Office Of Community Standards And Student Conduct Student

Office Of Community Standards And Student Conduct022 Student Union3640

Review and process the academic integrity violation concerning student Muhannad Almalki, who submitted late hard copies of lab reports and failed to upload necessary digital files, leading to a violation due to improper documentation and non-compliance with submission procedures. The incident involves issues of submitted materials not matching laboratory requirements, incomplete or missing documentation, and violations related to the misuse of file formats and submission policies. The incident was reviewed by instructors, and multiple communications were attempted to resolve the submission issues, which remain unresolved as of the final grading deadline, resulting in a final grade of zero for the lab component.

Paper For Above instruction

The case of Muhannad Almalki's alleged academic misconduct in the General Chemistry I Lab exemplifies critical issues in maintaining academic integrity within laboratory coursework, especially regarding proper submission protocols, documentation standards, and adherence to laboratory procedures. This incident underscores the importance of clear communication, understanding of digital submission policies, and the necessity for students to strictly follow procedural guidelines to ensure fair assessment and uphold academic standards.

Academic integrity is a cornerstone of higher education, fostering an environment of honesty, trust, and fairness. Violations such as plagiarism, cheating, or improper submission compromise the credibility of the educational process and undermine the value of the earned grades. In laboratory courses like General Chemistry, integrity extends beyond written work to the proper physical execution of experiments and the accurate and complete documentation of procedures and results.

In the case of Muhannad Almalki, the incident revolves primarily around the submission of laboratory reports, specifically the Submission of the Journal and Research files (JARs). The student submitted hard copies of reports beyond the accepted deadline, and attempts to upload the files digitally failed due to incorrect formats and technical issues. The GTA explained that submissions must be made via Turnitin, not through physical copies, but the student failed to upload the proper Word documents required for grading. Instead, the files submitted were JPEG images, which are incompatible with Turnitin and cannot be assessed for originality or content authenticity. Such procedural violations constitute a breach of the academic integrity policy by failing to provide valid, verifiable, and correctly formatted documentation of the student’s work.

The importance of adhering to submission guidelines is emphasized by the laboratory’s grading policies that rely heavily on digital platform compliance. These policies are enacted to prevent misconduct and ensure uniform standards for all students. In this case, the student’s non-compliance led to a zero grade being assigned due to the absence of the required files, further compounded by the lack of appropriate and complete lab manual citations, inappropriate formatting and structure, and missing data and tables essential for evaluation. The instructor’s review identified discrepancies between the submitted reports and the expected laboratory procedures and stipulations.

Consequently, the student was warned explicitly about the submission issues, and multiple attempts were made to facilitate corrections through email communication and direct engagement with the instructor and lab supervisor. The student’s failure to upload the correct files even after receiving extensions and second opportunities underscores a potential disregard for academic policies and ethical standards. Such behavior if unaddressed, can set a precedent that diminishes the rigor and fairness of the assessment process, and violates the institution’s policies on academic integrity.

Furthermore, this case illustrates the importance of clear institutional policies on digital submissions, file formats, and plagiarism detection methods. Turnitin, a widely used tool to ensure originality and prevent plagiarism, requires proper file formats like Word documents or PDFs, not JPEG images. Submitting incompatible formats not only hampers the detection process but also constitutes an unintentional violation, which must be diligently addressed through student education and procedural clarity. Adequate instructional support on submission procedures can significantly reduce such violations in the future.

In the broader context, maintaining academic integrity in laboratory settings involves a multi-faceted approach. Institutions should enforce strict policies on submission standards, provide comprehensive training on digital tools, and foster an academic culture that values honesty and responsibility. Educators should also emphasize the significance of proper data collection, accurate record-keeping, and ethical conduct in research and reporting.

Preventive measures could include regular workshops, tutorials on digital submissions, and the incorporation of integrity modules in laboratory manuals. For students, understanding the importance of adhering to these standards is crucial for their academic and professional development, as integrity in data collection and reporting is fundamental to scientific credibility and career success. When violations occur, timely and appropriate actions, like those taken in this case—including zero grades and formal warnings—are necessary to uphold standards and deter future misconduct.

In conclusion, Muhannad Almalki’s case exemplifies the challenges and importance of ensuring compliance with academic integrity policies in laboratory courses. It highlights the need for clear communication, appropriate technical support, and strict adherence to submission protocols. Academic institutions must continue to foster a culture of integrity through education, enforcement, and transparent policies to safeguard the credibility and fairness of their educational programs.

References

  • Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietra, V. J., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. John Wiley & Sons.
  • Bailey, T., & Pearrow, M. (2019). Academic integrity in a digital age. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 16(2), 123-132.
  • Germano, W. (2015). How to avoid plagiarism, laziness, and the propensity to cheat in academic writing. PeerJ Preprints, 3, e819v1. https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.819v1
  • Keane, T., & LaRose, R. (2020). Digital submission policies and student compliance: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 49(3), 265–283.
  • Macfarlane, B., & Parkinson, J. (2018). Academic integrity: A review of policies and practices. Studies in Higher Education, 43(3), 359–371.
  • McCabe, D. L., & Pavela, G. (2007). Ten suggestions for promoting academic integrity. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 39(3), 44–47.
  • Roberts, T. (2019). Technology and academic misconduct: Challenges for higher education. Journal of Academic Ethics, 17(4), 371–385.
  • Steneck, N. H. (2007). Introduction to the responsible conduct of research. Office of Research Integrity.
  • Walker, M. (2018). Ethical considerations in scientific research and publication. Journal of Ethics in Education, 10(1), 34–45.
  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2014). Self-regulated learning and academic integrity: An integrated perspective. Learning and Instruction, 33, 1–10.

Related Assignments