Sixty-four per cent of the Arts and Science Faculty Board voted in favour of the revisions to the Academic Program Regulation.
The Faculty Board meeting took place on Nov. 22 at 2:30 p.m. in Dupuis Hall, with faculty and staff participating in a hybrid format, both in-person and online. The meeting focused on academic integrity and its role at the University, sessional dates, and the approval of an academic regulation that would allow programs to transition to a Modular Degree Framework—a topic that has generated controversy among faculty and students in recent weeks.
Although Dean of Faculty of Arts and Science (FAS) Bob Lemieux was unavailable to address Faculty Board in-person or online, he sent a statement to the Board explaining that he was “in transit conducting business for the Faculty of Arts and Science overseas.” In his statement, Lemieux clarified the approval of changing the regulation of the academic program didn’t signify approval of the Modular Degree Framework itself, but rather provided departments with the option to transition to the framework, should they choose to do so.
Academic Program Regulation
After weeks of ongoing discussions surrounding the Academic Program Regulation proposal, the decision on whether to implement the changes would ultimately rest within each department.
According to the meeting agenda, the regulation change would modify the minimum number of units required for the Major, Minor, and Specialization for the Bachelor of Arts (Honours), Bachelor of Computing (Honours), Bachelor of Science (Honours), and the Specialization for the Bachelor of Music.
The Modular Degree Framework requires departments within the FAS to reduce the required amount of units for Major, Minor, and Specialization programs. However, departments cannot achieve this level of modularization under the previous academic regulations, which mandated a specific number of units per degree.
Associate Dean Jenn Stephenson moved the motion for the Faculty Board to approve the revisions to the Academic Program Regulation, which allows for curriculum changes in the FAS. According to Stephenson, the proposed updates intend to reshape the academic structure of FAS to be more “equitable” and in line with the standards of neighbouring universities.
“This is about equity for students, so making sure that the hard work that our students are doing, that the credits that are being earned match—so when all of you go out into the workforce and you graduate and that your diplomas and your resumes are accurate representation of the work that you’ve done,” Stephenson said to the Board.
Stephenson shared that 27 departments confirmed their participation in the Modular Degree Framework. These departments include art history, biology, economics, and political studies, all of which have completed internal discussions and submitted their plans for approval. The framework aims to offer students more flexible and interdisciplinary academic pathways. While most departments are ready to proceed, others, such as computing, film and media, and geography, are still finalizing their plans.
“Today’s not a vote on the Modular Degree Framework, because that work is being done by the departments. […] Today, it’s only about the regulation. Regulation is a technical step that sort of paved the way for planned changes that are waiting,” Stephenson said.
Faculty Board members expressed concerns about how Joint Honours degrees would work in conjunction with departments adopting the Modular Degree Framework versus those that aren’t. She described this as “the interesting challenge” of the entire process. Stephenson explained the true potential of modularity can only be realized when all departments move forward together, noting this alignment creates real synergies for both departments and students.
The motion was approved with 67 votes in favour and 38 against. The FAS Board will meet next on Dec. 13 at the School of Kinesiology and Health Studies building.
Academic Integrity Statistics
Stephenson presented the annual Academic Integrity report for the 2023-24 year, detailing trends, findings, and sanctions over the past academic year. Addressing the Faculty Board, Stephenson offered a comprehensive overview of departures from academic integrity and their implications.
“This is a report that every faculty puts together, then the statistics are aggregated across Queen’s, and then the aggregate data is reported to the Senate,” Stephenson said to the Board. “Although we make up in terms of undergraduate students, we make up more than 60 per cent of the undergraduate student population. Only 53 per cent of departures from academic integrity come from our faculty.”
Stephenson noted the data provides a blurry picture of whether the statistics represent actual departures from academic integrity or merely a snapshot of incidents that are caught. “There’s a necessary gap in the statistics from what’s actually happening to our documented, reported experience,” she said.
A significant proportion—99 per cent—of academic integrity findings are made by instructors, emphasizing the importance of addressing these cases at the course level. Stephenson noted the rare instances, accounting for just one per cent, where cases are handled by the Associate Dean’s office, such as forgery of medical notes for academic considerations.
The report also highlighted the influence of technological changes, particularly the introduction of tools like Turnitin in 2015.
“When Turnitin became common, we saw a sharp rise in departures from academic integrity,” Stephenson said.
COVID-19 further amplified these trends, as relaxed protocols during remote learning led to increased cases of academic integrity departures. According to Stephenson, these numbers are now returning to pre-pandemic levels.
Stephenson detailed the types of departures observed, ranging from plagiarism to unauthorized use of AI tools like ChatGPT, the latter accounting for 30 cases last year. Plagiarism, once the most prevalent type of departure, has declined significantly, potentially due to increased familiarity with Turnitin among students.
Some faculty members discussed the importance of the student-teacher relationship, particularly when there are suspicions of AI usage. One faculty member expressed concern that the burden of proving a student cheated falls entirely on professors, who often must do all the work in terms of reporting incidents and have to rely on the hope that students will “crack under pressure.”
Stephenson informed the Board about a new software called Advocate, which the University will pilot next summer and launch next fall. Already in use by the Non-Academic Misconduct office, Advocate streamlines investigations by automatically scraping student data from Solon, including student numbers, department, and e-mail addresses. Faculty can enter brief notes about findings, and the system generates all necessary letters from pre-established templates, with an integrated backend reporting system.
Most faculty members expressed receptiveness to the change and look forward to the implementation of the new system.
Tags
Arts and science, Faculty Board, FAS, Modular Degree Framework
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s)-in-Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.