The Board of Trustees have approved several changes to the Student Conduct Code:  

1. There is no longer a “faculty resolved” option  The Code now requires any academic misconduct concerns be adjudicated by SCCS if a grade penalty may result from a violation.     This change was implemented to ensure that the protections and rights embedded in the formal student conduct process are afforded to students, especially given the potentially significant impact that a grade penalty may have on them. This change also reduces faculty burden in adjudicating instances of academic misconduct directly and diverts potential grievance claims and legal liability from faculty to SCCS.     Faculty retain the ability to resolve academic misconduct concerns informally.      

2. ‘Plagiarism’ has been redefined to explicitly name unauthorized use of work generated by AI and other sources.     The new definition: Presenting another’s material as one’s own, including using another’s words, results, processes, or ideas, in whole or in part, without giving appropriate credit. Plagiarism is contingent on the content of the submitted work product, regardless of whether the unattributed material was included intentionally or unintentionally. The use of material taken from any source—whether directly quoted, paraphrased, or otherwise adapted—must be attributed to that source.     Plagiarism also includes the submission of material generated by others. This may include artificial intelligence (AI) content generators and generative AI tools such as ChatGPT; websites with a question-and-answer feature such as CourseHero, Chegg, and Bing; assistance from tutors or online language translators that results in unoriginal work; and work that is purchased or otherwise prepared by another individual.    

3. ‘Unauthorized collaboration’ has been redefined to provide more clarity for students and reassure them about common and positive aspects of peer learning.     The new definition: Working with others in the submission of an assignment, exercise, or other academic requirement for assessment when not expressly permitted by the instructor.  

This section is not intended to prohibit the type of collaboration that promotes productive discourse and learning between students, such as engaging with lecture materials or course texts; discussing subject matter concepts, ideas, and themes; talking through problem-solving strategies and approaches; or study groups working to prepare for an exam. Unless expressly prohibited by the instructor, such collaboration is encouraged to the extent that students remain able to submit work for assessment which reflects their own individual interpretations, analysis, and conclusions. This level of collaboration will not constitute a violation of the Code, unless expressly prohibited by the instructor.    

What this the Conduce Code Changes Mean for Faculty    Instructors should report all suspected cases of academic misconduct to the Office of Student Conduct and Community Stands if they may result in a grade penalty using the Reporting Academic Misconduct Form.  

 As the case is being adjudicated by SCCS’s process, instructors should enter a grade as if the work were the student’s own.     Instructors are encouraged to consult directly with SCCS to discuss resolution options that may be available for any particular incident and is generally able to accommodate same-day consultations with instructors or otherwise respond to inquiries within 24 hours.   

Since February 2023, SCCS estimates that the unauthorized AI tools have constituted approximately 50-60% of all academic misconduct reports submitted to its office.  
Dianne Tanjuaquio, Associate Dean of Students and Director of Student Conduct and Community Standard, writes:    
 

If you have determined that the use of generative AI tools will be prohibited on some or all assignments in your course, there are a number of methods that can be used to detect potential violations.   

 You may consider:  

• Running your specific assignment prompt through a generative AI tool one or more times, and looking for similarities in any ideas, words, and structure from those responses with work submitted by students.   

• A distinctive feature of AI generated content is a propensity to include factually inaccurate or otherwise fabricated information, and a student who has used a generative AI tool will typically submit work that contains similar inaccuracies.   

• Comparing the assignment of concern with other work submitted by the student and looking for distinct and significant changes in writing style. You may also see distinct changes in style within a single assignment.   

• Paying close attention to quotes, sources, and citations used in the assignment. Generative AI tools may fabricate these in a manner that may appear legitimate at first glance but can be easily debunked on further review.  

• Writing your assignment prompts in a manner that makes generative AI use more obvious—for example, requiring students to focus on specific topics covered in class will make the generalized content generated by AI more obvious. You may also consider requiring students to only use materials from the course in their assignments, or other instructions that a generative AI tool would have a difficult time incorporating in a response.