences I also regularly participated in Relay for Life, volunteered for FROSH week, helped raise money for the CIBC Run for the Cure, as well as numerous other charitable events while completing my studies. I also balanced part-time work throughout my years at Carleton to ensure I graduated debt free at the end of my Bachelor’s degree, a goal I am happy to say I achieved. These experiences helped me hone my leadership skills, teamwork abilities, and work ethic. They enriched my experiences in my undergraduate studies and instilled the desire to continue to volunteer in extra-curricular activities at the graduate level.

3

CARLETON UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON QUALITY ASSURANCE

Cyclical Review of the Undergraduate Programs in Earth Sciences

Executive Summary and Final Assessment This Executive Summary and Final Assessment Report of the cyclical review of Carleton's undergraduate Programs in Earth Sciences are provided pursuant to articles 4.2.5-4.2.6 of the provincial Quality Assurance Framework and articles 5.1.9.23-24 and 5.1.9.26-27 of Carleton's Institutional Quality Assurance Process (IQAP). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The B.Sc. Honour’s degree (20 credits) and Combined Honour’s degree, the B.Sc. Major (20 credits) and the B.Sc. General (15 credits) programs in Earth Sciences are administered by Carleton University’s Department of Earth Sciences, an academic unit of the Faculty of Science. As a consequence of the review, the programs were categorised by the Carleton University Committee on Quality Assurance (CUCQA) as being of GOOD QUALITY (Carleton's IQAP 5.1.9.12). The external reviewers’ report, submitted in December 2014, offered a very positive assessment of the programs. The reviewers enthusiastically noted that “the Department enjoys a strong reputation with industry and government, and it boasts a large and supportive alumni base that spans the country.” The report in addition praised “the 11 tenure-stream faculty of the Department of Earth Sciences, who are all research-active and internationally-recognized in their sub-disciplines of geology… Undergraduates greatly benefit from the diverse research expertise of the faculty and adjuncts, including experiential learning in the field and through hands-on experiences with many of the same instruments used for cutting-edge science.” The report concluded that “graduates of the Earth Sciences programs are well placed, after graduation, to continue their education by pursuing post-graduate work or to apply for registration as a Professional Geoscientist as they seek full time employment opportunities.” Within the context of this most positive assessment, the report nonetheless made several recommendations for the continuing enhancement of the undergraduate programs. These recommendations were accepted by the Department and Dean in a thorough response to the report of the external reviewers that was received by CUCQA in March 2015. On 19 June 2015, CUCQA received and approved an Action Plan detailing how all these recommendation will be addressed. The recommendations and the actions to be taken are detailed in the Action Plan.

FINAL ASSESSMENT REPORT Introduction The B.Sc. Honour’s degree (20 credits) and Combined Honour’s degree, the B.Sc. Major (20 credits) and the B.Sc. General (15 credits) programs in Earth Sciences are administered by Carleton University’s Department of Earth Sciences, an academic unit of the Faculty of Science. As a consequence of the review, the program was categorised by the Carleton University Committee on Quality Assurance (CUCQA) as being of GOOD QUALITY (Carleton's IQAP 5.1.9.12). The site visit, conducted by Professor Greg Finn (Brock University) and Professor R. Mark Leckie (University of Massachusetts Amherst), took place on 10-11 November 2014. The reviewers had a series of meetings with representatives of the University Administration, including the Vice-Provost and Associate Vice-President (Academic) and the Dean of the Faculty of Science. The reviewers also met with members of the Department, including the Chair, Sharon Carr, members of the Program Review team, and undergraduate students. They also viewed the departmental lab facilities. This Final Assessment Report provides a summary of:

• Strengths of the programs • Challenges faced by the programs • Opportunities for program improvement and enhancement • The Outcome of the Review • The Action Plan

This report draws on seven documents:

• The Self-study developed by the Department of Earth Sciences (please see Carleton's IQAP 5.1.1-5.1.5) (Appendix A)

• The Report of the External Review Committee (IQAP 5.1.9.9) (Appendix B) • The response from the Department to the Report of the External Review Committee

(IQAP 5.1.9.10) (Appendix C) • The internal discussant's recommendation report (IQAP 5.1.9.11) (Appendix D) • The communication from CUCQA regarding the outcome of the external review (IQAP

5.1.9.13) (Appendix E) • The Department’s Action Plan {IQAP 5.1.9.13 & 5.1.9.14) (Appendix F) • The acceptance by CUCQA of the Action Plan (Appendix G)

Appendix H contains brief biographies of the members of the Review Committee. This Final Assessment Report contains the Action Plan (Appendix F) agreed to by the Department of Earth Sciences and the Dean of the Faculty of Science regarding the

implementation of plans and recommendations for program enhancement to have been advanced as a consequence of the cyclical program review process. The Action Plan provides an account of who will be responsible for implementing the selected plans and recommendations, as well as of the timelines for implementation and reporting. Strengths of the programs General The Reviewers stated that “the Department enjoys a strong reputation with industry and government, and it boasts a large and supportive alumni base that spans the country.” They added that the Department “provides Carleton University Earth Sciences undergraduates with a world-class 20-credit BSc Honour’s degree.” Faculty The external report praises “the 11 tenure-stream faculty of the Department of Earth Sciences, who are all research-active and internationally-recognized in their sub-disciplines of geology… Undergraduates greatly benefit from the diverse research expertise of the faculty and adjuncts, including experiential learning in the field and through hands-on experiences with many of the same instruments used for cutting-edge science.” Administrative Staff The review committee mentioned that the Department “has a pro-active and creative Chair, supported by a very strong and competent front office staff. The Chair enjoys strong support from the faculty and students. There is a strong sense of camaraderie among all members of the Department.” Program and Curriculum The External Reviewers observed that “the undergraduate students of the Department of Earth Sciences have access to a diverse suite of core courses and electives focused on hands-on, real world learning in laboratories and with in-house and local research instrumentation, as well as access to a wide spectrum of summer research opportunities with industry, government agencies, including the Geological Survey of Canada, and the Museum of Nature, among many others. Most importantly, the undergraduate students have access to vital field experiences ranging from field schools to day and weekend field excursions, which are one of the hallmark features of the 60-year-old Earth Sciences program at Carleton University.”

Experiential Learning, Field Work and Internships The Reviewers reported that “The Earth Sciences faculty provide their students with exceptional experiential learning opportunities in the field and in the laboratories. These are value-added attributes that translate into jobs for their graduates and a strong national reputation with both government and industry.” According to the review team, “one of the strengths of the Earth Sciences program at Carleton, recognized by the students and commented on by the faculty, is the field component of the program. Having funding available to assist in offsetting the costs to students to participate ensures that all students can benefit from these valuable (and valued) field experiences.” The Reviewers added that “a diverse cadre of local adjunct faculty collectively provide students with valuable internship opportunities and connections with the working world beyond Carleton.” Student prospects upon graduation The Reviewers stressed that “graduates of the Earth Sciences programs are well placed, after graduation, to continue their education by pursuing post-graduate work or to apply for registration as a Professional Geoscientists as they seek full time employment opportunities.” Outreach The review committee remarked that in recent years, “the Department of Earth Sciences has reached out to the broader community, including annual workshops for local science teachers and strong ties with the Museum of Nature. These outreach activities have created greater visibility for the Department and the University.” Challenges faced by the programs The Review Committee expressed some concern about the link between program-level and course-level learning outcomes. The Reviewers indicated that the Department should define learning outcomes at the course level to ensure the connection between the overarching learning outcomes and what is actually being taught in class. Furthermore, the Reviewers felt that the Department should also identify methods of assessment to enable the systematic evaluation of the degree to which learning outcomes are attained. In light of impending retirements, the Reviewers urged the Department to plan for the strategic replacement of retiring faculty member with individuals whose expertise complements that of existing faculty and supports the undergraduate program. A similar concern regarding the imminent retirement of technical staff was also expressed by the Reviewers.

The Reviewers also noted that some laboratory space and equipment are either inadequate or will soon be obsolete. Ensuring replacement or improvement of material and storage should be a priority for the program. Finally, while students are generally served well by the Department, the Reviewers nevertheless cautioned faculty that every effort should be made to address program progression and postgraduate pathways to ensure successful completion of the degree program. Opportunities for program improvement and enhancement As a result of the Review, CUCQA identified 15 areas for improvement:

1. Define course-level learning outcomes and map these onto the program outcomes; 2. Seek strategic replacement of retiring faculty member; 3. Add new faculty in “softrock” geology, nanotech or medical/health geology; 4. Work with Dean and Advancement to secure an Endowed Chair in Resource Geology; 5. Hire full-time Laboratory Coordinator for 1st-year Earth Sciences and 2nd-year

Engineering Geoscience laboratories; 6. Seek commitment from Administration for replacement of retiring technical staff; 7. Secure suitable, perennially dry storage space for samples and field equipment; 8. Seek commitment from Administration for the acquisition of research instruments

for recent faculty hires; 9. Seek commitment for the acquisition of new research instruments for teaching and

research; 10. Publish a 2-year “look-ahead” course schedule for students to facilitate planning; 11. Define methods of assessment for course and program learning outcomes; 12. Establish a ‘Welcome to Earth Sciences’ event at the end of the 1st year to provide

students with an overview of what to expect in 2nd, 3rd and 4th year; 13. Provide 2nd and/or 3rd-year students with short-courses or mini-workshops focusing

on useful software tools; 14. Investigate with Geography the feasibility of a double major in Earth Sciences and

Geomatics; 15. Conduct exit interviews with your graduating 4th year students.

The Outcome of the Review As a consequence of this review, CUCQA categorized the Undergraduate Programs in Earth Sciences as being of GOOD QUALITY. (Carleton’s IQAP 5.1.9.12). The Action Plan. In March 2015, the Department provided a thorough response to the External Reviewers’ comments, and on 19 June 2015, CUCQA received and approved the Department’s Action Plan detailing how these issues will be addressed. CUCQA was appreciative of the

Department’s efforts to implement numerous changes in a timely fashion, some of which have already been implemented. It is to be noted that Carleton’s IQAP (5.4) provides for the monitoring of action plans: ‘A report will be filed with Carleton’s Office of Quality Assurance by the faculty dean and academic unit when the timeline is reached for the implementation of each element of the action plan. This report will be forwarded to CUCQA for its review. In consultation with the Provost, CUCQA may request additional action or reports from the faculty dean and/or the academic unit.’ In the case of the Earth Sciences Action Plan, the majority of monitoring will be achieved by means of regular updates on the Action Plan, the first of which being expected by December 1st 2015. The Next Cyclical Review The next cyclical review of the undergraduate programs in Earth Sciences will be conducted during the 2019-20 academic year.

Quality Assurance Action Plan Department of Earth Sciences Sharon D. Car, Chair, Earth Sciences, May, 2015

1

Response to Review of Undergraduate Programs in Earth Sciences

Action Plan - May, 2015 The cyclical program review, in accordance with article 5.1.9.12 of Carleton’s Institutional Quality Assurance Process, CUCQA has categorised the undergraduate programs in Earth Sciences as “good quality”. The Department of Earth Sciences is in agreement with the fifteen recommendations proposed by the External Reviewers. The following document, providing our responses to the recommendations, has been developed by the Department of Earth Sciences in collaboration with Dr. Butler, the Dean of Science. Please see Table 1 for a summary of our responses with assignment of responsibility and time lines for each recommendation. Recommendations and replies: 1) Recommendation: Define the course level learning outcomes and map course level outcomes onto the program outcomes. Reply: We see this as a constructive tool for evaluating our curriculum and ensuring that our courses dove-tail with each other. With the advice of Mr. Patrick Lyons and Ms. Samah Sabra of EDC, we are currently in the process of defining course level learning outcomes. We will map them back to the program outcomes and revise course outcomes as needed. 2) Recommendation: Seek strategic replacement of retiring faculty member with expertise that complements that of existing faculty and that supports the undergraduate program. Reply: We intend to provide a rationale and make a formal request on a case by case basis as Faculty retire. We have the support of the Dean of Science to strategically replace upcoming retirements. 3) Recommendation: Addition of a new faculty in soft rock geology (e.g., Petroleum Geology, or siliciclastics), nanotech or medical/health geology to capture existing or emerging demands in the Earth sciences. Reply: We intend to provide a rationale and make a formal request to the University for a Petroleum or Unconventional Resource Geoscientist. Given that we are below critical mass to deliver core courses for our professionally accredited programs, we rank positions that contribute to these programs over those that may take us in new directions. 4) Recommendation: Work with the Dean of Science and Advancement Officers to secure funding for an Endowed Chair in Resource Geology (unique to region). Reply: We continue to approach philanthropists who may support the Endowed Chair, seek out ‘connectors’ that may help us identify prospective donors, work developing better connections with our Alumni, and continue to improve our image and publicize the department’s achievements. 5) Recommendation: Hire a permanent, full-time Laboratory Coordinator for 1st year Earth Sciences and 2nd year Engineering Geoscience laboratories. Reply: The Dean of Science has approved this position for the 2015-16 budget cycle. Steps are now underway to have the position formally created, and we are on a schedule to advertise and fill the position in the fall of 2015.


2

6) Recommendation: Secure commitment from the Administration for the strategic replacement of retiring technical staff. Reply: The next foreseeable retirement is Mr. Peter Jones, our microprobe specialist. Dr. Butler, the Dean of Science, recognizes that this position is built into the base budget and sees no reason that this position may not continue. 7) Recommendation: Secure suitable, perennially dry storage space for irreplaceable geologic samples and expensive field equipment. Reply: The Dean of the Faculty of Science and the Chair of the Department of Earth Sciences continue to liaise with Ms. Anne Richards, the University Strategic Space planner, and to lobby university administrators to find solutions to this untenable situation.

8) Recommendation: Seek confirmation and a commitment from the Administration for the acquisition of research instruments for recent faculty hires. Reply: The Dean of the Faculty of Science reiterates his pledge to support New Faculty in their acquisition of research facilities through support of instrument applications to funding agencies, as those opportunities become available. 9) Recommendation: Seek confirmation and a commitment from the Administration for the acquisition of new research instruments for teaching and research: namely, XRF hand-held analyzer and ITRAX core scanner. Reply: In the case of the XRF hand-held analyzer, the Dean of Science has agreed to make this a funding priority in the 2016-17 and 2017-18 budget cycles. In the case of the ITRAX core scanner, Dr. Patterson is putting a team together to apply for external funding. 10) Recommendation: Publish and update, on a regular basis, a 2-year look-ahead course schedule so that students can better plan their preferred sequence of courses, particularly when courses are cycled. Reply: This criticism mainly pertains to our 4th year course offerings. Compared to the ~10 year time period that was under consideration for the cyclical review, we have now stabilized our course offerings considerably; we have built up a roster of 4th year courses that will be offered annually. We will plan as much of our course delivery as possible on a two-year cycle, communicate the availability of courses to students well in advance, and council students as per items 12 & 13 (below). There are some limitations which cannot be overcome regarding scheduling of 4th year courses more than one year in advance (e.g., funds for contract instructors are approved on an annual basis;we are notified of fourth year courses offered in the Joint Institute, the Ottawa Carleton Geoscience Centre, by U of O, on relatively short notice, etc.). 11) Recommendation: Define methods of assessment for course and program learning outcomes for all programs. Reply: We see these as tools for getting concrete feedback about course and program delivery in order to improve the quality of our courses and programs. Some assessments are in place (e.g. Honours theses, Honours student publications, etc.) and others will be embedded once course learning outcomes and mapping of course outcomes to program outcomes are complete. 12) Recommendation: Establish a ‘Welcome to Earth Sciences’ gathering (event?) at the end of 1st-year designed specifically to provide an overview of what to expect in 2nd, 3rd and 4th-year, including Field Geology at the end of 2nd-year, and how best to navigate course selection, as well as scholarship and summer internship opportunities.


3

Reply: We have done this starting in 2014-15, and plan to continue on an annual basis. Dr. Claudia Schroder Adams with the background support of the Departmental Administrators, Chair and Undergraduate Advisor hosts a mandatory information session and luncheon. 13) Recommendation: Provide 2nd and/or 3rd-year students with short-courses or mini-workshops focusing on useful software tools, including Excel and Illustrator, as well as geophysical and petroleum software, to further prepare them for the Research Methods course, research projects, and Honours theses during 4th-year. Reply: Starting in 2014-15 we have developed and implemented strategies to address knowledge gaps such as those regarding computer software, as well as areas where there may knowledge retention problems. As of Fall 2015, a new course, ERTH 4820 Research Methods in Earth Sciences, will be available to third and fourth year students on an annual basis. In Fall 2014 we appointed an Undergraduate Mentor who put on a program of academic and professional workshops, and provided office hours and one-on-one mentorship. The mentor worked with professors to identify academic areas for reinforcement, and liaised with our Department Computer Specialist and on-campus Career Services and Writing Tutorial Services to fill perceived gaps in student knowledge. Workshops included the following; Departmental Tour of Research Facilities, Mineralogy/Petrology Review, Computing Skills, Writing Tools & Strategies, Resume Writing, Learning to Learn – Learning Styles, and Time Management. We will further develop software workshops for inclusion in future Mentorship programs. 14) Recommendation: Investigate, in conjunction with Geography, and introduce, if feasible, a double major in Earth Sciences and Geomatics (or concentration/minor in Geomatics) that would appeal to students and reflect demand by employers. Reply: A representative of the Department of Earth Sciences will liaise with GEOG/GEOM in the 2015-16 academic year and work to achieve this if possible. We already have close ties with GEOG/GEOM via the Ottawa Carleton Geoscience Centre, shared research interests, and shared interests in joint program initiatives such as the proposed Northern Studies program. 15) Recommendation: Conduct exit interviews with your graduating 4th year students; they will provide thoughtful suggestions for continued improvements, as well as long-term community building with your newly minted alums. Reply: We will develop exit interviews and exit surveys (as part of the assessment of Learning Outcomes) with advice from Patrick Lyons and his colleagues. A template for an exit survey has just been developed as part of a national move by Earth Sciences Departments (via the Council of Canadian Earth Sciences Chairs and the Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences) to carry out exit surveys in parallel with a US program. The proposed web-based survey has been developed with standardized questions, for Canadian Universities, to collect information about how students are attracted to a program and where they end up being employed as well and a section that may be adapted for specific universities and departments. This template will be evaluated and adapted to our needs, if acceptable.


4

Table 1: Summary of recommendations, response and time lines.

Recommendation Action Responsibility Timelines

1 a. Define course-level learning outcomes and

b. Map course-level outcomes onto the program outcomes

Define course-level learning outcomes, map course-level outcomes onto the program outcomes with curriculum discussions, revise course outcomes as needed and include in course syllabi

a. Chair, Faculty, Contract Instructors

b. Chair, Faculty

a. October 2015 b. January 2016

2 Seek strategic replacement of retiring faculty member

Present rationale and request to administration upon notification of Faculty retirement

Chair (representing consensus of Department) & Dean of Science

Case by case: as soon as Faculty notifies university of retirement

3 Add new faculty in “softrock” geology, nanotech or medical/health geology

Present rationale and request to administration; seek funding opportunities for new positions (e.g. Banting)

Chair (representing consensus of Department) & Dean of Science

Initiate immediately; ongoing until successful

4 Work with Dean and Advancement to secure an Endowed Chair in Resource Geology

Approach philanthropists; identify ‘connectors’; build Alumni network

Chair and Dean of Science

Ongoing; continue until successful

5 Hire full-time Laboratory Coordinator for 1st-year Earth Sciences and 2nd-year Engineering Geoscience laboratories

Permission has been granted by Dean of Science for 2015-16 budget cycle

Chair, Human Resources staff & Dean of Science

Ongoing; position will be created ASAP and filled in fall 2015.

6 Seek commitment from Administration for replacement of retiring technical staff

Present rationale and request to administration upon notification of staff retirement

Chair & Dean of Science

Case by case; : as soon as staff notifies university of retirement

7 Secure suitable, perennially dry storage space for samples and field equipment

Ongoing: requests are being put forward to strategic space planner and upper administrations by Dean of Science

Chair & Dean of Science

Ongoing; continue until successful

8 Seek commitment from Administration for the acquisition of research

Prepare proposals in conjunction with Research Services

PI & Dean of Science Case by case


5

instruments for recent faculty hires

9 Seek commitment for the acquisition of new research instruments for teaching and research

Prepare proposals in conjunction with Research Services

a. XRF analyzer, Dr. Brian Cousins & Chair

b. TRAX core scanner, Dr. Patterson (PI) & Research Services

a. 2016-17 or 2017-18 as funds available

b. 2016-17

10 Publish a 2-year “look-ahead” course schedule for students to facilitate planning

Proactive student counselling, establishing regular patterns of fourth year course delivery

Undergraduate Administrator (Ms. Sarah Adams) under direction of Chair & Departmental Administrator (Mrs. Sheila

Fall 2015

11 Define methods of assessment for course and program learning outcomes

Establish and implement assessment protocols for evaluating program learning outcomes

Chair and Department Faculty Members

Fall 2016

12 Establish a ‘Welcome to Earth Sciences’ event at the end of the 1st year to provide students with an overview of what to expect in 2nd, 3rd and 4th year

Schedule annual mandatory class meeting with 1st year students

Dr. Claudia Schroder Adams with Undergraduate Supervisor (Dr. Patterson) and Undergraduate Administrator (Ms. Sarah Adams)

2015-16 Academic Year

13 Provide 2nd and/or 3rd-year students with short-courses or mini-workshops focusing on useful software tools

Integrate software workshops into Undergraduate Mentoring program

Undergraduate Department Mentor and Computer Specialist under direction of Chair

2015-16 Academic Year

14 Investigate with Geography the feasibility of a double major in Earth Sciences and Geomatics

Set up exploratory meetings with Geography and is successful, plan and propose a joint program

Dr. Tim Patterson 2015-16 Academic Year

15 Conduct exit interviews with your graduating 4th year students

Develop exit survey protocols; Adapt existing Geoscience surveys for our department purposes

Dr. Brian Cousens, Ms. Beth Halfkenny, (Ms. Sarah Adams)

Spring 2017, or sooner

CARLETON UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON QUALITY ASSURANCE

Cyclical Review of the Master’s Program in European, Russian and Eurasian Studies

And Update on BA Programs Executive Summary and Final Assessment

This Executive Summary and Final Assessment Report of the cyclical review of Carleton's Master’s Program in European, Russian and Eurasian Studies are provided pursuant to articles 4.2.5-4.2.6 of the provincial Quality Assurance Framework and articles 5.1.9.23-24 and 5.1.9.26-27 of Carleton's Institutional Quality Assurance Process (IQAP). While the cyclical review focused on the graduate program, the brief also included an update on the BA programs, which were reviewed in 2010-11. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Master’s Program in European, Russian and Eurasian Studies is administered by Carleton University’s Institute of European, Russian and Eurasian Studies, an academic unit of the Faculty of Public Affairs. As a consequence of the review, the program was categorised by the Carleton University Committee on Quality Assurance (CUCQA) as being of GOOD QUALITY WITH INTERNATIONAL PRESENCE (Carleton's IQAP 5.1.9.12). The external reviewers’ report, submitted in December 2014, offered a very positive assessment of the programs, describing EURUS as “a national and international leader in the interdisciplinary study of these regions.” It “has maintained the high standards and reputation for leadership in its field that it has enjoyed since the 1970s.” Unlike similar programs elsewhere in Canada and North America, the review committee added, “EURUS stands out for its emphasis on intensive research and the opportunities for professional development through its co-op program.” In the Reviewers’ opinion, “the program offered by EURUS is highly relevant to society today. The unit specializes in an area of high geostrategic importance in world politics.” Furthermore, “the strong public engagement of the program promotes the development of engaged citizens – not only for those students registered in the program, but also for the broader public.” The Reviewers also stated “that there is a high level of education and research in this graduate program. The theses and research papers that were examined provided abundant and concrete evidence for this conclusion.” Speaking to graduate students, the Reviewers “were also impressed by their strong commitment to research, especially producing research that involved working with original-language sources.” The Reviewers concluded that “the EURUS program at Carleton stands out in its ability to prepare students for their chosen career path following graduation.”

Within the context of this most positive assessment, the report nonetheless made a few recommendations for the continuing enhancement of the program. These recommendations were accepted by the Institute and the Deans of the Faculty of Public Affairs and the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Affairs in a thorough response to the report of the external reviewers that was received by CUCQA in March 2015. On 19 June 2015, CUCQA received and approved an Action Plan detailing how these issues will be addressed. The update on the BA programs described the progress that EURUS has made in implementing the action plan devised in response to the last Undergraduate Periodic Review, which took place in 2010. Recommendations from the UPR focused on three areas: curricular changes, consultation with sister units, and non-academic measures to foster student engagement. Other initiatives are also underway.

FINAL ASSESSMENT REPORT Introduction The Master’s Program in European, Russian and Eurasian Studies is administered by Carleton University’s Institute of European, Russian and Eurasian Studies, an academic unit of the Faculty of Public Affairs. As a consequence of the review, the program was categorised by the Carleton University Committee on Quality Assurance (CUCQA) as being of GOOD QUALITY WITH INTERNATIONAL PRESENCE (Carleton's IQAP 5.1.9.12). While the cyclical review focused on the graduate program, the brief also included an update on the BA programs, which were reviewed in 2010-11. The site visit, conducted by Professor David McDonald (University of Wisconsin-Madison) and Professor Lori Thorlakson (University of Alberta), took place on 4-5 December 2014. The reviewers had a series of meetings with representatives of the University Administration, including the Vice-Provost and Associate Vice-President (Academic) and the Dean of the Faculty of Public Affairs. The reviewers also met with members of the Institute, including the Director, faculty and students. They also viewed the Institute’s facilities in the River Building. This Final Assessment Report provides a summary of:

• Strengths of the program • Challenges faced by the program • Opportunities for program improvement and enhancement • The Outcome of the Review • The Action Plan

This report draws on seven documents:

• The Self-study developed by the Institute of European, Russian and Eurasian Studies (please see Carleton's IQAP 5.1.1-5.1.5) (Appendix A)

• The Report of the External Review Committee (IQAP 5.1.9.9) (Appendix B) • The response from the Institute to the Report of the External Review Committee

(IQAP 5.1.9.10) (Appendix C) • The internal discussant's recommendation report (IQAP 5.1.9.11) (Appendix D) • The communication from CUCQA regarding the outcome of the external review (IQAP

5.1.9.13) (Appendix E) • The Institute’s Action Plan {IQAP 5.1.9.13 & 5.1.9.14) (Appendix F) • The acceptance by CUCQA of the Action Plan (Appendix G)

Appendix H contains brief biographies of the members of the Review Committee. This Final Assessment Report contains the Action Plan (Appendix F) agreed to by the Institute and the Deans of the Faculty of Public Affairs and the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Affairs regarding the implementation of plans and recommendations for program

improvement and enhancement to have been advanced as a consequence of the cyclical program review process. The Action Plan provides an account of who will be responsible for implementing the selected plans and recommendations, as well as of the timelines for implementation and reporting. Strengths of the programs General The Reviewers stated early in their report that EURUS is “a national and international leader in the interdisciplinary study of these regions.” It “has maintained the high standards and reputation for leadership in its field that it has enjoyed since the 1970s.” Unlike similar programs elsewhere in Canada and North America, the review committee added, “EURUS stands out for its emphasis on intensive research and the opportunities for professional development through its co-op program.” Moreover, “thanks to the level of financial support that Carleton can provide, and to the unique richness of the program itself, EURUS has competed very successfully with its counterpart at the University of Toronto in recruiting the best qualified candidates in Canada.” Faculty, Administration and Governance The external review praises faculty members for being “very successful at securing external funding through research grants and philanthropic donations.” EURUS is “a small unit that achieves a high impact with its resources. It cooperates very effectively with other departments in the Faculty of Public Affairs and Faculty of Arts and Social Science.” Many students “noted that the collegial atmosphere and accessibility of faculty was a key factor in their choice of EURUS for graduate studies.” Program and Curriculum The External Reviewers remarked that “the program offered by EURUS is highly relevant to society today. The unit specializes in an area of high geostrategic importance in world politics.” The Institute “offers a very current curriculum in the rapidly developing fields of transition studies and European integration. The curriculum stands out for its truly interdisciplinary approach, particularly as concerns training in various disciplinary methodologies.” They also noted “that the team-taught core courses (5001 and 5001B) are very well designed and provide a thorough, rigorous and interdisciplinary coverage of core theories, concepts and methodological approaches.” Experiential Learning and Co-op program According to the Reviewers “the experiential elements of the course—the co-op program, internships and exchange opportunities—are excellent ways to deliver the learning objectives and outcomes identified by the program.” The report states that “EURUS manages to carve a niche for itself in part due to its co-op program, which provides a unique

element that leverages Carleton’s location in Ottawa to develop true professionals in these fields. This feature helps EURUS stand out as an innovator and leader in the new wave of “professional MA” programs springing up across the continent.” Students The Reviewers commented “that there is a high level of education and research in this graduate program. The theses and research papers that were examined provided abundant and concrete evidence for this conclusion.” Speaking to graduate students, the Reviewers “were also impressed by their strong commitment to research, especially producing research that involved working with original-language sources.” Space and Resources The Reviewers observed that “EURUS is housed in excellent facilities in the River Building. Both students and faculty are very satisfied with the physical space, which includes generous provision of office space for graduate students”. They added that “the richness of Carleton’s library holdings of materials on EURUS’s areas of concentration provide an excellent basis for the program’s emphasis on research; they also attest to the Institute’s longstanding position as a destination for study in the field.” Outreach The review committee remarked that “the Institute offers a rich program of outreach and community-oriented events, including talks by prominent scholars and international officials… It maintains strong public outreach elements with its Ottawa and international networks through public events, internships and co-op opportunities, and student exchanges.” Furthermore, “the strong public engagement of the program promotes the development of engaged citizens – not only for those students registered in the program, but also for the broader public who are able to take advantage of these events.” Student Prospects upon Graduation The Reviewers concluded that “the EURUS program at Carleton stands out in its ability to prepare students for their chosen career path following graduation.” Challenges faced by the programs The review committee was concerned that “there is currently some pressure from the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Affairs for EURUS to increase its graduate enrolments. This could threaten part of what makes the program successful and attractive to students.” Students told the Reviewers “that they are very worried about the prospect of increased class sizes. They feel that already some cross-listed seminars are at capacity and a further increase would adversely affect the learning experience in discussion-intensive sessions.”

There is also a concern regarding “anticipated retirements, which will create significant gaps in Russian Studies, a longstanding strength of the Institute, particularly in the discipline of History, which once hosted three Russianists. A gap in this area of expertise would threaten EURUS’s profile and continued success.” In the same vein, the Reviewers argue that “Russian language training provision provided on-campus is not currently adequate for the needs of the MA program.” Some “students are obliged to delay their degree-completion due to the difficulties they face in obtaining fourth-year level instruction in Russian as a research language.” On a related note, the Reviewers “identified a concern with slow completion rates.” Although the Dean of FGPA did not share this concern, some students “thought that language training caused undue delays in completion. Some students felt that limited provision of language training unduly delayed their program progression.” To determine whether there is indeed an issue with completion rates, the Reviewers stated that “it will be important for EURUS to track completion time in such a way that allows them to distinguish between the two main sources of delayed completions: those due to conscious decisions on the part of students to invest their time in the co-op program or to undergo language training through an exchange program; and delays (or attrition) due to poor program planning on the part of students or difficulties in accessing the level of language training necessary for the degree.” Finally, the Reviewers remarked that, while collaboration with other units tends to be very successful, “inter-unit cooperation could also be improved by ensuring that procedures for interdepartmental (and inter-faculty) cooperation be clarified and simplified if necessary, through cross-listing of courses, for example, but also by facilitating the provision of team-taught courses.” Opportunities for program improvement and enhancement As a result of the Review, CUCQA identified 8 areas for improvement:

1. Possible increase in enrolments; 2. Language training as a factor in delaying times-to completion; 3. More sophisticated tracking of times-to-completion; 4. Chairs and directors of supporting units routinely representing their units on

EURUS’s management committee; 5. Clarification and simplification of interdepartmental cooperation; 6. The need to increase the number of faculty specialising in Russia; 7. Russian language training; 8. Expanding the role of the RA [sic] position supporting EURUS.

The Outcome of the Review As a consequence of this review, CUCQA categorized the Master’s Program in European, Russian and Eurasian Studies as being of GOOD QUALITY WITH INTERNATIONAL PRESENCE. (Carleton’s IQAP 5.1.9.12). The Action Plan In March 2015, the Institute provided a thorough response to the External Reviewers’ comments, and on 19 June 2015, CUCQA received and approved the Institute’s Action Plan detailing how these issues will be addressed. CUCQA was appreciative of the Institute’s efforts to implement numerous changes in a timely fashion, some of which have already been implemented. It is to be noted that Carleton’s IQAP (5.4) provides for the monitoring of action plans: ‘A report will be filed with Carleton’s Office of Quality Assurance by the faculty dean and academic unit when the timeline is reached for the implementation of each element of the action plan. This report will be forwarded to CUCQA for its review. In consultation with the Provost, CUCQA may request additional action or reports from the faculty dean and/or the academic unit.’ In the case of the EURUS Action Plan, the majority of monitoring will be achieved by means of regular updates on the Action Plan, the first of which being expected by1st December 2015. Update on BA programs The update on the BA programs described the progress that EURUS has made in implementing the action plan devised in response to the last undergraduate periodic review, which took place in 2010. The recommendations raised in the UPR focused on three areas: a) curricular changes; b) consultation with sister units; c) and non-academic measures to increase student engagement.

a) EURUS has implemented six changes to the curriculum: 1) removal of the concentration structure; 2) creation of new second-year EURR core courses, EURR 2001 “Current Issues in European Politics and Society” and EURR 2002 “Europe and Russia in the World”; 3) move EURR 2000 to the third-year level, creating two courses: EURR 3001 and 3002; 4) addition of a minor option; 5) addition of a co-op option for the BA Honours Program; 6) and addition of a BA General option.

b) In terms of consultation with sister units, EURUS has been involved in ongoing multilateral discussions, particularly with the Department of History and the School of Linguistics and Language Studies, regarding two main issues: 1) the need for a faculty-hire in Russian/Soviet history; and 2) expanding the number of courses and range of European language courses, especially in Russian and German. EURUS has

also been involved in the creation of Carleton’s Summer Institute on Language and Culture, which was created in 2013.

c) Regarding non-academic measures, EURUS has implemented various practices

designed to create a stronger sense of identity among EURUS BA students and increase the opportunities for faculty-student interaction. In particular, the Institute has concentrated on five initiatives 1) planning events specifically for BA Honours students and faculty; 2) increasing contact between EURUS BA Honours students and core EURUS faculty by having a core faculty member co-teach the new 2000-level EURUS courses; 3) seeking funding to support student participation in study abroad; 4) improving the computer/lounge space for BA Honours students; 5) and encouraging the formation of a EURUS BA students’ association.

In addition to these responses to specific recommendations, three other initiatives are also underway: 1) development of on-line and distance learning options for courses; 2) creation of a required first-year course, EURR 1001 “Introduction to European and Russian Studies”; and 3) implementation of a specialization in the new interdisciplinary Bachelor of Global and International Studies (BGINS) that will launch in the fall of 2015. The Next Cyclical Review The next cyclical review of the BA and MA programs in European, Russian and Eurasian Studies will be conducted during the 2020-21 academic year.

MEMORANDUM

To: John Shepherd, Vice-Provost and Associate Vice-President (Academic)

From: Achim Hurrelmann, Director, EURUS

André Plourde, Dean, Faculty of Public Affairs

Matthias Neufang, Dean, Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Affairs

Date: May 15, 2015

Re: IQAP Action Plan, MA Program in European, Russian and Eurasian Studies

This action plan responds to eight issues identified by the Carleton University Committee on

Quality Assurance (CUCQA) in response to the external review of the EURUS MA program. It

is based on our joint response to the external reviewers’ report, submitted to CUCQA on

February 11, 2015. The action plan will outline our response to the eight issues, which will be

summarized in tabular form at the end.

1. Possible increase in enrolment: We agree with the reviewers’ suggestion that the admission

targets for the EURUS MA should not be raised above the current level of 20 domestic MA

students. Given the thesis/research essay requirement in the EURUS MA, students enrolled

in this program need extensive supervision, which requires the current student-faculty ratio to

be maintained. EURUS has in good recruitment years taken in slightly more than 20 students,

and is willing to do so in the future. However, the relatively small applicant pool for a

specialized program like EURUS means that meeting even to the current admission target

requires an exceptional investment of time and resources for purposes of student recruitment.

To maintain current levels of enrolment in an increasingly competitive environment, EURUS

will continue to use donor funds from our Pushkin Fund to employ a part-time Outreach and

Development Coordinator (ODC) for 10-15 hours per week. Under the supervision of the

EURUS Director, the ODC’s work will focus on advertising the program to potential

students (through classroom visits, participation in recruitment fairs, social media, one-on-

one discussions, etc.) and on convincing accepted MA applicants to take up the EURUS offer

(through personal outreach).

2. Language training as a factor in delaying times to completion: We share the reviewers’

concern about the admission of first-year MA students with no adequate foreign language

training. While the great majority of students in this situation have been able to acquire the

necessary language proficiency while at Carleton, there are a number of cases in which this

problem has delayed or even prevented program completion. We do not think, however, that

the solution proposed in the report – admitting the affected students to a Qualifying Year in

which they could focus on language training – is feasible. Given that there is no funding for

students in a Q-Year, our experience is that most students admitted to a Q-Year will be lost to

other universities. Besides, students should not be penalized for the fact that foreign language

education has been dramatically cut back at many universities. Instead of changing admission

practices, we will develop, and monitor more systematically, individual language training

plans for all incoming students who do not have an adequate language background. These

2

language training plans will first be developed for the incoming MA cohort joining the

program in September 2015; this practice will be continue for all subsequent cohorts. The

students’ progress in language training will be reviewed yearly as part of the newly instituted

progress reports (see item #3). The language training plans will be drawn up by the Director

of the Institute, in consultation with the appropriate language instructors in the School of

Linguistics and Language Studies.

3. More sophisticated tracking of times to completion: We agree with the reviewers’ suggestion

to develop a better system for tracking times to completion. While we do not consider times

to completion a major problem of the program, and have in fact observed an improvement

recently due to our efforts to more clearly delimit the research essay option, a significant

number of EURUS MA students do take longer than the standard two calendar years to

complete their degree. We agree with the reviewers that it is necessary to distinguish if such

program extensions are due to (a) a student’s conscious investment of time in potentially

beneficial activities such as co-op or language training or (b) poor program planning on part

of the student or difficulties in accessing necessary courses. In order to draw this distinction,

and monitor times to completion more systematically, we will implement yearly progress

reports for all MA students, to be issued each summer, which track the completion of

program and language requirements and include individual recommendations. These progress

reports will first be issued for current first-year MA students in August 2015; for this cohort

and all future cohorts, they will be issued yearly from then on. The progress reports will be

drawn up by the Director of the Institute, with administrative support by the Administrator

and by the FGPA, and in consultation with each student’s research essay/thesis supervisor.

We will explore options of formally incorporating the progress report in the students’ audit,

similarly to FGPA’s milestone reports at the PhD level.

4. Composition of the Committee of Management: The reviewers’ report recommends that

Carleton units supporting EURUS should routinely be represented by their Chairs or

Directors in the Committee of Management. We do not think it would be advisable to make

this a general rule. At present, many units are represented by their respective European/

Russian experts, and we have found their contributions very valuable. We propose to leave it

to Chairs and Directors to decide whether they want to self-nominate themselves for the

EURUS Committee of Management, or whether they want to nominate another faculty

member. The EURUS Director will discuss these options more explicitly with the Chairs and

Directors of contributing units whenever new representatives for the Committee of

Management must be nominated (usually in September; members have a two-year term).

5. Clarification and simplification of interdepartmental cooperation: The report suggests that

processes such as the cross-listing of courses or the provision of team-taught courses across

units should be simplified. EURUS has not experienced major problems in these respects.

Initiatives are ongoing in the Faculty of Public Affairs to enhance various forms of cross-unit

cooperation. In addition, a review of the governance of interdisciplinary (multi-unit)

programs in FPA was recently concluded; it reached the conclusion that there are “no

significant issues relating to [multi-unit programs] that needed to be addressed at the level of

the Faculty”.

3

6. Number of faculty specializing in Russia: In our assessment, the current number of faculty

appointed to EURUS, or associated with the unit, is sufficient to provide the MA program.

The lack of a Russianist in the History Department (under the responsibility of the Dean of

Arts and Social Sciences) is a long-standing area of concern, even though this problem has

been partially addressed by the 50% appointment of a Russian/Eurasian historian to EURUS.

In addition, we want to emphasize that it will be crucially important for the viability of

EURUS that the senior faculty members teaching Russian politics within EURUS are

adequately replaced when they decide to retire. In this event, decisions on hiring will be

made within the regular hiring procedures implemented in the Faculty of Public Affairs.

7. Russian language training: We agree with the report that Russian language instruction at

Carleton is currently not sufficient to meet the needs of the EURUS MA, even though we

recognize the efforts of the School of Linguistics and Language Studies to provide the best

possible services within their limited resources. We are particularly concerned about the lack

of regular fourth-year Russian classes; these could only be offered in recent years because

EURUS decided to pay for them using donor funds. The Faculty of Public Affairs is

committed to finding a more sustainable solution for the provision of these essential courses.

The Dean of FPA will enter into discussions with SLALS about an appropriate cost-sharing

model to secure the provision of fourth-year Russian instruction, to be implemented

beginning in the 2016/17 academic year.

8. Expanding the role of the RA position supporting EURUS: EURUS currently uses donor

funds to employ a part-time Outreach and Development Coordinator (ODC) who works

primarily on student recruitment initiatives. In addition, one RA funded from the TA budget

of the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Affairs works within EURUS, mostly on event

planning and event management. The report suggests expanding the role of the RA, in

particular to work on the establishment of alumni networks. We agree that alumni

engagement should be expanded. In the spring of 2015, EURUS has already implemented

some initiatives, in cooperation with Carleton’s Alumni Office, including a career night with

alumni and the activation of the Institute’s LinkedIn account “EURUS alumni and friends”

(doubling its membership within two months). The RA will continue to work on such alumni

engagement initiatives.

Issue Proposed measures Responsibility Timeline

Possible increase in

enrolment

Continued employment of Outreach and

Development Coordinator (ODC),

enabled by donor funds, to support

recruitment activities

Director EURUS Ongoing

Language training as a

factor in delaying

times to completion

Development of language training plans

for all incoming students

Director EURUS, in consultation

with appropriate instructors in

SLALS

September 2015 (for

incoming MA cohort)

More sophisticated

tracking of times to

completion

Development of yearly progress reports

for all MA students which track the

completion of program and language

requirements, and include individual

recommendations

Director EURUS, with support by

Administrator and FGPA, in

consultation with student’s

research essay/thesis supervisor

August 2015 for current

first-year MA students,

yearly from then on for all

students who entered in Fall

2014 or later

Composition of the

Committee of

Management

Extended consultation with Chairs and

Directors of contributing units, which

discuss the option of Chair’s/Director’s

self-nomination

Director EURUS September 2015 for units

whose representatives must

be re-appointed, yearly from

then on

Clarification and

simplification of

interdepartmental

cooperation

Initiatives to enhance cross-unit

cooperation and review of delivery of

interdisciplinary programs in the Faculty

of Public Affairs

Dean FPA Ongoing; review of

interdisciplinary programs

concluded in March 2015

Number of faculty

specializing in Russia

Replace senior faculty members

teaching Russian politics when they

retire, within the context of FPA’s

regular hiring procedures

Dean FPA Will become relevant if and

when retirements occur

Russian language

training

Develop cost-sharing model with

SLALS to ensure that fourth-year

Russian language courses are offered

without having to draw on donor funds

Dean FPA, in negotiation with

Director SLALS

To be in place for the

2016/17 academic year

Expanding the role of

the RA position

supporting EURUS

Develop alumni engagement strategies

(including career nights, social media)

which can be maintained by the RA

appointed to EURUS

Director EURUS Ongoing since Spring 2015

SAPC – Proposed Terms of Reference The mandate of the Senate Academic Program Committee (SAPC) is to consider and make recommendations to Senate on matters pertaining to the appropriateness, merit and quality of Carleton University’s academic programs except where such matters fall within the mandate of the Senate Committee on Curriculum, Admissions and Studies Policy. The context for SAPC’s mandate is provided by Carleton University’s strategic and academic plans as these may from time to time be established by the Senate and/or the University’s Board of Governors. As such, SAPC will:

1. Receive and discuss reports provided on a regular basis by the Office of the Vice-Provost and Associate Vice-President (Academic) on the development of new academic programs, the cyclical review of existing academic programs, and major modifications to existing academic programs.

2. Through its Chair, submit on a regular basis digests of such reports and discussions to

Senate as provided for in article 1.5 of Carleton’s Institutional Quality Assurance Process.

3. Receive reports from the Carleton University Committee on Quality Assurance regarding proposals for new undergraduate and graduate programs, and make recommendations to Senate regarding such reports.

4. Receive reports from the Carleton University Committee on Quality Assurance regarding proposals for major modifications to undergraduate and graduate programs, and make recommendations to Senate regarding such reports.

5. Receive final assessment reports regarding the cyclical review of existing undergraduate and graduate programs from the Provost and make recommendations to Senate regarding such reports.

6. Consider and make recommendations to Senate on the establishment, restructuring and dissolution of faculties, departments, schools, colleges and institutes that offer academic programs.

7. Initiate proposals and recommendations on issues and topics falling within its purview, in addition to reviewing and offering advice on proposals and recommendations originating elsewhere.

8. Undertake other academic tasks as assigned by Senate.

MEMORANDUMfrom the Senate Committee on

Curriculum, Admission And Studies Policy

TO: Senate

FROM: D. Russell, Chair

DATE: June 18, 2015

SUBJECT: Revisions to the Academic Integrity Policy (2)

Academic Integrity Policy The Academic Integrity Policy has been under revision for severalyears. At the Senate meeting on May 29, 2015 the following two motions were moved and passed:

1. It was MOVED (J. Osborne, R. Hoey) that the timeline as proposed under Section 7 of thePolicy be referred back to the Committee.

2. It was MOVED (P. Ricketts, W. Jones) that Senate approve the revised Academic IntegrityPolicy in principle with the exception of the timeline as proposed under Section 7 of thePolicy.

Changes in Response to Senate Since the Senate meeting in May, SCCASP has consideredthe issues of the timelines raised in Senate and consulted with the University Counsel and anotherpracticing lawyer. Both legal opinions support the position taken by SCCASP and have recom-mended the following wording changes to make it clear. Their assistance has been very helpful.

1. on page 11, section VII/2 the wording has been changed to read:

“A meeting will be scheduled to occur within fifteen (15) working days or as soonthereafter as practicable following the receipt of the allegation by the Deanso�ce.”

This addition doesn’t change the intent of the original revisions buy makes it clear thatmeetings may be delayed and happen after the 15 day deadline.

2. on page 11, section VII/3 the wording has been changed to read:

“The Faculty Dean will inform the student, with a copy to the Ombudsperson, ofthe nature of the allegation in the breach of this Policy, the details of the evidenceagainst him or her (including copies where appropriate), the procedures to befollowed as well as the time and place of the meeting. ”

This change arose from the concern that, in cases where the meeting is delayed, the studentmay be unaware of the evidence and cannot reasonably respond to the allegations. In allcases it is critical to inform the student of the details of the allegations, even more so in caseswhere the meeting is delayed. Both legal opinions stressed that it is highly important fromthe perspective of procedural fairness that, in every case, the student be provided with theevidence against them and be allowed time to consult before the meeting with the Dean.

The last paragraph of this section has been modified to remove the reference to “ten (10)working days” as this was felt to further hinder the process.

3. The last paragraph in section X discussing appeals in the context of timelines has beenmodified for clarity:

“Carleton University recognizes that there are circumstances that make followingthe time constraints imposed in this policy di�cult or impossible. In cases wherethe time constraints specified in this policy are not followed by either the studentor the university, an appeal based on delay shall only be granted in cases where thedelay is unreasonable, unjustified or places an undue burden on the student.”

In discussions with legal counsel it is clear that any judgement about when a delay1 might be“unreasonable, unjustified or places an undue burden on the student.” is context dependentand we leave this determination to the wisdom of the Academic Integrity Appeals Committee.

4. Several typos were fixed and the remaining instances of ”dishonesty” were changed to ”mis-conduct”.

Senate approved in principal all of the other proposed changes to the policy. Attached is onedocument showing only the additional changes proposed since the last Senate meeting. Materialprovided at the May meeting of Senate is available on the Senate website.

1. Academic Integrity Policy (Second Revision).pdf (21 pages)

MOTION: That Senate approve the revised Academic Integrity Policy.

1including cases where the Dean has scheduled the meeting with the student more than 15 days after the receipt

of the allegation by the Dean’s o�ce

2

Policy Name: Academic Integrity Policy

Originating/Responsible Department: Vice-President (Students and Enrolment)

Approval Authority: Senate, June 1, 2006

Date of Original Policy: July 1, 2006

Last Updated: Month, Day, Year

Mandatory Revision Date: Month, Day, Year

Contact: Clerk of Senate

Carleton University Academic Integrity Policy

Page 2

I INTRODUCTION Carleton University is a community of scholars dedicated to teaching, learning and research. Sound scholarship rests on a shared commitment to academic integrity based on principles of honesty, trust, respect, fairness and responsibility. Academic misconduct, in any form, is ultimately destructive to the values of the University. Conduct by any person that adversely affects academic integrity at Carleton University is a serious matter. The University demands, unequivocally, academic integrity from all of its members, including students. Misconduct in scholarly activity will not be tolerated. The Academic Integrity Policy is concerned with student academic integrity. The integrity of a student's academic work is critical to enabling student success. Students who violate the principles of academic integrity undermine the quality of their education and the value of a Carleton University degree.


Page 3

II SCOPE The Academic Integrity Policy:

• describes those actions and behaviours which violate Carleton University's standards of academic integrity;

• defines the responsibilities of various offices and individuals in upholding the policy; • specifies the procedures and processes to be followed when an allegation of violating

these standards has been made against a student; • specifies the sanctions that may be applied to a student who has been found to have

violated these standards; and, • describes the appeal and petition processes open to students who feel they have not

been treated fairly under this policy. It is our goal to ensure that all involved in student academic integrity at Carleton University are treated in a fair, transparent and consistent manner. This policy applies to all students as defined by this Policy. Any student who violates the standards of academic integrity set out in this policy will be subject to appropriate sanctions. The Carleton University Student Rights and Responsibilities Policy governs the non-academic behaviour of students, whereas this policy governs academic misconduct. In some cases, a student’s actions may involve both academic and non-academic issues. In such cases, the student may be subject to the procedures of either or both policies. Students are reminded that sanctions imposed by the University for breach of this Policy do not prevent the imposition of civil or criminal law sanctions by the relevant authorities in appropriate circumstances.


Page 4

III PRINCIPLES Carleton University seeks to ensure that allegations of violations of this Policy are managed appropriately. The following principles serve as the foundation for this policy:

��allegations shall be handled in a fair and equitable manner adhering to principles of procedural fairness and natural justice;

��Carleton University's expectations for students regarding academic integrity will be clearly communicated;

��where possible, sanctions are to be educational and rehabilitative rather than punitive; ��students will be advised and guided through the process to ensure that they are

properly informed and aware of their options. � investigative procedures shall recognize importance of timeliness, clarity and

consistency.


Page 5

IV DEFINITIONS Appeal refers to the process by which students may appeal a decision pursuant to this Policy. Allegation refers to information sent to the Dean by an instructor or staff member relating to his/her concern that a student may have committed a violation of this Policy. For example, an instructor may send a student's assignment and pages taken from an article to the Dean’s office for investigation because he/she thinks the student’s paper has been plagiarised from that article. Committee refers to the Senate Student Academic Integrity Appeals Committee. Dean means the chief academic and administrative officer of a Faculty or an Associate Dean of the Faculty who has been designated by the Dean to manage the academic misconduct process. Disciplinary Record means the record retained by the Office of Student Affairs in respect of a student who has committed a violation of this Policy. A disciplinary record is kept confidential. It is different from the academic transcript and includes only that information specific to the allegation and decision made pursuant to this Policy. Evidentiary Records are those records that are created as a result of an allegation that a student has violated the Policy and includes records created for that purpose by instructors, Chairs, Directors and Deans. Examination includes tests, quizzes, mid-term, final and deferred examinations. Expulsion from the University means the termination of all of a student’s rights and privileges as a student at the University. Return to studies at the University is possible only through a petition to Senate. If expelled, the student shall be withdrawn from courses in which a violation has not been committed without academic penalty. Faculty may mean:

• A major teaching division of the University divided into departments, schools or other units and headed by a Dean. (e.g. Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences).

• The academic teaching staff of the University. Instructor means any individual employed by the University to teach. Misconduct refers to actions by a student that constitute a violation of the academic integrity standards defined in this policy. Office of Student Affairs refers to the Office that provides procedural advice to instructors, students, Faculties and University administrators with respect to case investigation and documentation in the administration of the appeals process in this Policy and maintains the disciplinary records on students who have violated academic integrity. Ombudsperson provides advice and guidance to students with respect to this Policy. Policy means the Academic Integrity Policy. Provost refers to the Provost and Vice-President (Academic) who is the chief academic officer of the University.


Page 6

Registrar’s Office is the office responsible for maintaining the academic records of all Carleton University students, past and present, undergraduate, graduate and special. Senate Student Academic Integrity Appeals Committee is a Standing Committee of Senate appointed by Senate. Student appeal requests are submitted to the Senate Academic Appeals Committee through the Office of Student Affairs. Student, for the purposes of this Policy, means any person who at the time of the alleged violation of this policy satisfied at least one of the following criteria:

• was admitted to a program, including an undergraduate or graduate degree, diploma or certificate program;

• was registered in a course; • was registered in a non-credit course offered by the University; • was applying to obtain admission, readmission or registration in a program or a course

if it is alleged the person breached this Policy in order to obtain admission, readmission or registration.

Suspension is a sanction under this Policy that removes a student’s right to register in any courses, or to be awarded a degree, diploma or certificate for a specified period of time. The suspension referred to in this policy is a sanction and should not be confused with suspension, as defined in the calendar, that is the result, in certain circumstances, of an Academic Performance Evaluation (APE).


Page 7

V RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES The University upholds and will take reasonable steps to ensure that students are aware of their rights and responsibilities as members of the University community. The importance of confidentiality of each student’s academic and disciplinary University record is recognized and will be protected in accordance with legislative and policy obligations. Students can expect other members of the Carleton University community to demonstrate honesty and integrity in their teaching, research and administrative practices. Instructors, staff, and administrators hold a responsibility to support an environment that discourages violation of the standards of academic integrity and to assist students in completing their university degree successfully. The Ombudsperson is available to advise students of their rights and responsibilities under this Policy, to advise them on the procedures to be followed, and to accompany them at meetings with the Dean and hearings with the Senate Student Academic Integrity Appeals Committee pursuant to this Policy. Students can expect fairness and equity in the assessment of their work. Students are responsible for being aware of and demonstrating behaviour that is honest and ethical in their academic work. Such behaviour includes:

• Following the expectations articulated by instructors for referencing sources of information and for group work.

• Submitting original work, citing sources fully, and respecting the authorship of others. • Asking for clarification of expectations as necessary. Students who are in any doubt as

to whether an action on their part may be viewed as a violation of the standards of academic integrity should ask for clarification.

• Identifying situations that may reasonably lead to a violation of this policy. • Preventing their work from being used by others, e.g. protecting access to computer

files, etc. • Adhering to the principles of academic integrity when conducting and reporting

research. Instructors at both the graduate and undergraduate level have the responsibility to provide clear guidelines concerning their expectations of academic integrity (e.g. rules of collaboration or citation) on all course outlines, assignment and examination material. In particular, graduate supervisors hold the responsibility to provide trustworthy mentoring.


Page 8

VI ACADEMIC INTEGRITY STANDARDS Effective adherence to academic integrity requires that students understand the meaning of academic misconduct. The following list describes conduct that violates standards of academic integrity, which may lead to the imposition of sanctions pursuant to this Policy. It is important to note that this is neither a comprehensive nor a mutually exclusive list and should not be viewed as exhaustive. 1. Plagiarism Plagiarism is presenting, whether intentionally or not, the ideas, expression of ideas, or work of others as one’s own. Plagiarism includes reproducing or paraphrasing portions of someone else’s published or unpublished material, regardless of the source, and presenting these as one’s own without proper citation or reference to the original source. Examples of sources from which the ideas, expressions of ideas or works of others may be drawn from include but are not limited to: books, articles, papers, literary compositions and phrases, performance compositions, chemical compounds, art works, laboratory reports, research results, calculations and the results of calculations, diagrams, constructions, computer reports, computer code/software, and material on the internet. Examples of plagiarism include, but are not limited to:

• submitting a take-home examination, essay, laboratory report or other assignment written, in whole or in part, by someone else;

• using ideas or direct, verbatim quotations, paraphrased material, algorithms, formulae, scientific or mathematical concepts, or ideas without appropriate acknowledgment in any academic assignment;

• using another's data or research findings; • submitting a computer program developed in whole or in part by someone else, with or

without modifications, as one�s own • failing to acknowledge sources through the use of proper citations when using another's

work and/or failing to use quotations marks. 2. Unauthorized Resubmission of Work A student shall not submit substantially the same piece of work for academic credit more than once without prior written permission of the course instructor in which the second submission occurs. Minor modifications and amendments to an essay or paper, such as changes in phraseology, do not constitute a significant and acceptable reworking of an assignment. 3. Unauthorized Co-operation or Collaboration An important and valuable component of the learning process is the progress a student can make as a result of interacting with other students. In struggling together to master similar concepts and problems and in being exposed to each other’s views and approaches, a group of students can enhance and speed up the learning process. Carleton University encourages students to benefit from these activities which will not generally be viewed as a violation of this policy. With the exception of tests and examinations, instructors will not normally limit these interactions. Students shall not co-operate or collaborate on academic work when the instructor has indicated that the work is to be completed on an individual basis. Failure to follow the instructor’s directions in this regard is a violation of the standards of academic integrity. Unless otherwise indicated, students shall not co-operate or collaborate in the completion of a test or examination.


Page 9

Group Work: There are many cases where students are expected or required to work in groups to complete a course requirement. Normally, students are not responsible for violations of this policy committed by other members of a group in which they participate. In order to make a determination that part of the work submitted by a group of students violates this policy it is necessary that that part of the work that is alleged to have violated the policy can be directly attributed to a particular student. 4. Misrepresentation Students shall not submit or present false assignments, research, credentials, or other documents or misrepresent material facts for any academic purpose. Examples of misrepresentation include but are not limited to:

• falsified research or lab results and data; • falsified facts or references; • falsified medical or compassionate certificates; • falsified admission documents; • falsified letters of support or other letters of reference; • falsified academic records, transcripts, diplomas or other registrarial records; • falsified dates or times of submission; • falsified scores or records of an examination result; and/or • resubmitted graded work.

5. Impersonation It is a violation of the standards of academic integrity to impersonate another person or enter into an arrangement with another to be impersonated by any means for the purposes of gaining academic advantage including in the taking of examinations, tests, or the carrying out of laboratory or other assignments. 6. Withholding It is a violation of the standards of academic integrity to withhold records, transcripts or other academic documents to mislead or gain unfair academic advantage. 7. Obstruction and Interference It is a violation of the standards of academic integrity to obstruct or otherwise interfere with the scholarly activities of another in order to gain unfair academic advantage. This includes but is not limited to interfering or tampering with data or files, with human or animal research subjects, with a written or other creation (e.g. a painting, sculpture, file), with a chemical used for research, with any other object or study or research device or with library, electronic or other materials intended for academic use. 8. Disruption of Classroom Activities, Periods of Instruction, or Examinations Carleton University has a commitment to provide an appropriate environment for learning. It is a violation of the standards of academic integrity for a student registered in a class to disrupt the class or other period of instruction, or an examination with any action or behaviour reasonably judged by the instructor, lab assistant or tutorial assistant to be detrimental to the activity. Normally disruption of activities outside of the classroom or outside of periods of instruction or by a student not registered in the class is dealt with under the Student Rights and Responsibilities Policy but in particular cases may be subject also to this Policy. 9. Improper Access It is a violation of the standards of academic integrity to improperly obtain access to confidential information such as examinations or test questions or to gain undue academic advantage as a result of such behaviour.


Page 10

10. Improper Dissemination It is a violation of the standards of academic integrity to publish, disseminate, or otherwise make available to a third party confidential information without prior consent. Confidential information includes but is not limited to academic information, data or documents (including draft documents) which are not otherwise publicly available and which have been gathered or held with reasonable expectation of confidentiality. This includes, for example, unpublished data or drafts of articles for publication. In particular, students are expected to follow the Carleton University Policies and Procedures for the Ethical Conduct of Research. 11. Knowingly Assisting in the Violation of the Standards of Academic Integrity To assist anyone in violating the standards of academic integrity is itself a violation of academic integrity standards and subject to this Policy. Claiming ignorance of or confusion about the academic integrity standards as described in this Policy does not excuse a student from being responsible for violations of those standards. 12. Tests and Examinations The University is committed to ensuring fairness and consistency in the completion of examinations. As part of this commitment, students are required to follow proper examinations procedures. A student who commits a violation of this Policy on an examination, test, or take-home examination, or obtains or produces an answer or unfair advantage are subject to sanction under this Policy. This includes but is not limited to:

• bringing to the examination/test room any unauthorized material; • writing an examination or part of it, by consulting any person or materials outside the

confines of the examination room without permission to do so; • intentionally leaving answer papers exposed to view; • attempting to read other students��examination papers; • speaking to another student (even if the subject matter is irrelevant to the test); • disrupting or delaying a test or examination; • failing to comply with the instruction of a University official administering an examination.

A violation of this Policy may also occur by breaching one of the Rules and Procedures of Examinations.


Page 11

VII PROCEDURES 1. Alleged Violation Instructors, advisors and/or supervisors must report all suspected cases of violation of this Policy to the Faculty Dean. All evidence relevant to the alleged violation should be sent to the relevant Faculty Dean’s office responsible for administering the course in which the alleged violation took place within five (5) working days after the discovery of the evidence. In academic units where consultation with the Chair (or delegate) is required, instructors will forward all appropriate documentation to the Chair who will, upon his/her judgment, forward it to the relevant Dean’s office within five (5) working days after receiving it from the instructor. The Dean may advise the instructor to record a grade of GNA (grade not available) on the Final Grade Report. The grade of GNA will be replaced by an appropriate grade once the allegation has been resolved. 2. Review of Allegation by Faculty Dean Upon review of the documentation, the responsible Dean may determine that:

• there is insufficient evidence to proceed and return the documentation to the instructor. If the assignment was not graded at the time it was sent to the Dean, the instructor will grade the assignment without penalty or prejudice.

• there is sufficient evidence to proceed and arrange a meeting with the student to discuss the matter. A meeting will be scheduled to occur within fifteen (15) working days or as soon thereafter as practicable following the receipt of the allegation by the Dean�s office.

If the student is enrolled in a program in another Faculty, the Dean will notify the other Faculty Dean(s) of the allegation and the Deans will decide whether both Faculties will be involved in the meeting. The Dean responsible for the course is the Dean who will make the determination in the case. If the student is a graduate student, the Dean of the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Postdoctoral Affairs will notify the Faculty Dean(s) responsible for the administration of the course or program and the Deans will decide whether all relevant Faculties will be involved in the meeting. 3. Contacting the Student The Faculty Dean will inform the student, with a copy to the Ombudsperson, of the nature of the allegation in the breach of this Policy, the details of the evidence against him or her (including copies where appropriate), the procedures to be followed as well as the time and place of the meeting. The student will be encouraged to seek the advice of the University Ombudsperson. The University Ombudsperson, or delegate of the University Ombudsperson, may be invited by the student or the Dean to attend the meeting. If the student does not respond to the request for a meeting, or if the student does not attend the meeting, the Dean may make a decision on the available evidence. In cases where the student is unable to attend a meeting in person, he or she may request a meeting using a suitable alternate mode of communication and it will be arranged if possible or provide a written statement. 4. Checking for Previous Violations The Faculty Dean shall inquire with the Office of Student Affairs to determine if there are any previous violations of the Policy by the student.

Donald Russell� 2015-6-17 3:00 PMDeleted: from

Donald Russell� 2015-6-17 3:03 PMDeleted: within ten (10) working days Donald Russell� 2015-6-17 3:24 PMDeleted: refuses toDonald Russell� 2015-6-18 2:42 PMDeleted: n


Page 12

5. Determining Whether a Violation Has Occurred The purpose of the Dean’s meeting is investigative, rehabilitative and educational in nature. It is also meant to:

• provide students with an opportunity to respond to the allegation made against them; • seek clarification of the evidence; • help students understand academic integrity standards and responsibilities, and • enable the Dean to decide whether or not this Policy has been violated.

The Faculty Dean shall determine, based on his or her discussion with the student and a review of all relevant evidence, whether a breach of this Policy has been committed, and if so, an appropriate sanction. 6. Notification of Decision Student The Dean will inform the student of the decision, normally within five (5) working days of the Dean’s meeting. If the Dean concludes that it is necessary to conduct further investigation, the student will be informed of any new information and be given the opportunity to respond either in writing or in person before a final decision is made as to whether this Policy has been violated. If the Dean determines a violation of this policy has been committed, then the written decision to the student will include a description of the conduct, the sanction imposed and the relevant details on which the finding and the sanction were based. In cases where the student has admitted to a violation of this Policy, reference to this fact will be made in the letter. The student will also be informed of the appeal process and his or her right to take such action. In cases where the Dean determines there has been no violation of this Policy, the record of the decision will be kept in the Dean’s office. Other Offices The instructor and where appropriate, the Department/Unit Chair, other Faculty Deans, and the Ombudsperson will be informed of the Dean’s decision. In cases which require action by the University or where penalties affect a student’s academic record, the Dean will notify the University Registrar within ten (10) working days of the penalty decision. The University Registrar’s Office will record these changes within five (5) working days of receiving notification of the penalty decision. Office of Student Affairs Where the Dean determines that there has been a violation of the Policy and imposes a penalty, a copy of the decision letter will be sent to the Office of Student Affairs and shall be maintained centrally by that Office. These records are Disciplinary Records and are maintained and destroyed in accordance with Part XI of the Policy. 7. Procedures for Recommending a Sanction to the Provost or Senate Executive Provost In a case where the Dean recommends an additional sanction to be imposed by the Provost, the Dean will advise the Provost (see Section VIII) of his or her recommendation and forward all evidence involved in the case. The Provost will arrange a meeting with the student and the Dean. Notification to the student will occur within ten (10) working days after the Provost has received the Dean’s recommendation. The student will be encouraged to seek the advice of the University


Page 13

Ombudsperson, who may be invited to attend the meeting with the student. The Provost shall determine, based on the discussion at the meeting and a review of all relevant evidence, whether or not to apply the recommended additional sanction pursuant to Part IX. If the additional sanction recommended by the Dean is applied, the student will be informed in writing of the sanction. The student will also be informed of the appeal process and his or her right to take such action. If the additional sanction recommended by the Dean is not applied by the Provost, all other sanctions applied by the Dean will remain in effect. If, in reviewing a recommendation, the Provost identifies a concern regarding an error in fact or procedure, the Provost may recommend that the student appeal the Dean's decision. Senate Executive In a case where the Provost recommends rescission or suspension of one or more degrees, diplomas or certificates, the Provost will advise Senate Executive of this recommendation and forward all evidence involved in the case to Senate Executive. Senate Executive will, upon review of the case, determine whether or not to accept the recommendation of rescission or suspension of the degree. If the sanction is upheld, the student will be informed of this decision in writing. The student will also be informed of the appeal process and his or her right to take such action. If the rescission or suspension of one or more degrees, diplomas or certificates recommended by the Provost is not supported by Senate Executive, all other sanctions applied by the Provost will remain in effect.


Page 14

VIII SANCTIONS The Faculty Dean may apply any one or any combination of the following sanctions if, after hearing the student’s response to the alleged violation, the Faculty Dean is satisfied that a violation of this Policy has occurred. Factors that may impact the sanction include:

• any record of previous violations, • the seriousness of the violation • the relative weight of the work, • the student�s year standing, • the rehabilitative benefit of the sanction • any mitigating circumstances

In the case of graduate students, consideration of the student’s year standing in the graduate program and the work in which the violation occurred (e.g. an M.A. course paper versus a comprehensive examination) may affect the sanction assigned. Recommendations by supervisory committee members may also be considered. Sanctions may be used independently or in combination for any single violation. Sanctions that may be imposed by the Faculty Dean

1. A written reprimand. 2. Requirement to remain registered in the course in which the violation occurred. 3. Completion of a remediation process. Completion of a remediation process may be

either a sanction of its own accord or may be used to reduce a more severe sanction. Examples of remediation are attendance at a Writing Tutorial or study skills workshop, completion of an academic integrity computer tutorial or the submission of a new assignment for grading.

4. Resubmission of the piece of academic work in which the violation was committed, for evaluation with or without a grade penalty.

5. Assignment of a reduced grade (including a grade of zero or a failing grade) for the piece of academic work in respect of which the violation was committed.

6. Assignment of a reduction of the final grade in the course in respect of which the violation was committed.

7. Assignment of a grade of unsatisfactory or failure for the course in respect of which the violation was committed.

8. Restitution of costs incurred by the University as a result of the violation of this policy. 9. Withdrawal from the course in respect of which the violation was committed. In

certain cases, the Dean may decide that the student will not be allowed to enroll in the course again for up to three (3) terms.

10. An additional requirement of a maximum of 1.0 credit added to the student's program of studies.

11. Registration limited to a specified number of credits per term for up to three (3) terms. 12. Suspension for up to three (3) terms, normally beginning with the next academic term

after the final decision has been made. Students are allowed to complete courses that are ongoing at the time of the decision but will be withdrawn from any courses in which they have registered and which would begin during the suspension.


Page 15

Additional Sanctions that may be Recommended to the Provost by the Faculty Dean

1. Recommendation to the Provost that a student be suspended for more than three terms normally beginning with the next academic term after the penalty is assigned. As part of a suspension imposed by the Provost, the student may be required to withdraw, without academic penalty, from courses unrelated to the violation, that were ongoing at the time of the imposition of the suspension. Students will be withdrawn from any courses in which they have registered and which would begin during the suspension. The Dean should clearly indicate if the recommendation includes a transcript notation.

2. Recommendation to the Provost that the student be expelled from the University with a corresponding transcript notation.

3. Recommendation to the Provost for rescission or suspension of one or more degrees, diplomas or certificates obtained by any student with a corresponding transcript notation.

4. Recommendation that a notation be added to the student's transcript.

Additional Sanctions that may be imposed by the Provost on Recommendation of the Faculty Dean.

1. Suspension for more than three (3) terms, normally beginning with the next academic term after the final decision has been made. Student may be required to withdraw, without academic penalty, from courses unrelated to the violation, that were ongoing at the time of the imposition of the suspension. Students will be withdrawn from any courses in which they have registered and which would begin during the suspension.

2. In the case of suspension for more than three (3) terms, the Provost may determine that a notation be placed on the student�s transcript in the form as set out in this policy. The notation may be permanent or for a limited period. In the case of a limited period, the notation shall be removed at the expiry of the set time limit.

3. Expulsion from the University with a notation on the transcript. 4. A notation may be added to the student's transcript.

Sanctions that may be Recommended to Senate Executive by the Provost

1. The rescission or suspension of one or more degrees, diplomas or certificates obtained by any graduate who, while enrolled at the University, committed any violation of this Policy.

Sanctions that may be Imposed by Senate Executive on Recommendation of the Provost

1. On recommendation of the Provost, rescission or suspension of one or more degrees, diplomas or certificates. In this event, a notation will be made on the student�s transcript pursuant to Part IX.


Page 16

IX TRANSCRIPT NOTATIONS All transcript notations shall include:

• the reason for the notation (for example, "Suspended for academic misconduct") • the date the notation was applied (for example, "beginning Sept. 1, 2015") • the date the notation is to be removed (for example, "until Aug 31, 2018")

Unless otherwise specified, the notation regarding a suspension shall be removed at the end of the period of suspension. Other notations (for example, for expulsion or for the rescission of a degree) are normally permanent. If Senate at some later date reinstates this student, this will be followed by the notation: Reinstated from Term 20xx Petition to Remove Notation A petition may be made to have a notation removed. Such a petition shall not be considered before five years from the date the notation was added to the transcript. A petitioner has no right to have a notation removed. The decision to remove a notation is at the discretion of Senate, acting through Senate Executive.

1. A student initiates such a petition by a written request to the Clerk of Senate. 2. The Clerk of Senate shall refer the petition to the Senate Student Academic Integrity

Appeals Committee for consideration. 3. The Senate Academic Integrity Appeals Committee will follow procedures analogous

to those it uses for appeals. 4. The Senate Student Academic Integrity Appeals Committee will make, in timely

fashion, a written recommendation to Senate Executive. The recommendation may include any conditions that the Committee feels that Senate Executive should impose.

5. Acting on behalf of Senate, upon receipt of the recommendation from the Senate Student Academic Integrity Appeals Committee, Senate Executive will make the decision whether or not to grant the petition.

6. In making a decision to remove a notation, Senate Executive may impose such conditions as it considers reasonable.

7. The Clerk of Senate, on behalf of Senate Executive, will inform the student in writing of the decision of Senate Executive.

8. Senate Executive will inform Senate, in a closed session, of the petition and its decision.

9. The decision of Senate Executive is final and not subject to appeal.


Page 17

X APPEAL OF SANCTION All students have the right to appeal a sanction imposed pursuant to this Policy to the Senate Student Academic Integrity Appeals Committee. An appeal shall be based on:

• new information and facts not considered by the original decision maker • a claim that this policy and related procedures were not properly followed • a claim that the impact of the sanction was not consistent with the offence

The Committee may

• Determine that there is no basis for the appeal • Deny the appeal • Allow the appeal and refer the case back to the Dean • Allow the appeal and find no violation of the Policy

In a case where the Committee finds that the student has presented evidence that they were not treated equitably under this Policy, the case may be referred to an alternate Dean for reconsideration. In this case, this Dean is expected to consult with the original decision maker regarding matters of fact and the level of sanctions typical in the student's faculty for similar violations of this policy. In the case where a student is appealing a decision made by the Provost on a recommendation made by a Dean, the Senate Student Academic Integrity Appeal Committee is empowered to make a new decision, where it feels grounds exist, regarding the recommendation. Carleton University recognizes that there are circumstances that make following the time constraints imposed in this policy difficult or impossible. In cases where the time constraints specified in this policy are not followed by either the student or the university, an appeal based on delay shall only be granted in cases where the delay is unreasonable, unjustified or places an undue burden on the student. The Appeal Process An appeal should be started by a student at the Office of Student Affairs within ten (10) working days from the time that the student receives the letter notifying her or him of the sanction imposed under the Policy. The original sanction will remain in effect until the appeal process is completed. In cases of extreme hardship, and following a request from the student, the Committee may grant a student a stay of sanction pending appeal. In this case, a grade of GNA may be given to the student until the appeal is decided. Appeals are submitted on-line using the Student Affairs On-line Appeal Application form made available on the Student Affairs website. The appeal must contain a concise statement that identifies precisely the grounds for the appeal. Students are advised to consult with the Ombudsperson or the Director of Student Affairs for assistance in completing their appeal documentation. Within five (5) working days of the submission of the on-line appeal application form the Director of Student Affairs (or designate) shall:

• provide the student with a written acknowledgement of receipt of his or her appeal, and notify the student of information missing from the on-line appeal application form and;

• inform the original decision-maker of the appeal.


Page 18

Within seven (7) working days of the Director of Student Affairs sending acknowledgement of the notice of appeal, the student may make an appointment with the Director of Student Affairs and review his or her file. In this case, the student will normally have an additional five (5) working days to provide additional evidence responding to material in the file, or further documenting the case made in the notice of appeal. When the student’s documentation is complete, he or she will be notified, within five (5) working days, of the date when the Committee will first consider his or her appeal. The student will also be informed of any further meetings where his or her appeal is considered. Decision Making Process: The Committee shall decide upon appeals after considering documentation provided by the student, the file provided by the Dean’s office, and other relevant information. The procedural rules for the hearing of an appeal are attached to this Policy as an Appendix. The Committee shall communicate its appeal decision to the student, the original decision-maker(s), the Ombudsperson, and individuals who received a copy of the Dean’s decision letter in writing within ten (10) working days from the time that the Committee’s decision is made. Decisions of the Committee shall be final subject only to a Procedural Review by the Clerk of Senate. A Procedural Review is restricted to determination of whether procedures have been followed as set out in this Policy, whether issues of bias have been properly addressed, and whether the Committee has made a decision in accordance with its authority. Information on Procedural Review is available at the Carleton University website. Membership of the Committee: The Committee is a Standing Committee of Senate appointed by Senate consisting of:

• four faculty members; • two undergraduate students� and • two graduate students.

Members will be asked to commit to membership of the Committee for a minimum of twelve (12) months. Student members of the Student Academic Integrity Appeals Committee must be in good academic standing. The non-voting secretary of the Committee will be the Director of Student Affairs or delegate. The Committee shall select its own Chair from members of the Committee. The Committee shall meet as needed in response to appeals made by students. The quorum for the Committee shall consist of two faculty members and one student. A Committee panel that considers a case must have more faculty members than student members. Where a member of the Committee has a conflict of interest, that member will remove himself or herself from the case. In the case of an appeal by a graduate student, all reasonable efforts will be made by the Committee to ensure the attendance by a graduate student representative on the Committee at all meetings concerning the appeal.


Page 19

XI RECORDS The Office of Student Affairs shall maintain the disciplinary record under this Policy. The purpose of this record, which shall be kept separate from any other of the student’s records, is to determine whether there has been a previous violation, before a sanction is imposed. Such a record of violations shall not be used for any other purpose without the student’s consent. The Dean's Office shall maintain the evidentiary record under this policy. The purpose of this record is to preserve the evidence used by the Faculty Dean in making a determination so that it can be used in the event the student makes a petition or appeal regarding the case. This record is considered confidential and shall be kept separate from all other records. Destruction of Records related to Violations of this Policy The Office of Student Affairs and each Faculty will annually undertake a process to destroy all disciplinary records and evidentiary records of academic integrity decisions relating to students who have graduated in the past year and, where appropriate, for students who have ceased studying for at least five (5) years. Individual student records must be maintained for at least 30 days after the student graduates in order to allow all students proper access to the appeals process. Students who wish to have returned to them work that was kept as evidence and would normally have been returned must make their wishes known in a written request to the appropriate Dean's office within 30 days of their graduation. Records, both disciplinary and evidentiary, for students who have transcript notations will be held indefinitely in the Office of Student Affairs and are to be used only in the event of a subsequent appeal by the student for which the violation of the policy is relevant or for a petition regarding the transcript notation. When the penalty includes a transcript notation as described in Part IX, and the student’s petition to delete the transcript notation has been granted by the Senate, Senate may direct the Office of Student Affairs to destroy the disciplinary and evidentiary record when the transcript notation is deleted. In exceptional circumstances, where the violation of this policy is found to be particularly serious, the Dean may recommend to the Provost, in association with the recommendation for additional sanction, that the records associated with the offence be kept indefinitely in the Office of Student Affairs. The Office of Student Affairs will report annually to the Provost on compliance with this section. Destruction of Records in cases where there is no Violation of this Policy In the event that a student has been found not to have violated this policy (by a Faculty Dean, the Provost, Senate Executive or on appeal) then all disciplinary records of the relevant allegation of a violation of this Policy held in the Office of Student Affairs shall be destroyed.


Page 20

XII REPORT TO SENATE The Office of Student Affairs will keep the statistics on academic misconduct cases. These statistics shall be presented to Senate in an annual report by the Senate Student Academic Integrity Appeal Committee, together with any other comments on the characteristics of violations or relevant information. This report will be made publicly available to all members of the Carleton University community in a manner that protects the identity of those involved.


Page 21

APPENDIX:

Senate Student Academic Integrity Appeals Committee: Rules and Procedures for Appeals

1. The Senate Student Academic Integrity Appeals Committee (“the Committee”) will meet in

accordance with the membership, quorum and conflict of interest requirements described in the Academic Integrity Policy (“the Policy”).

2. Students have a right to appeal decisions and/or penalties made under the Policy to the Committee on the grounds set out in the Policy.

3. The appeal process should follow the timelines set out in the Policy. Timeframes are subject to extension only in exceptional circumstances, such as medically documented illness or religious obligations. A request for an extension should be directed to the Office of Student Affairs. The Office of Equity Services will provide students with advice on how to document religious obligations.

4. The Committee requires that students submit the appeal by completing the on-line form available on the Student Affairs website. Requests for appeals not made on the standard form will be accepted, however students will be requested to fill in the standard form before the Committee hears the appeal.

5. The decision to permit the student or others to attend and observe all or some of the hearing proceedings shall be made by the Committee as required, based on any adverse impact this may have on the parties involved.

6. The Hearing shall be chaired by the chair of the Committee or, in the case of conflict of interest or the chair’s absence by a member of the Committee elected by the Committee.

7. If an oral hearing is held, the student is encouraged to bring representation in the form of a friend, peer, or student advocate. The student or the Committee may invite the University Ombudsperson to attend.

8. In the event of an oral hearing, the Committee shall advise the student ahead of time of any time limits on the student's statement or witnesses' statements.

9. An oral hearing is not analogous to a legal trial and should avoid overly technical or litigious language, motions and procedures. The student and Committee members should play an active role in the proceeding, and have an opportunity to ask and respond to relevant questions. Oral hearings generally begin with an in camera meeting of the Committee. The remainder of the oral hearing will normally take the following form:

1. A brief welcome and summary of procedures from a member of the Committee. 2. The student’s statement (or, when appropriate, a statement from the student’s representative or

advocate). 3. Questions and requests for clarification by Committee members. 4. Witness statement(s), when relevant. 5. Questions and responses to witness statement(s) by the Committee and then the student. 6. Any witness will normally only be permitted at the hearing for the duration of the witness’s

presentation. 7. Any further questions for the student by the Committee, followed by questions for the

Committee by the student. 10. The Committee shall grant a students appeal when she/he has provided a clear and convincing case. 11. The Committee shall take decisions by majority vote. The chair of the Committee will vote. 12. The Committee shall communicate the Committee’s decision to the student in writing, within ten

working days from the time that the Committee’s decision is made. 13. The Committee shall report to Senate as described in the Senate Student Academic Integrity Policy.

Senate Executive

June 16, 2015 1:30 pm in TB 503S

MINUTES Present: M. Bueckert, A. Landon-Browne, K. Kelly, R. Runte, J. Shepherd (Acting

Provost and VP (Academic)) for P. Ricketts Regrets: C. Bennell, S. Bertram, N. Rowe The meeting was called to order at 13:32. 1. Approval of the Agenda It was MOVED (J. Shepherd, M. Bueckert) that the agenda be approved as distributed. It was PASSED. 2. Confirmation of e-poll (Minutes: May 19, 2015) The electronic approval of the minutes of the meeting on May 19, 2015 was confirmed. 3. Late Graduation Cases (to be distributed at the meeting) a. Conferral of Degree The Clerk commented on the case. The student had completed all the requirements of their program and had submitted a late paper application to graduate. However, due to an administrative error the student did not appear on the list of students recommended to graduate. It was MOVED (K. Kelly, M. Bueckert) that Senate Executive approve the conferral of degree. It was PASSED unanimously. b. Post-graduate Amendment The Clerk commented on the case. The student had completed all of their requirements for this concentration. However, due to extenuating circumstances, this was not reflected on the student’s audit.

1

It was MOVED (R. Runte, A. Landon-Browne) that Senate Executive approve the post-graduate amendment. It was PASSED unanimously. 4. Election: Clerk of Senate The Chair reported that only one nomination has been received and that the person would be acclaimed. It was MOVED (J. Shepherd, M. Bueckert) that Senate Executive recommends to Senate the nomination of D. Russell as Clerk of Senate. It was PASSED unanimously. 5. Terms of Reference: Senate Academic Program Committee (SAPC) The Clerk commented that the proposed changes, I passed by Senate, will require changes to the Academic Governance of the University (AGU) document, which will need to be recommended to Senate by the Senate Academic Governance Committee (SAGC). J. Shepherd commented that the proposed changes seek to clarify SAPC’s role in the new program approval and quality assurance processes. He provided a brief background on changes approved in 2013 and noted that those changes only reflected the functional relationship between the SAPC and the Carleton University Committee on Quality Assurance (CUCQA). A fuller account of the relationship was required which is reflected in the revised terms of reference. Upon further discussion it was agreed that the proposed changes will be presented to Senate at its meeting on June 26, 2015 and that Senate would recommend to the SAGC that the AGU be amended accordingly. It was MOVED (J. Shepherd, M. Bueckert) that the proposed changes to the terms of reference for the Senate Academic Program Committee (SAPC) be presented to Senate for approval with the understanding that Senate would recommend that SAGC implement changes, as required, in the AGU. It was PASSED. The Clerk noted that changes to the AGU require approval from the Board of Governors. The Chair noted that the Board does not meet until fall and asked if this is an urgent matter.

2

J. Shepherd responded that it is important to obtain Senate approval as soon as possible and that Board approval is not a pressing matter at the moment. 6. Approval of the Senate agenda: June 26, 2015 The Clerk noted the following amendments to the Senate agenda: • Include the report of the Senate Committee on Curriculum, Admission and

Studies Policy (SCCASP) as Item 6(b). • Include the ratification of the new members of CUCQA as Item 7. • Include a report on the Senate-appointed members on the Search

Committee for Vice-President (Finance and Administration) as Item 8. It was MOVED (J. Shepherd, M. Bueckert) that the agenda be approved as amended. It was PASSED. 7. Other Business J. Shepherd noted that if Senate approves D. Russell’s appointment as Clerk of Senate he would be stepping down as Chair of SCCASP. He commented that it is vital to maintain continuity and have someone with experience on the Committee, as Chair. He suggested that the terms of reference for SCCASP be changed to note that the Chair could be someone who is eligible to be elected to Senate. This will allow for someone from the current Committee membership to be elected as Chair. The Clerk responded that it is important for the Chair of SCCASP to be able to attend Senate regularly. If the Chair is not a Senator it would break in the link between SCCASP and Senate. J. Shepherd noted that D. Russell was not a member of Senate when he became the Chair of SCCASP and that the new Chair would be invited to Senate to present reports. The Clerk commented that an enabling motion could be moved to allow D. Russell to continue chairing the Committee until such time that a suitable Chair is identified. It was agreed. The Chair thanked K. Kelly for planning a successful convocation. The meeting was adjourned at 14:05.

3

Department of Chemistry 203 Steacie Building 1125 Colonel By Drive Ottawa, Canada K1S 5B6 Tel: (613) 520-3534 Fax: (613) 520-3749 [email protected] www.carleton.ca/chem

Friday, June 19th, 2015 RE: Report of the Academic Colleague from the Council of Ontario Universities meetings on May 27th, 2015. Dear members of the Senate, On May 27th, 2015, the Academic Colleagues from Ontario’s Universities met at the Council of Ontario Universities offices in Toronto to receive updates on a variety of issues facing Ontario’s universities and briefly discuss them collectively. Once again, to expedite the digestion of this report, the material will be presented in bullet point form: Provincial budget for university sector:

Generally good news in this area:

o There has been no change in MTCU’s assumed growth in funding, assuming enrollment

growth targets are met (assuming a 1% increase)

o MTCU has ongoing investments in OSAP. Material increases for funding students and costs

for students is not going up

MTCU funding review of university sector:

First phase is broad consultation.

o Talk to everyone – students, employers, universities, OCOUFA

Real work is starting in the summer

Internally, COU is working on a group to form COU’s central advocacy drive

COU is going to propose a funding model, work has started, nothing else to report at this time

Major capital expansion in the province:

On May 20th, 1 project was announced:

o York and Seneca were awarded the funds to build a new campus in Markham

MTCU has indicated that there will be another round soon that will likely focus on the Peel or Halton

region of the province

COU’s “Grad Grad Survey”:

COU is developing a survey for graduates from graduate programs

Method – a survey will be administered every 5 years on multiple cohorts of students, this will:

o Achieve a better sample size

o Get longer and more robust indications of outcomes of a graduate degree

o Acquire information on a broader range than just labour market (identify other outcomes of

a graduate degree beyond employment)

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.carleton.ca/chem

MTCU wants to initiate a similar survey based on their undergraduate outcomes survey (administered

every year, with questions related to 6 months and two years after program completion)

COU is talking to MTCU about which approach is better

Review of Ontario’s engineering programs:

MTCU initiated a review of Ontario’s engineering programs because many SMAs indicated plans for

expansion in this area

MTCU set up a working table that included members from Universities, students, employers, and

colleges

The discussions were focused on employment outcome

They have had 2 meetings so far, a 3rd is scheduled

The meetings have been positive, and one outcome is they have made MTCU recognize that there are

many different ways that engineering degrees get used

If any questions arise from the content of this report, please do not hesitate to ask.

Academic Colleague, Carleton University

------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey C. Smith, Ph.D. Director, Carleton Mass Spectrometry Centre Associate Professor Department of Chemistry and Institute of Biochemistry Steacie Building, Carleton University 1125 Colonel By Drive Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6 Phone: (613) 520-2600 x2408 Fax: (613) 520-3749

mailto:[email protected]

https://carleton.ca/cmsc/

http://www.carleton.ca/~jsmith

http://carleton.ca/chemistry/

http://www.carleton.ca/biochem/

http://www.carleton.ca/

Carleton University acknowledges and respects the Algonquin … · 2015-06-24 · Carleton...

Documents

Transcript of Carleton University acknowledges and respects the Algonquin … · 2015-06-24 · Carleton...