January 2003 Vol .1 No.3

Reflecting the Scholarship ofTeaching and Learning at theUniversity of Saskatchewan

Gwenna Moss Teaching & Learning Centre37 Murray Building • 966-2231

In This Issue....

CREATING A CULTURE OF

Academic IntegrityAT THE U OF S

The University of Saskatchewan, like universities across North America, isgrappling with academic integrity: plagiarism, cheating, and other forms ofdishonesty. Advances in technology have increased the choices for those

who want to cheat or plagiarize; now many university teachers and administratorsare turning to that same technology to detect dishonesty, using software such asturnitin.com or search engines like Google. But academic integrity is about morethan just catching cheaters, and thereby encouraging (even unintentionally) anatmosphere of suspicion and distrust by overemphasizing detection tools.

Academic integrity involves creating an ethos or culture of trust, responsibility, andhonesty. This special issue of “Bridges” looks forward to the kind of campusculture we want to create at the U of S. I have chosen articles from elsewhere inCanada, from Britain, and from the U.S. to show that integrity is an internationalconcern.

pla·gia·rize: Function: verb

transitive senses: to steal and pass off (the ideas or words ofanother) as one’s own: use (another’s production) withoutcrediting the sourceintransitive senses: to commit literary theft: present as newand original an idea or product derived from an existingsource

Etymology: Latin plagiarus, literally, kidnapper, from plagiumnetting of game, kidnapping, from plaga net, trap

Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, consulted online,September 24, 2002

by Eileen Herteis, Bridges Editor

One Step Ahead ofthe Palm Pilots:Creating a Culture ofAcademic Honesty atthe U of S

Academic Integrity

Why Do StudentsCheat and What CanTeachers Do?

How Can TeachersPrevent Plagiarism?

Anti-Plagiarism TipsFrom the Author of“The PlagiarismHandbook”

The Risk of Integrity:An EthicalContradiction?

The Internet andIntegrity

Thinking CriticallyAbout OnlineResources

Ten Principles ofAcademic Integrity

2

January 2003Vol. 1 No. 3

The Gwenna Moss Teaching& Learning CentreUniversity of SaskatchewanRoom 37 Murray Building3 Campus DriveSaskatoon, SK S7N 5A4Phone (306) 966-2231Fax (306) 966-2242e-mail : corinne.f@usask.caWeb site : www.usask.ca/tlc

Bridges is distributed to everyteacher at the University ofSaskatchewan and to all theInstructional Development Offices inCanada, and some beyond. It isfreely available on the world wideweb through the TLC web site. Yourcontributions to Bridges will reach awide local, national, andinternational audience. Pleaseconsider submitting an article oropinion piece to Bridges.

Contact any one of the followingpeople; we’d be delighted to hearfrom you!

Ron MarkenTLC DirectorPhone (306) 966-5532Ron.Marken@usask.ca

Eileen HerteisTLC Programme Director & BridgesEditorPhone (306) 966-2238Fax (306) 966-2242eileen.herteis@usask.ca

Christine Anderson ObachProgramme CoordinatorPhone (306) 966-1950Christine.Anderson@usask.ca

Corinne FasthuberAssistantPhone (306) 966-2231corinne.f@usask.ca

Joel DeshayeInstructional Technology Consultant(306) 966-2245email: joel.deshaye@usask.caISSN 1703-1222

ONE STEP AHEAD OF THE PALM PILOTS:CREATING A CULTURE OF ACADEMIC

HONESTY AT THE U OF S

On Friday September 27th, Dr. Gordon Barnhart,University Secretary, joined Joan Bobyn, Pharmacy, andSusan McDonald, English, to co-present the first sessionin the TLC’s Academic Integrity series.

The three presenters examined the responsibilities ofboth students and teachers in avoiding and dealing withplagiarism and other forms of academic dishonesty. Isthe seductiveness of the internet the reason for increasedexamples of dishonesty and “cut and paste” plagiarism?

Or is it the mounting pressure on students, many of whom are workingfull-time outside school, to get good grades rather than actually acquireknowledge?

Whatever the causes, the presenters agreed that teachers who do not actto create a culture of honesty in their classrooms, and who do notenforce ethical standards, lack integrity as much their students who cheatand plagiarize.

Two more Academic Integrity sessions were very successful. On October24th, Susan McDonald related her experiences with detecting plagiarismusing the search engine Google. On November 1st, Alec Couros andJames McNinch from the University of Regina examined the factors—internal, external, and even cultural—that lead students to plagiarize. Thepresenters asked, “How can we educate students and designassignments to ensure that our culture of integrity is more aboutprevention that detection?”

Other Integrity sessions are coming. Watch for details about a specialIntegrity videoconference in April, 2003, and planning has alreadybegun for a campus-wide Academic Honesty week in Fall, 2003.

The TLC is grateful for thesupport we received from theTecnololgy Enhanced LearningFund (TEL) for our AcademicIntegrity programming. Formore information about TEL,visit www.usask.ca/vpacademic/tel/.

For details about theUniversity of Saskatchewan’spolicies on academic honestyand useful information andlinks for students and teachersalike, visit the honesty website www.usask.ca/honesty.

Gordon Barnhart

3

The University of Saskatchewan is notalone in its focus on integrity. JuliaChristensen Hughes, University ofGuelph, provides some facts andfigures in the following article.

Integrity is at the heart—the corevalue—of the academic enterprise.Achieving it requires an ongoingcommitment by all levels of theuniversity community—students, staff,faculty, and administrators.Unfortunately, recent articles inacademic journals and the popularpress have brought into question ourcollective success in living this value.

Some figures• 84 percent of university studentsengage in some form of academicdishonesty (McCabe & Trevino, 1996).

• 80 percent of “high-achieving,college-bound students havecheated…think cheating iscommonplace and … more than half donot consider cheating a serioustransgression” (Keohane, 1999, p. 2).

• Websites offering free term papersreceive as many as 80,000 hits a day(Keohane, 1999).

• 32 percent of faculty who are awareof cheating in their courses do nothingin response (Mullens, 2000).

Some facts• Cheating is higher among studentswho perceive that their peers cheat andare not penalized for doing so(McCabe & Trevino, 1993, 1997).

• Students with lower grade pointaverages cheat more than students withhigher grade point averages (McCabe& Trevino, 1997).

• Students in business and engineeringself-report cheating more than otherstudent populations (Mullens, 2000).

• Younger students cheat more thanolder students (McCabe & Trevino,1997).

• Males cheat more than females(McCabe & Trevino, 1997).

These findings are troubling, asacademic dishonesty undermines thevalues and credibility of institutions ofhigher learning. In response, manyuniversities are examining academicmisconduct and reviewing theirapproaches for dealing with it.

Excerpted with permission fromChristensen Hughes, J. (Fall, 2001).Academic Integrity. Reflections andDirections: Teaching and Learning at theUniversity of Guelph. 3 (1), 1-3.

References

Dalton, J. (1998). Creating a campusclimate for academic integrity. In D.Burnett, L. Rudolph, & K. Clifford.Academic Integrity Matters. NASPAMonograph Series. Washington, DC:NASPA.

Keohane, N. (1999). In TheFundamental Values of AcademicIntegrity, Durham, NC: The Center forAcademic Integrity, Duke University, 1-2.

McCabe, D., & Trevino, L. (1993).Academic dishonesty: Honor codes andother contextual influences. Journal ofHigher Education, 64, 522-538.

McCabe, D., Trevino, L. (1996). Whatwe know about cheating in college.Change. 28 (1), 29-33.

McCabe, D., Trevino, L. (1997).Individual and contextual influences onacademic dishonesty: A multi-campusinvestigation. Research in HigherEducation, 38 (3), 379-396.

Melendez, B. (1985). Honor CodeStudy. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity.

Mullens, A. (2000). Cheating to win.University Affairs, 41 (10), 22-28.

ACADEMIC INTEGRITY

What does the “Teacher-Scholar Model” mean? What is a scholar? What isscholarship? On November 9 and 10, 2001, University of Saskatchewan teachers,librarians, extension specialists, graduate and undergraduate students, andadministrators attended a two-day Symposium to try to answer these questions.

The Symposium included 16 concurrent sessions, featuring 26 presenters from theUniversities of Saskatchewan, Regina, and Calgary. Many presenters grappled with thedefinition of scholarship; some discussed how to document and reward scholarship;others presented examples of it from their teaching, research, service, creativeperformance, and professional practice.

What Is A Teacher-Scholar? Symposium Proceedings are now available from theUniversity of Saskatchewan Bookstore in Marquis Hall for $12 (CDN). Mail orderplease call 888-214-8888 (in Canada only) or call 306-966-4476, fax 306-966-4492. The ISBN number for orders is 0-88880-459-8.

Dr. Joan Halmo, Department of Music, acontributor to the proceedings, with Dr.Ron Marken, Director, The Gwenna MossTeaching & Learning Centre.

4

The literature provides many reasonsfor cheating including (Gross Davis,1993; Maramark & Maline, 1993;Dalton, 1998; McCabe, Trevino &Butterfield, 1999):

• devaluing the intrinsic worth ofhigher education (i.e., a means to anend)

• societal/family/academicexpectations

• desire to excel

• pressure of getting high grades

• pressure of getting a good job orgetting into graduate school

• high levels of stress

• highly competitive environments

• pressure to support a team memberor friend

• laziness/apathy/lack ofpreparation

Other reasons include immaturity(Haines, Diekhoff, LaBeff & Clark,1986), alienation (Newhouse, 1982);all of which help explain the greaterincidents of cheating amongst first-year students. In addition, not allstudents who cheat are necessarilyaware that they are doing so. Somestudents are uncertain about thedifferences between complicity andappropriate collaboration, andbetween plagiarism and properlyacknowledged paraphrases.

Strategies for Promoting aCulture of Academic IntegrityWhat can teachers do?

When it comes to promoting academicintegrity, teachers and teachingassistants are instrumental. Below are anumber of tips and approaches.

• Discuss standards of academicscholarship, intellectual property, andcopyright – refer students to theUndergraduate Calendar (online orhardcopy) as appropriate

• Model ethical behaviour andadherence to University policies in theclassroom – set an example (e.g.,obtain public viewing rights to showvideos, reference and obtain permissionto use cartoons and pictures from bookson transparencies and for PowerPointpresentations; talk about the ethicalprotocols associated with your ownresearch)

• Educate students about plagiarism,paraphrasing and proper referencing –take them through the process ofreferencing and putting text in their ownwords (in groups or as a class)

• Discuss the benefits of citing sources(Harris, 2001)

• Teach students how to assess thevalidity/reliability of electronicresources

• Acknowledge that you are aware ofelectronic sources that sell or makeresearch papers available online(become familiar with these sources asthey pertain to your own subject areaand assignments)

Strategies for DesigningWritten Assignments• Be clear about what you expect ofstudents for each assignment; explainorally in class and again in writing

• Create meaningful assignments(Baldwin, 2001)

• Require students to write aparagraph describing why they chosetheir specific topic

• Require specific formatting guidelinesand documenting of research pathways(e.g., how students located electronicsources) (Johnson & Ury, 1999)

• Change topics and the nature ofassignments each year

• Require specific elements beincluded in the paper (e.g., 2 books, 1internet source, 4 primary sources, or aspecific referencing format such asAPA, CBE, MLA)

• Require students to submit a selectnumber of journal articles (orphotocopy of first page) identified intheir bibliography; to provide anannotated bibliography of an identifiednumber of references; and/or to limittheir research sources to thosepublished within a set number of years(e.g., last five years)

• Build in intermediate steps (with duedates) for which students have to submitwork for comment or grade (e.g., draftoutline of a paper) and require them todemonstrate how feedback has beenincorporated in their final version

• Provide in-class time for students toshare drafts of papers and receivefeedback from their peers

• Be absolutely clear about when andwhere collaboration is acceptable andnot acceptable

WHY DO STUDENTS CHEAT AND

WHAT CAN TEACHERS DO?

The literature on teaching and learning shows that makingit less likely that students plagiarize will also make it morelikely they will learn. (Stefani & Carroll: A Briefing onPlagiarism)

5

• If students are allowed to collaboratewith peers on all or part of anassignment, require them toacknowledge their peers as a legitimatesource of information and as a checkmechanism between papers and reports

• Incorporate oral presentations ofstudents papers in which students haveto discuss both the process andoutcome of developing their paper

• Require students to submit electronicversions of their papers and use anInternet tool to check for plagiarism

Strategies for DetectingPlagiarism• Look for inconsistencies in writingstyles within and between papers; signsof datedness; mixed citation styles; alack of references or quotations (Harris,2001)

• Watch for obvious blunders wherestudents have failed to remove faxnumbers, notes (e.g., Thank You forUsing TermPaperMania) or webaddresses in the margins (Harris, 2001)

• Run student papers through availablesoftware or Internet programs thatcheck for plagiarism (e.g., TurnItIn.comor EVE2.com)

• Use a search engine (e.g., Google)to find a student’s paper if you suspect“cut and paste” plagiarism

• Where a paper is suspect, comparethe student’s work to previous writingassignments

Excerpted with permission fromChristensen Hughes, J. (Fall, 2001).Why so students cheat? Reflections andDirections: Teaching and Learning at theUniversity of Guelph. 3 (1), 8-9.

ReferencesBaldwin, A. (2001). Practicalplagiarism prevention. The TeachingProfessor, 15(5), 1,3.

Dalton, J. (1998). Creating a campusclimate for academic integrity. In D.Burnett, L. Rudolph, & K. Clifford.

Academic Integrity Matters. NASPAMonograph Series. Washington, DC:NASPA.

Gross Davis, B. (1993). Tools forTeaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Haines, V., Diekhoff, G., LaBeth, E., &Clark, R. (1986). College cheating:Immaturity, lack of commitment, and theneutralizing attitude. Research in HigherEducation, 60, 190 - 198.

Harris, R. (2001). Anti-PlagiarismStrategies for Research Papers. http://www.virtualsalt.com/antiplag.htm[available: 9/27/01].

Johnson, C. and Ury, C. (1999).Preventing Internet plagiarism. TheNational Teaching and Learning Forum,8 (5), 5-6.

Maramuk,S. & Maline,M. (1993).Academic dishonesty among collegestudents. Issues in Education(monograph). Washington, DC:Department of Education, Office ofResearch. ED360903.

McCabe, D., Trevino, L., & Butterfield,K. (1999, March/April). Academicintegrity in honor code and non-honorcode environments: A qualitativeinvestigation. Journal of HigherEducation, 70(2), 211-234.

Newhouse, R. (1982). Alienation andcheating behavior in the schoolenvironment. Psychology in the Schools,19, 234-237.

Academic integrity is thequintessential moral value of theacademic community . . . . Whenstudents or faculty violate this moralstandard, they jeopardize the coreintegrity of the learning enterprise.No college or university cantolerate the loss of its fundamentalethical credibility.”

Dalton, J. (1998). Creating aCampus Climate forAcademic Integrity. P. 1.

How Can TeachersPreventPlagiarism?

Four Practical Tips1. Emphasize the processes involved indoing research and writing papers. Waysto do so include requiring topicproposals, idea outlines, multiple drafts,interim working bibliographies andphotocopies of sources.

2. Require students to engage and applyideas, not just describe them.

3. Require students to reflect personallyon the topic or the processes of researchand writing, either in the paper or as anadditional writing assignment.

4. Discuss plagiarism with students, bothwhat it is and your policies about it.

Lisa Hinchliffe, University of Illinois atUrbana Champaign. Cut-and-PastePlagiarism: Preventing, Detecting andTracking Online Plagiarism http://alexia.lis.uiuc.edu/~janicke/plagiary.htm

Connect With Your Students . . .Says Gerdeman in a recentERIC Digest:The classroom environment established bythe instructor can have significant impacton integrity. Students who are activelyinvolved in the learning process and whoperceive instructors to be concernedabout them are much less likely to engagein dishonest behaviour. If, on the otherhand, a professor seems indifferent or ifthe subject matter seems unimportant oruninteresting, students feel less moralobligation to behave honestly.

Gerdeman, R.D. 2000. AcademicDishonesty and the Community College.ERIC Digest.

http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed447840.html

6

Top Three Strategies forPreventing Plagiarism

1. Require specific components for thepaper. Develop a set of requirementsthat allow flexibility but that alsoprevent a canned or downloadedpaper from fitting the assignment:

• At least two sources must be less thana year old.

• Include a table of data collected bythe student in a survey or experiment.

• Include a discussion or analysis of aspecific book or article named by theinstructor.

• Make use of at least two books, threearticles, two Web articles, and aninterview.

2. Require process steps. To prevent astudent from handing in a paperdownloaded or borrowed the nightbefore the assignment is due, requirethat you see evidence of ongoingconstruction of the paper. Points shouldbe given to each piece of the process,so that a student who hands in a paperwithout turning in the pieces will notpass the assignment. Considerrequiring some of these steps, spreadout over the time allotted for creatingthe paper:

• Explanation of topic chosen

• Research plan

• Preliminary bibliography

• Annotated preliminary bibliography

• Prospectus (the problem, possibleapproaches or solutions, writer’sproposed approach)

• Outline

• Rough draft (on which you makesuggestions for additional sources orrearrangement)

• Final draft

3. Require copies of sources. Havestudents attach printouts of articles orWeb pages cited and photocopies ofprinted articles and book pages used.Have them highlight the words theyhave quoted or otherwise cited.Comparing the sources to the paper willenable you to determine how effectivelythe students use source material. Youmay also find uncited material in thepaper that is plagiarized from one ofthe sources. When students know thattheir sources are attached, they may bemore careful in using them.

Top Three Strategies forDetecting Plagiarism

A large percentage of studentplagiarism appears to be coming fromthe Web because searching, copying,and pasting are so easy. Thesestrategies focus on finding informationtaken from the Web.

1. Use the Google-Plus-Four method.Google (www.google.com) is a searchengine with a very large database, andit is one of the best places to begin.Find a four-word phrase that appears tobe unique to the paper or paragraphyou suspect. For example, in a paperabout Dickens’ Great Expectations, thephrase “Pip still snobbishly thought”was chosen because “Pip” is an unusualword and the phrase “snobbishlythought” is unusual as well. The twoitems together are probably close tobeing unique. Next, take the phrase toGoogle and perform an exact phrasesearch by typing the phrase into thesearch window, and surrounding it withquotation marks. In the case of theDickens paper, Google returned two

Web sites containing the stolen paper.Using other search engines may also beuseful, as well as a metasearch toolsuch as Dogpile (www.dogpile.com).

2. Look at online paper mills. Go toGoogle and type in “free term papers”and you will find many sites. The sitesare often linked with each other (someeven plagiarize each other’s papers),so you can visit several. Search bysubject or title. For paper mills that sellpapers, try Essay Finder(www.essayfinder.com). Search bysubject. Compare the description of thepaper (including length and number ofcitations) with your suspect paper.

3. Try a software approach. Visitwww.plagiarism.phys.virginia.edu forinformation.

Final Advice to Instructors

In my experience, other than the whole-paper or paragraph-after-paragraphtype of plagiarism, much plagiarismoccurs through the student’s lack ofunderstanding about how to quote,paraphrase, and cite sources. Manystudents simply do not know what theyare doing. Providing them with clearinstruction about plagiarism and how toavoid it will help reduce the amount yousee.

—Robert A. Harris (2001). ThePlagiarism Handbook: Strategies forPreventing, Detecting, and Dealing withPlagiarism, Pyrczak Publishing.www.antiplagiarism.com

ANTI-PLAGIARISM TIPS FROM THE AUTHOR OF

“THE PLAGIARISM HANDBOOK”

7

THE RISK OF INTEGRITY: AN ETHICAL

CONTRADICTION?

The University of Manitoba’s annual Academic Integrity Week features a variety of speakers, events and activities. TheWeek underscores the fact that the entire university community, from teachers to administrators to students, shares theresponsibility for establishing and maintaining an ethos of honesty on campus. The following article summarizes one of thekeynote presentations, by Dr. John Stackhouse, Department of Religion. It appears here with permission from UniversityTeaching Services at Manitoba.

John Stackhouse’s nine fundamental elements of academic integrity grew from the definition that academic integrity refers tothe consistent and coherent dedication to the ideals of the university. Academic integrity is more than simply “notcheating”; it encompasses positive elements that inform and underpin academic life. These nine principles apply toteachers and students alike, but there are some risks for both groups in adhering to these ideals.

John Stackhouse’s Nine Elements of Integrity

I discover: refers to the devotion to inquiry and risk of imaginative exploration in the face ofseeking more comfortable verification of existing beliefs

I declare: places an emphasis on speaking with one’s own voice to present discoveries, informedopinions, existing biases, and opposing viewpoints

I document: raises the constant question, “How do I know that?” and so leads to credit beinggiven to all sources of knowledge

I doubt: encourages us to be our own worst critics and then put our ideas in the public forum toface the skepticism of our peers

I disagree: refers to the challenges to others’ opinions or findings that drive further inquiry

I don’t know: clarifies when students or colleagues can trust your statements on a particulartopic

I did/didn’t do that: taking proper credit for accomplishments not only clarifies one’s level ofauthority or knowledge in a field but also creates a legitimate, shorthand method of definingposition, status, authority

I defer: emphasizes giving way to others’ opinions in certain circumstances and also awillingness to suspend judgment on an issue until sufficient has been done

I delight: the academic ideal, described in part by actions described above, requires devotion tothe process and excitement about the work.

What risks are inherent in following these nine principles? For teachers, disagreement—even over esoteric issues of afield—can lead to ill-will; self-doubt can be paralyzing; and delight in academia can be seen as a strange eccentricity. Forstudents, documentation of sources may reduce the apparent amount of “original” thought; declaring a viewpoint may openthe student to criticism from peers; and delight in academia may turn an undergraduate student into—of all things—agraduate student.

This article first appeared as “The Risk of Integrity” (Mark Lawall, ed.). The UTS Newsletter. 6 (2), 1997.

8

THE INTERNET

AND INTEGRITY

Lawrence Hinman, Director of the ValuesInstitute, University of San Diego, says thatopportunities for Internet plagiarism arerampant. More troubling for him,however, is the broader effect of onlineteaching on academic integrity:

“ The Internet is quickly transforming whathappens—and doesn’t happen—in the traditional classroom, and thispresents a much greater challenge. . . .

Classroom education has always had a dual element. On the one hand,information gets transmitted. On the other hand, there is an engagementthat occurs between teacher and students. It is in this process that studentacademic integrity is formed, not just in some minimalist sense of academichonesty, but also in a much fuller sense of integrity. Students develop anintellectual identity, to see themselves as thinkers who take responsibility forthemselves and their ideas. They develop responsibility for their ownintellectual quest. This is academic integrity in its most fundamental sense.

As the Internet plays an increasingly prominent role in traditionalundergraduate education, two paths are open to us. We can move in adirection that will make classrooms increasingly irrelevant. Insofar as we seeeducation simply as the transmission of information, we will move naturallyin this direction.

Or the Internet can be used to free classroom time for more effectiveinteraction among professor, students and the ideas being considered in thecourse—an interaction that cannot happen on the Web. The momentum ofthe technology, the apparent economic benefits won by cost-consciousadministrators and the lack of appreciation for the central formative processof liberal education all conspire to push us toward the first path. To followthis path to its inevitable destination would be the ultimate violation ofacademic integrity.”

Excerpted from Download Your Workload,Offload Your Integrity, Los Angeles Times, Nov15, 1999. Available at Lawrence Hinman’sweb site, Ethics Updates: http://ethics.sandiego.edu/index.html

English Professor WinsFirst U of SDistinguishedSupervisor Award

On October 8, 2002, Professor PeterStoicheff won the first annual University ofSaskatchewan Distinguished SupervisorAward. The award honours faculty memberswho supervise graduate student projects.

Fifteen faculty members from severalcolleges at the U of S were nominated.Stoicheff was chosen because of his recordof having supervised 11 Master’s andDoctoral theses and because of hiscollaborative work with graduate students.In humanities research, collaborationbetween graduate students and faculty isunusual, but Stoicheff thought it would be amutually beneficial experience and hiredseveral graduate students to work with him.

During the course of the last four years,several students have helped Stoicheffdesign hypertext editions of some literarytexts. Two of the sites have garneredwidespread attention from scholars andstudents who use the Internet for research.The sites have also been proving useful asclassroom teaching aids.

One of the first projects, The PrufrockPapers, provides a fully linked version ofT.S. Eliot’s 1917 poem “The Love Song of J.Alfred Prufrock.” The text’s many allusionsare explained through the linked poem.Since its uploading in March, 1999, the sitehas attracted over 250,000 visitors.

Stoicheff’s hypertext edition of WilliamFaulkner’s 1929 novel, The Sound and theFury, has been even more popular. The site,which provides an automated way of re-ordering and sorting Faulkner’s oftenchaotic narrative chronology, will likely haveexceeded half a million visitors by the timeof this printing in the New Year.

These hypertext projects, which areconsistently rated in the top 50 most popularU of S sites, are available on the Internetthrough the U of S English Department siteat http://www.usask.ca/english.

9

THINKING

CRITICALLY

ABOUT

ONLINE

RESOURCESLinda Fritz, Head of Research Services,U of S Library

While encouraging students not to copymaterial from the web is a crucial partof academic honesty, a corollary ishaving them think critically about theintegrity, honesty, and dependability ofwhat they find on the web.

There are no guarantees on the web.

Among the things I tell students is thatevaluating the web is no different fromevaluating print information. All the oldquestions apply:

• Who wrote the article?

• What is it really about?

• When was it written?

• Where was it written?

• Why was it written?

The problem is that finding the answersto these questions for online informationisn’t always easy.

Let me give you an example of whatcan happen if a web user doesn’t askthese questions.

A few years ago, an article appearedon the web co-authored by U of SPharmacy and Nutrition ProfessorGordon Zello. The printed version,which appeared in a peer-reviewedscholarly journal, described an aminoacid that was required in the humandiet. The article found that the current

dietary recommendation estimate forthe amino acid was too low. It wasalso made clear that individuals eatinga normal/healthy diet were not at anyrisk for an inadequacy of the aminoacid as it is found in abundance in mostfoods. The web version of the articlehad all of the attributes of scholarship:full references, information about theauthors, etc. Unfortunately it left out theconclusion that normal dietary practiceswould not result in a deficiency of theamino acid. This version of the articlehad been “published” by a firm thatmakes dietary supplements. It existedon the web to sell supplements,especially the amino acid in theresearch article. This happens far toooften with the free web.

Some concrete ways toevaluate a web siteUnderstanding the structure of the URL isa good way to begin. Geographicaldomains are useful: .ca points to aCanadian server; .nz to one in NewZealand. Three letter domain typesusually indicate that the server is in theUnited States. The exception, and it’s abig one, is .com.

The domain type .edu indicates a 4-year college in the United States.While all the .edu sites are notnecessarily scholarly, they are a goodplace to start.

U of S instructors may want to tell theirstudents that the Library subscribes toover 7,000 electronic journals throughlicensed database subscriptions. Manyof these journals are peer-reviewed,scholarly works. They are notavailable on the open web throughsearch engines such as Google, butthrough the Library’s web site http://library.usask.ca. All students, facultyand staff who have valid and up-to-dateuniversity ID are entitled to use them.

Finally, library staff are always happyto assist teachers and students to accessreliable online information.

CALL FOR

PROPOSALSTeaching &

Learning First:Does technologyenrich student

learning?

University ofSaskatchewan,

May 12-14, 2003The Gwenna Moss Teaching &Learning Centre invites proposalsfor the second Symposium ontechnology-enhanced pedagogy.Our theme, “Teaching & LearningFirst,” encourages reflection onand demonstration of the ways inwhich technology has affectedwhat teachers can do and whatstudents can learn both inside andoutside the classroom. Wewelcome proposals from universityteachers, teaching assistants, andgraduate and undergraduatestudents.

For more complete Symposiumdetails, proposal guidelines,suggested topics, and a proposalsubmission form, visit the TLC website at www.usask.ca/tlc

Deadline for proposals:March 17, 2003

10

1. Affirm the importance of academicintegrity. Institutions of higher educationare dedicated to the pursuit of truth:affirm that the pursuit of truth isgrounded in certain core values,including diligence, civility, and honesty.

2. Foster a love of learning. Acommitment to academic integrity isreinforced by high academic standards.Most students will thrive in anatmosphere where academic work isseen as challenging, relevant, useful,and fair.

3. Treat students as ends in themselves.Students deserve individual attentionand consideration. They will generallyreciprocate by respecting the bestvalues of their teachers, including acommitment to academic integrity.

4. Promote an environment of trust inthe classroom. Most students are matureadults; they value an environment freeof arbitrary rules and trivialassignments, where trust is earned, andgiven.

TEN PRINCIPLES OF ACADEMIC INTEGRITY

5. Encourage student responsibility foracademic integrity. With properguidance, students can be givensignificant responsibility to help protectand promote the highest standards ofacademic integrity. Students want towork in communities where competitionis fair, integrity is respected, andcheating is punished. They understandthat one of the greatest inducements toengaging in academic dishonesty is theperception that academic dishonesty isrampant.

6. Clarify expectations for students.Teachers have primary responsibility fordesigning and cultivating theeducational environment andexperience. They must clarify theirexpectations in advance regardinghonesty in academic work, includingthe nature and scope of studentcollaboration. Most students want suchguidance, and welcome it in coursesyllabi, carefully reviewed by theirteachers in class.

7. Develop fair and relevant forms ofassessment. Students expect theiracademic work to be fairly and fullyassessed. Teachers should use—andcontinuously revise—forms ofassessment that require active andcreative thought, and promote learningopportunities for students

8. Reduce opportunities to engage inacademic dishonesty. Prevention is acritical line of defense againstacademic dishonesty. Students shouldnot be tempted or induced to engage inacts of academic dishonesty byambiguous policies, undefined orunrealistic standards for collaboration,inadequate classroom management, orpoor examination security.

9. Challenge academic dishonestywhen it occurs. Students observe howteachers behave, and what values theyembrace. Teachers who ignore ortrivialize academic dishonesty send themessage that the core values ofacademic life, and community life ingeneral, are not worth any significanteffort to enforce.

10. Help define and support campus-wide academic integrity standards. Actsof academic dishonesty by individualstudents can occur across artificialdivisions of departments and schools.Although teachers should be the primerole models for academic integrity,responsibility for defining, promoting,and protecting academic integrity mustbe a community-wide concern—not onlyto identify repeat offenders, and applyconsistent due process procedures, butto affirm the shared values that makecolleges and universities truecommunities.

Excerpted from Ten Principles of AcademicIntegrity (College Administration Publications,available online at http://www.collegepubs.com/ref/10PrinAcaInteg.shtml)

By Donald L. Mc Cabe and Gary Pavela

For this issue’s “academichonesty” theme, you areinvited to fill inthe captions on this cartoon.What is being said betweenthese two people? The mostcreative and appropriateentry will win.... A TRIPTO HAWAII!

(In the interest of academicintegrity, that last bit aboutHawaii should probably beignored.) Deadline is January25, 2003. Send to Eileen atthe TLC. Winner will beannounced in the Feb. 2003Bridges.

What’s the Pointby Telfer

11

BRIDGING THE GAPS

THE PLAGIARISM HANDBOOK:Strategies for Preventing, Detecting,and Dealing with Plagiarismby Robert A. Harris (Copyright 2001by Pyrczak Publishing)

“Do you need this book?” asks itsauthor, English Professor Robert Harris.The question is rhetorical, it seems.

Here are some of the facts he cites:

• A free term-paper site run by a 16-year-old gets 13,000 hits a day.

• A former tutor at the University ofMinnesota admitted to writing 400academic papers for the men’sbasketball team.

• A librarian went “undercover” toorder a paper from a paper mill; itcould not be delivered on time as thesite was flooded with over 800 orders aday. (Harris: vi)

In six chapters that contain livelycartoons, The Plagiarism Handbookaddresses topics such as educatingyourself and your students aboutplagiarism; constructing assignmentsthat deter plagiarism; detecting anddealing with plagiarism; administrativeand institutional considerations. Theextensive appendices provide lists,tools, definitions, and examples ofpolicies.

This book is new on the reference shelfin the TLC Library.

On-Line Resources

University of Saskatchewan AcademicHonesty Web Sitehttp://www.usask.ca/honesty

From the University Secretary’s Office,this excellent web site containsinformation for university teachers and

students alike. With definitions ofhonesty and dishonesty, links to theuniversity’s guidelines for academicconduct, and practical, no-nonsenseadvice for students it is a must tobookmark and refer to again andagain. The section ”Doing It Right”contains resources for teachers,information for students on how not toplagiarize, and guidelines for citingsources.

A Briefing on Plagiarism (2001) byLorraine Stefani & Jude Carroll,published by The Learning and TeachingSupport Network, York, UK.

http://www.ltsn.ac.uk/genericcentre/projects/assessment/assess_series.asp

This paper argues for clearer, morecomplete definitions of plagiarism andmakes a case for accepting theresearch on assessment for student-centred learning as a significant help inlessening the impact of plagiarism.Although electronic detection may seeman answer to cheating in exams andassignments, it may lead to a culture ofsuspicion detrimental to studentlearning. A Briefing on Plagiarismsuggests starting with student learningand, in particular, with ensuringstudents receive clear and completeguidelines as to what constitutesplagiarism, how it is defined atdisciplinary level and what actions aretaken in the event of a misdemeanour.The paper also advocates that teachersreview the links between plagiarism,assessment and classroom actions andoffers suggestions as to how this mightbe done. This paper may also bedownloaded directly from the Universityof Saskatchewan’s Honesty web sitehttp://www.usask.ca/honesty

The Climate for Honesty, The FacultyNetwork, Bryant College, Rhode Island

http://web.bryant.edu/%7Efacdev/the_faculty_network/fall02/fall_2002.htm

Bryant College’s Fall 2002 newsletterfocuses on academic integrity andbegins by juxtaposing the currentbusiness environment of deceit andcheating (Enron, Worldcom, etc.) withthe university classroom that may beseen as a micro-climate of thispervasive environment. The articlesinclude Combating the Culture ofPlagiarism; Critical Enquiry, AcademicHonesty, and Mission; and AcademicBehaviour: A Practical View. This sitemay also be accessed directly from theTLC web site http://www.usask.ca/tlc/academic_integrity.html

Students who weavetogether blocks of text,

citing each source correctlyand adding little if any of

their own words haveprobably written a very

poor paper but they havenot plagiarized. Many

students find this distinctionhard to grasp. (Stefani &

Carroll: A Briefing onPlagiarism)

By Eileen Herteis, TLC

12

Not long ago, e-mail correspondence between students and faculty was a relatively distrusted andsometimes unreliable means of bridging the communication gap. Today, the “bugs” have been all butsquashed, and, with the advent of universal e-mail access for many universities, e-mail exchanges arecommon between students and teachers.

The popularity of this technology has already begun to affect our writing habits. The most obviouschange is that we write less formally than in the past - perhaps even with less decorum. While it isharmless enough for experienced writers to play a little with words or to opt for the convenience of brief,informal correspondence, this practice could be detrimental to students’ writing skills.

The main concern is that the speedy convenience of e-mail encourages people to send messages withoutthinking about them thoroughly. In my own teaching experience, students’ e-mails tend to contravenemany of the traditional formalities of written work. The convenience invites carelessness, and themessages I receive often lack a greeting or address, a subject line, correct grammar and punctuation,closing remarks, a signature line, or some combination of these. The importance of these omissionsdepends on the situation.

For instance, when people do not define all the account identity settings in their e-mail application, andalso neglect to include a closing or signature, the recipients might never know who sent the message. Ihave received several such unintentionally anonymous messages, and the annoyance is acute! E-mailalso encourages writers to sacrifice accuracy for speed - a habit that can be problematic when peoplescan their messages and replies without attending to all the content.

These bad habits are not limited to students. Teachers, too, need to be aware of the temptation of thequick and handy e-mail response. When I was writing my thesis, I sent a query about my subject to oneof the international experts in the field. He “flamed” me with a completely dismissive and discouragingresponse. Despite the fact that my supervisor supported me, saying that such a response implied that Iwas pressing the right buttons, I wished this expert had thought twice before clicking “Send.”

Another convenience of e-mail is the clever iconography of using emoticons (emotion icons). While theyare fun and quick, their use also suggests that the writer does not expect the reader to understand irony,gratitude, frustration, humour, or surprise, when insinuated in words. I can’t imagine Jonathan Swiftwriting “Eat the babies! ;-)” Nor can I believe that students will benefit from using shorthand,abbreviations, or graphics to say what they could have said with words in context.

Why not? When one disregards the aforementioned formalities, misunderstandings are likely.Introductory remarks, closing sentences, subject lines, and effective vocabulary all remind the reader ofthe letter’s purpose and intended audience. Clarity depends on a logical organization and anappropriate tone; without them, the messages are ambiguous and require time and effort to interpret.

However, these complaints should not persuade teachers to stop using e-mail. Academic discourse canbe more accessible to students who have e-mail as an option. Shy students or those who prefer to thinkcarefully before speaking might be grateful for an electronic environment that allows them to respond tothe instructor without fear of reprisal from their peers. For a timid undergrad, e-mail could be a godsend.

Nevertheless, students need to know how to avoid the pitfalls of the e-mail idiom. A few exercises mightbe all that is needed to ensure that students know the basics of communicating simply and clearly, evenin the tempting environments of the new, ever-faster technologies.

Informality in E-mail Communicationby Joel DeshayeInstructional Technology Consultant

Joel Deshaye is a website designer and instructional technology consultant at The Gwenna Moss Teaching &Learning Centre. He is also a sessional lecturer in the English Department.

13

Graduate StudentDevelopmentDaysGraduate Student Development Daysprovide novice graduate students at theU of S with the instructional knowledge,skills, and confidence needed topromote student learning.

The sessions are offered jointly throughthe Graduate Students’ Association(GSA) and The Gwenna Moss Teaching& Learning Centre, and are open tograduate students from any departmentat the University of Saskatchewan.

There is no registration fee for theprogramme; however, registration isrequired.

For more detailed descriptions of thesessions and frequent updates on ourgrad student programmes, visit the TLCweb site www.usask.ca/tlc and choose“For Grad Students.”

Sessions:January 13, 2003, 9 - noonBecoming A Professional - Howto Survive In Academia

February 3, 2003, 1-4 PMInformation Literacy or Life in theDeep Web

February 13, 2003, 4 - 7 PMTeaching With Technology

March 4, 2003, 1 - 4 PMAcademic Issues - Integrity,Ethics, Dishonesty Procedures

There is no registration fee for theprogramme; however, registration isrequired. For further registrationinformation, please contact CorinneFasthuber, corinne.f@usask.ca, orphone 966-2231

Best Practices in GraduateSupervisionExcerpted from an article by Dr. Tom Wishart, Rob Angove, Kim West and Beatrice Blanchette

“A good supervisory relationship can help bridge the gap between student andsupervisor, and between teaching and learning.”

Over one hundred and sixty faculty and graduate students attended the BestPractices in Graduate Supervision Conference on October 4 and 5, 2002. Thesix-hour Conference stretched over a Friday afternoon and Saturday morning,and headlined two University of Manitoba professors: Dr. Lynn Taylor, Directorof the Faculty Development Division of the Centre for Higher EducationResearch and Development, and Dr. Dean Kriellaars, Associate Professor in theDivision of Physical Therapy at the School of Medical Rehabilitation. Plenarypresentations, sharing best practices, and trouble-shooting common scenariosallowed participants to focus on what they considered some of the importantaspects of a student-supervisor relationship. Sessions included group work andcase studies, whereby graduate faculty and graduate students examined anumber of issues and devised solutions to benefit students and professors alike.A high quality of discussion was maintained throughout the Conference, andthe faculty and students were actively engaged on the issues. That participationhelped the Conference realise its goal: to make graduate student supervision abetter experience for student and supervisor.

All participants agreed that among the key ingredients for any successfulstudent-supervisor relationship are effective communication, mutual respect &professionalism, and balance, including setting up clear goals, timetables, andexpectations.

Because the relationship between graduate students and supervisors iscomplex, enduring, and multi-faceted, the ideas generated during the graduatestudent forum are rich and varied. A full account of that discussion will beavailable in its entirety on The Gwenna Moss Teaching & Learning Centre’swebsite (http://www.usask.ca/tlc). Both students and supervisors areencouraged to make use of the resources posted on the website to help developand foster successful student-supervisor relationships in the future.

With the successful conclusion of this Conference we now turn our attention tothe question of whether a second conference, on the same or a different topic,is necessary or desirable. Your comments and suggestions are invited tobeatrice.blanchette@usask.ca

The Conference was made possible by the coordinated efforts of theOrganizing Committee, and the generous financial contributions from theResearch Committee of Council, the Vice-President Research, the Acting Provost& Vice-President Academic Offices, and many Colleges.

PREPARING FUTURE FACULTY:OUR GRAD STUDENTS’ PAGE

14

stress, anxiety, or depression, how shouldthe teacher respond?

• What are your responsibilities as ateacher to respond to personal disclosuresfrom students?

• When should you draw the line and referthe student to other agencies on campus?

• How do you recognize that the student’sdisclosure is having an effect on your ownwell-being, and where can you turn forhelp?

This session is open to all University ofSaskatchewan teachers, but it is especiallyrecommended for new faculty and graduatestudent teachers.

A Journalling PrimerCindy Peternelj-Taylor, Nursing,& Marg Forbes, CommerceFebruary 11th, 11:45 - 12:45 pmJournalling helps students record and reflecton their learning, but it can do so muchmore. Would it work in your class? Attendthis special lunch-hour session to find out.

Getting Them Thinking: Models andmethods for developing higher-order thinking skills in the classroomDirk Morrison, Extension Division,Deirdre Bonnycastle, ExtensionDivisionThursday, February 27th - 1:30 - 4 pmMost university faculty would agree that amajor goal of higher education is thedevelopment of higher-order thinking skills.While graduates of the U of S are expectedto have basic content knowledge, employersincreasingly insist that students must alsoacquire, refine and demonstrate aconstellation of cognitive proficiencies,including critical, creative, and complexthinking skills. This interactive seminar willarticulate and explore a conceptual model(the Integrated Thinking Model) and anumber of concrete instructional methodspertinent to the development of higher-orderthinking skills, applicable to both face-to-face and online learning environments.

Student and Teacher Perspectives onScholarship in Teaching andImproving One’s Teaching: What do

TLC DAYSThe Graduate Student’s TeachingPortfolio: Developing a Scholarshipof TeachingEileen Herteis, The Gwenna MossTeaching & Learning CentreThursday, January 30th, 1:30-4 pmMore and more universities are requiringteaching portfolios, and graduate school isthe perfect time to start compiling yours.

With their increased teaching and markingresponsibilities, graduate students begin todevelop teaching philosophies and goalsthat will inform their future academicpractice and scholarship. The portfolioallows graduate students to record theirteaching goals and accomplishments evenwhile they are evolving. The resultingdossier will become an importantcomponent of a successful career search.

This interactive workshop is designedespecially for graduate students. Thesession will get you started on the process;introduce you to the portfolio and itscomponents; and present examples fromother graduate students. So even if you havelimited teaching experience, you areencouraged to attend and discover how youcan create a portfolio that works for you.

The Dilemmas of Disclosure: DefiningBoundaries in the Teacher-StudentRelationshipNorm Biram, Employee AssistanceProgramme & Lynn Corbett, StudentCounselling ServicesFriday, January 31st, 1:30-4 pm,University teachers (faculty, sessionals, orgraduate students) are not trained ascounsellors; however, for many teachers theline between instructor and counsellorbecomes blurred by the demands of studentsand an instructor’s desire to be helpful.Class content, course expectations, learningactivities, or even outside events triggerstrong reactions in students. They mayexperience anxiety, stress, depression, oreven trauma that manifest in many differentways and may have a profound effect ontheir learning and their ability to fulfill classrequirements.

This workshop will seek to answer these andother questions:

• When a student discloses feelings of

the Experts (Students and Teachers)Tell us?Len Gusthart, College ofKinesiology, Linda Ferguson,College of NursingThursday, February 6th, 1:30- 4 pmThe phrase “how research informsteaching” brings different images to mind.We all know many things about goodteaching but operationalizing this into theclassroom is a separate challenge. Thispresentation will integrate the results of twoUniversity of Saskatchewan studies toidentify effective teaching strategies anddiscuss means to overcome barriers to theirimplementation in the classroom.Participants will be actively engaged in thesession.

The Teaching Voice: Exercises andTips for Using and Protecting yourMost Valuable Instructional AssetPamela Haig-Bartley,Department of DramaThursday, March 6th, 1:30 - 4 pmThis session will focus on helping you, theteacher, use your voice to advantage. We’llattempt to learn a few exercises to helpminimize the common fear of publicspeaking, and give you back some of thefun, joy and power that speaking effectivelycan give you. We’ll work on developinghealthy, self-aware habits so that you feelless at the mercy of crippling self-consciouness. You’ll also learn somepractical tips on taking care of this valuableteaching instrument. So come on out, makesome noise, and be heard!

Sense and Non-ScentsPerfumes, colognes, aftershaves, lotions

and other scented products containchemicals that cause discomfort, or

even serious health problems, for thosewho suffer from allergies, asthma, and

other medical conditions.

To ensure the comfort of everyone whoattends our workshops, participantsand presenters alike, The Gwenna

Moss Teaching & Learning Centre hasinstituted a scent-free policy. Please donot wear scented products when youattend our sessions or visit the TLC.

Graduate Students in the Scholarship ofTeaching & Learning Certificate shouldrefer to our web site to see whichworkshops apply towards certification.

15

The TLC“FIND THEBRIDGES”Contest

[or] The TLC’sI SPY

THE BRIDGESFIVE Contest

The PRIZE:

Simon & Garfunkel’sBridge Over Troubled

Water on CD, a TLC mug,past issues of Teaching &Learning Bridges, and a

Faculty Club giftcertificate!

The RULES:

Go to the TLC website atwww.usask.ca/tlc. Find

the five (5) bridge imagesthat are surrounded by an

orange border. Go towww.usask.ca/tlc/

contest.html to enter thecontest by summarizingthe content of the pages

on which the bridgesappear.

The DEADLINE:January 25, 2003.

New thisSemester!

Focus on Teaching: ASweet & InformalLunchtime SeriesJoin us at the TLC for three lunch-hoursessions that explore why we becameteachers, why we love teaching, and howwe reward and recognize teachingaccomplishment. The topics are designed toevoke reflection and provoke discussion.Bring your lunch; we’ll supply dessert!

Awards—What Are They Good For?Tuesday, January 28th, 11:45 am –12:45 pm Join the University’s three 3MFellows Len Gusthart (Kinesiology), MelHosain (Engineering), Ron Marken (English/TLC), and 3M Coaching Award Winner LyleSanderson to discuss the value of nationalteaching awards. What do we expect ouraward-winners to do on a local, provincial, ornational stage to raise the profile of teaching?

Dessert of the Day: Chocolate Cake

Exploring Teaching PhilosophiesEileen Herteis from The GwennaMoss Teaching & Learning CentreThursday, February 13th, 11:45 am -12:45 pm What philosophy underpinsyour teaching practice? Why do you dowhat you do in the class? Is your teachingmodeled on a mentor, a metaphor, or amemory of something that went well or notso well?

Dessert of the Day: Carrot Cake

Why Did You Become A Teacher? Dr.Ron Marken, Director, The GwennaMoss Teaching & Learning CentreMarch 11, 11:45 am - 12:45 pm.Was teaching the only thing you everwanted to do—or was it a default positionwhen something else didn’t work out?Regardless of whether you entered thisvocation through the front door, back door,or seat of your pants, you’re here now andhave a story to tell. Share that story withcolleagues at this highly interactive session.

Dessert of the Day: Nanaimo Bars

These sessions are open to all Uof S teachers; new faculty,international faculty, andgraduate student teachers areespecially welcome.

Dirk MorrisonDeirdre Bonnycastle

Len Gusthart Eileen Herteis

Ron Marken Linda Ferguson

Lynn Corbett Mel Hosain

Lyle Sanderson Pamela Haig-Bartley

Cindy Peterhelj-Taylor Marg Forbes

16

❐

❐

❐

❐

❐

❐

TLC DAYS

REGISTRATION FORMPlease print clearly

Name ___________________________________________________________________

Department ______________________________________________________________

On Campus Address ______________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

E-Mail ___________________________________________________________________

Fax _____________________________________________________________________

Phone ___________________________________________________________________

Please indicate which category you are in:❐ Faculty ❐ Extension Specialist❐ Sessional Lecturer ❐ Librarian❐ Graduate Student Teacher ❐ Other❐ Lab Demonstrator

Please don’t be asession “no-show”!Our sessions have limited registrationand there are frequently waiting lists.If you cannot make it to a workshop,contact the Centre immediately toensure that someone else canparticipate

Phone 966-2231Fax 966-2242Email: corinne.f@usask.caThis courtesy will ensure that we donot incur costs for refreshments ormaterials for people who do notshow up, that presenters are notdissapointed by the lower-than-anticipated attendance; and that wecan open up reserved spots quicklyto other interested participants.

Thank you.

Please send your completedregistration form to theGwenna Moss Teaching &Learning CentreRoom 37,Murray Memorial Library3 Campus Drive

You may also register by faxingthis form to 966-2242 or calling966-2231 or e-mailingthe information tocorinne.f@usask.ca

This registration form is alsoavailable on the web atwww.usask.ca/tlc

The Graduate Student’s Teaching Portfolio: Developing aScholarship of TeachingThursday, January 30th, 1:30-4:30 pm

The Dilemmas of Disclosure: Defining Boundaries in the Teacher-Student RelationshipFriday, January 31st, 1:30-4 pm

A Journalling PrimerFebruary 11th, 11:45 - 12:45 pm

Getting Them Thinking: Models and Methods for Developing Higher-Order Thinking Skills in the ClassroomThursday, February 27th - 1:30 - 4:00pm

Student and Teacher Perspectives on Scholarship in Teaching andImproving One’s Teaching: What do the experts (students andteachers) tell us? Thursday, February 6, 1:30 - 4:00 pm

The Teaching Voice: Exercises and Tips for Using and Protectingyour Most Valuable Instructional AssetThursday, March 6, 1:30 - 4:00 pm

Focus on Teaching: A Sweet & Informal Lunchtime Series

Awards—What Are They Good For?Tuesday, January 28th, 11:45 am –12:45 pm

Exploring Teaching PhilosophiesThursday, February 13th, 11:45 am - 12:45 pm

Why Did You Become A Teacher?March 11, 11:45 am - 12:45 pm.

Watch for thisupcomingvideoconference to bedownlinked by the TLCon April 3, 2003

Critical Challengesin Distance Education:

Cheating and PlagiarismUsing the Internet

❐

❐

❐