Faculty

Provide students with the skills they need to be successful

Student Life & Learning Support (SLLS) provides free workshops and one-on-one support to assist students' development of the knowledge and skills required for academic success. Consider offering extra credit to students who use SLLS' learning skills support. Support areas include:

Academic Accommodation Support
English Language Support
Graduate Student Support
Math Support
Study Skills and Transition Support
Writing Support

For more information or to find registration information visit torontomu.ca/student-life-and-learning/learning-support/ (opens in new window)

TMU Library & Archives provides free workshops and online tutorials for students and faculty/instructors. Consider offering extra credit to students who make use of their research support. For more information visit the library's workshop page.

The Resources page of this website has a number of student-focused resources that we encourage you to distribute.

Help students understand Policy 60...in SPACE

Promote Academic Integrity and Policy 60 education through game play. The AIO has two gamified tutorials: Academic Integrity in Space! and Academic Integrity in Cyberspace! Sharing a similar premise, in both games students go head-to-head with Captain Plague and the League of the Unearned to learn about academic integrity and to earn certificates. The Cyberspace version, though, focuses more explicitly on the challenges students face taking remote courses.

Consider offering extra credit to students who upload all three certificates of completion to your course's D2L dropbox.

Play the Academic Integrity in Space! here: games.de.torontomu.ca/aio/#/ (opens in new window)

Play Academic Integrity in Cyberspace! here: https://www.torontomu.ca/aic/#/ (opens in new window)

Invite the AIO into your classroom

The Academic Integrity Office welcomes invitations to speak with students, faculty and/or staff on matters relating to academic integrity. Please complete the form linked below to request a presentation and we'll be in touch soon to confirm the details.

(google form) Request a presentation (external link, opens in new window)

Design your course and assessments with academic integrity in mind

The Centre for Excellence in Learning and Teaching (CELT) can provide consultations on course and assessment design that can encourage student engagement while discouraging academic misconduct. CELT also offers teaching and learning workshops throughout the year as well as an annual Teaching and Learning Conference where you can network and share you own classroom innovations.

Request an AIO presentation!

Report an academic misconduct concern (opens in new window)

Investigate

Trust your professional experience--don't rely exclusively on technology to identify problems.
Remember that your goal in investigating is not to "prove" academic misconduct. Rather the goal is to determine if the student may have breached Policy 60. Things that may indicate a breach of policy:
- An abrupt change in writing style and/or sophistication
- An abrupt or unexplained leap in performance
- Unusual citations (sources not readily available)
- Answers or language unusually similar to another student's or another source
For guidance on this process, consult with the AIO or the Policy 60 Faculty Advisor (Hitesh Doshi hdoshi@torontomu.ca)

Before speaking to the student on the topic, register the concern with the AIO. Registration prevents the student from dropping the course before the matter is resolved.

Go to the Instructor Portal (opens in new window)
Decide if you'd like to a) talk to the student privately (i.e., Non-Facilitated Discussion), b) talk to the student with a neutral party from the AIO present who will guide the process, take notes, and answer Policy 60 questions (i.e., Facilitated Discussion), or c) request that a Designated Decision Maker (external link, opens in new window) take over the case (only available to CUPE 1 & 2 instructors)

If you choose a Non-Facilitated Discussion, you'll be able to enter a date and time for meeting with the student to discuss the issue. If you choose a Facilitated Discussion, you'll provide availability and the AIO will schedule the meeting after you've registered the concern. If you choose a Designated Decision Maker, you'll receive an email in the next few days from the DDM assigned to your case.

Prepare for the discussion

For Facilitated Discussions and Non-Facilitated Discussions

Review the assessment
Make a list of the concerns in detail
Prepare questions you'd like to ask the student (Please see our guide: (google doc) Investigating Academic Misconduct: Asking the Right Questions (external link, opens in new window) )
Prepare educational responses (e.g. university resources the student might access to develop academic and/or life skills; recommendations on approaches to problem solving and/or writing)
Breathe. These conversations can be stressful but that stress is alleviated when your goal remains--regardless of your decision and associated penalties--the student's education and development. No decision is made during the discussion.

Participate in the discussion

Students have a right to bring an advocate from one of TMU's student unions to the discussion with them, and they must notify the AIO and the decision maker in advance. The advocate may ask questions and/or raise concerns but students are expected to speak on their own behalf to matters of fact.

Students also have a right to bring a support person to the discussion, and they must notify the AIO and the decision maker in advance. The support person remains silent throughout the discussion. If the student needs to speak to the support person, that occurs in private and the other attendees remain quiet until the student and support person return.

Engage in the conversation with the student in the spirit of inquiry and education. The decision, which should be made AFTER the discussion and some time for contemplation, is entirely yours.

After the discussion

Take some time to consider what you learned in your conversation. (If the student fails to attend the discussion, your decision must be made based on the evidence you have.)

The decision should be based on a (google doc) balance of probabilities (external link) . While we recognize that every case is different and that actions do not occur in a vacuum devoid of context, it's important to remember that a breach of Policy 60 is a yes/no decision. Consideration of context resides more appropriately in the penalty assigned.

Under the tab above, "When there's a finding," you'll find more information on penalties as well as educational opportunities for your students.

Once you've made the decision, return to the Instructor Portal to register it with the AIO.

When there's a finding of academic misconduct

1. A Disciplinary Notation (DN) will be placed on the student's record. The DN is arguably the most important part of the formal process. It provides a way for the university to identify patterns of academic misconduct while simultaneously protecting students from potential bias as instructors do not have access to record of the DN unless they are somehow involved in the adminstration of Policy 60 in their department.

IMPORTANT: The DN goes on an internal academic record--NOT the student's external transcript--and is removed upon graduation.

2. Assign educational requirements as appropriate. SLLS workshops and the Fundamentals of Academic Integrity quiz may be assigned to help students develop the skills they need to avoid academic misconduct in the future.

3. An academic penalty must be applied. The minimum penalty for undergraduate students is a grade reduction on the assessment up to and including a zero. The minimum penalty for graduate students is a zero on the assessment. Please see below for more fullsome penalty guidelines.

Undergraduate and Continuing Education Penalty Guidelines

Penalty	Suggested Guidelines	Examples (not limited to)
Grade reductions which can include a “Zero” (0) on the work	Penalty often selected for most minor acts of misconduct Cannot be assigned if misconduct is outside of course Minimum penalty in a course	Minor Plagiarism Sharing files/work with another student (e.g. working together on an individual assignment) Minor cheating in a test or exam
A Course Grade Reduction A student assigned a course grade reduction may appeal the finding of misconduct but not the penalty to the AIC	Faculty/Instructors must have notified students in advance (e.g. on their course outline or via some other posting the students have access to and are made aware of) that this penalty will be assigned to all cases of misconduct related to a specific assignment(s) or aspect of the course	Minor Plagiarism Sharing files/work with another student (e.g. working together on an individual assignment)
Grade of “F” in the course/Failure in a Pass-Fail Course (FLD)	Seriously premeditated Affected others Serious breach of professional ethics Occurred in an upper year or capstone course for the program Cannot be assigned if misconduct is outside of course	Major plagiarism Enlisting someone else to do an assignment or paper Submitting another student’s work (in whole or part) without their knowledge Fabricating data or information about patient or client Cheating or plagiarizing in a 4th year capstone or upper level course Lying or supplying false information (severity depends on document and purpose) Major cheating in a test or exam
Temporary/Permanent Removal from Co-op Applies to co-op program option, placement, internship, or practicum	Seriously premeditated Affected Others Serious breach of professional ethics	Major plagiarism Englisting someone else to do an assignment or paper Submitting another student’s work (in whole or part) without their knowledge Fabricating data or information about patient or client Cheating or plagiarizing in a 4th year capstone or upper level course Lying or supplying false information (severity depends on document and purpose) Major cheating in a test or exam
Recommendation of Disciplinary Suspension For 1 term to 2 years Recommended penalties are decided through a Penalty Hearing (see tab above on Penalty Hearings), unless the student appeals the penalties and/or finding, in which case the penalties are decided through the appeal hearing.	Believed that the student needs time off to resolve other issues or re-assess their role as a student Affected many others (large-scale cheating situation) More serious misconduct outside of a course	Situations in which students have been or should be on DS: Students altered transcript for entry into co-op program and potential co-op placement Student enlists outside professional service to complete work Student aids others in large-scale cheating Student lies or supplies false information (severity depends on document and purpose)
Recommendation of Disciplinary Withdrawal (DW) Permanent withdrawal from program and 2 year withdrawal from University Recommended penalties are decided through a Penalty Hearing (see tab above on Penalty Hearings), unless the student appeals the penalties and/or finding, in which case the penalties are decided through the appeal hearing.	Believed that the student is not suitable for the profession in their field of study	Situations in which students have been or should be on DW: Student enlisted someone else to do their exams for them Student stole an exam Student stole someone else’s work and submitted it for grading Student lied or supplied false information (severity depends on document and purpose) Alteration of an official documentation
Recommendation of Expulsion Permanent removal from Toronto Metropolitan University Recommended penalties are decided through a Penalty Hearing (see tab above on Penalty Hearings), unless the student appeals the penalties and/or finding, in which case the penalties are decided through the appeal hearing.	Very Rare Believed that the student is not suitable for study at TMU in any program	Situations in which students were expelled: Student stole an exam with the intention of selling In an appeal hearing for a charge of misconduct, the student submitted altered documentation Student misrepresented themselves as an instructor to obtain the instructor test bank Student submitted false document and misrepresented themselves as a Dean

Graduate Penalty Guidelines

Penalty	Suggested Guidelines	Examples (not limited to)
“Zero” (0) on the work	Penalty often selected by faculty for most minor acts of misconduct Cannot be assigned if misconduct is outside of a course Minimum penalty in a course	Minor plagiarism Sharing files/work with another student (e.g. working together on an individual assignment) Minor cheating in a test or exam
Grade of “F’ in the course/Failure in a Pass-Fail course (FLD)	Premeditated Affected others Cannot be assigned if misconduct is outside of a course	Major plagiarism Enlisting someone else to do an assignment or paper Submitting another student’s work (in whole or part) without their knowledge Cheating
Disciplinary-Unsatisfactory (D-UNS)	Unsatisfactory progress for reasons of non-course based academic misconduct Minimum penalty in non-course based graduate program requirements, such as academic “milestones” as well as the research and associated writing D-UNS placed on transcript and cannot be removed	Academic misconduct in any non-course based graduate program requirements
Recommendation of Disciplinary Action (DA) Recommended penalties are decided through a Penalty Hearing. (See tab above on Penalty Hearings)	Major academic misconduct, or for a second finding within a student’s program Placed on academic record and transcript and cannot be removed Decision maker must communicate with the Graduate Program Director (and Supervisor where appropriate) to determine whether a DA or DA-S is most appropriate for the student	Major plagiarism Falsification of research data Falsification of admission related documents Cheating A second finding of academic misconduct
Recommendation of Disciplinary Action with Suspension (DA-S) Recommended penalties are decided through a Penalty Hearing. (See tab above on Penalty Hearings)	Major academic misconduct or for a second finding within a student’s program Placed on academic record and transcript and cannot be removed Graduate student is removed from a program for up to two (2) years, after which they may request to re-enroll Decision maker must communicate with the Graduate Program Director (and Supervisor where appropriate) to determine whether a DA or DA-S is most appropriate for the student	Major plagiarism Falsification of research data Falsification of admission related documents Cheating A second finding of academic misconduct
Recommendation of Disciplinary Withdrawal (DW) Permanent withdrawal from the program and 2 year withdrawal from the university. Recommended penalties are decided through a Penalty Hearing. (See tab above on Penalty Hearings)	Believed that the student is not suitable for the profession in their field of study Serious breach of professional ethics	Situations in which students have been or should be withdrawn: Major plagiarism in a thesis (included submitted drafts) or comprehensive exam Student enlisted someone else to do their exams for them Student stole an exam Student stole someone else’s work and submitted it for grading Student lied or supplied false information (severity depends on document and purpose) Alteration of an official documentation Fabricating data or results Lying or supplying false information
Recommendation of Expulsion Recommended penalties are decided through a Penalty Hearing. (See tab above on Penalty Hearings)	Very rare Believed that the student is not suitable for study at TMU in any program	Situations in which students were expelled: Student stole an exam with the intention of selling In an appeal hearing for a charge of misconduct, the student submitted altered documentation Student misrepresented themselves as an instructor to obtain the instructor test bank Student submitted a false document and misrepresented themselves as a Dean
2 or more Disciplinary Notations (DN)	Disciplinary Action with Suspension (DA-S) Disciplinary Withdrawal (DW) Expulsion	Penalty hearing regarding DA-S, DW or Expulsion occurs when the student has received a second finding of academic misconduct Expulsion normally occurs when a student has received 3 or more DNs

Applicability to Research-Related Actiivities

For purposes of this policy, “supervised research” is treated as a separate category
to accord with the Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research, and
includes academic milestones such as Comprehensive Examinations, Major
Research Papers, Research or Thesis Proposals, Theses and Dissertations, as well
as the research and associated writing carried out towards any of these at either the
undergraduate or graduate level. (See Procedures 1.5 regarding the process to be
followed in addressing suspicions of misconduct in these areas.) Suspicions of
research misconduct that may have occurred under the auspices of Toronto Metropolitan
University, but are in no way directed towards academic advantage or benefit, are to
be addressed under Policy 118: Scholarly, Research and Creative Activity (SRC)
Integrity rather than Policy 60: Academic Integrity.

Responding to an appeal

Students have a right to appeal a finding of academic misconduct and/or the penalties assigned when those penalties are greater than the minimum penalty for the finding of misconduct.

Appeal hearings are heard by the Academic Integrity Council where the panel consists of a Chair, a Faculty Representative, and a Student Representative.

When a student (aka the Appelant) files an appeal, the AIO contacts the decision maker (aka the Respondent) forwarding the appellant package and requesting a response. The Respondent's response typically re-iterates the basis for the finding in the form of a letter and may include evidence from the case, the course syllabus, the assessment description and guidelines, and any other supporting documentation.

After the Respondent has submitted the response, the AIO will schedule the hearing.

For a more detailed explanation of the appeal process as well as the Order of the Hearing, please refer to (google doc) Preparing for Academic Misconduct Appeals. (external link, opens in new window)

If you require any assistance with your response, please contact the Academic Integrity Faculty Advisor, Hitesh Doshi.
Phone: 416-979-5000 ext. 556502.
Email: hdoshi@torontomu.ca

Progressive Discipline

Under Policy 60, if a student receives more than one Disciplinary Notation (DN), they are subject to Progressive Discipline.

Progressive Discipline is a process that exists outside of the individual cases and their already assigned penalties. (See Policy 60, Section 9, and Policy 60: Procedures, Section 7)

Undergraduate Student Progressive Discipline

When a second (or greater) DN is placed on the student's internal record a meeting takes place between the student's Program Director, the Designated Decision Makers' Council Chair (or designate), and the Director of the Academic Integrity Office. In the meeting ,the case history is reviewed and the group decides to either 1) issue a formal warning or 2) call for a Penalty Hearing with a recommendation of a Disciplinary Suspension.

If a formal warning is issued, a future finding of academic misconduct will automatically result in a Penalty Hearing with a recommendation of a Disciplinary Suspension. (See tab above for more on Penalty Hearings.)

Graduate Student Progressive Discipline

When a second (or greater) DN is placed on the student's internal record a Penalty Hearing is automatically called and a Disciplinary Action - Suspension (DA-S), Disciplinary Withdrawl (DW), or Expulsion is recommended. (See tab above for more on Penalty Hearings.)

Penalty hearings

A penalty hearing is initiated under Policy 60, when a higher penalty (greater than an F in a course) is recommended by a decision maker. This penalty hearing may stem from a single finding of academic misconduct or it may come from the progressive discipline process (see Policy 60, Section 9).

Penalty hearings are heard by a panel of Academic Integrity Council members. The panel consists of a two faculty members (one of which will act as Chair) and a student.

The Appelant (student):

receives email notification of the hearing
has the opportunity to submit a letter in response to the recommended penalty
is consulted when scheduling the hearing
has the opportunity to plead their case to the Academic Integrity Council during the hearing

The Respondent (the decision maker who recommended the penalty):

receives email notification of the hearing
has the opportunity to submit a letter explaining the rationale for the recommended penalty
is consulted when scheduling the hearing
has the opportunity to plead their case to the Academic Integrity Council during the hearing

If you require any assistance with your response, please contact the Academic Integrity Faculty Advisor, Hitesh Doshi.
Phone: 416-979-5000 ext. 556502.
Email: hdoshi@torontomu.ca