Course Guide for SPH 603 Fall Term 2016 Scientific Communication in Public Health Professor: Dr. Cindy Jardine School of Public Health Office: 3-295 ECHA Phone: (780) 492-2626 Email:
[email protected] Office Hours are by appointment. Also see eClass.
Table of Contents Background and Rationale ................................................................................................................ 2 Course Description............................................................................................................................ 2 Objectives ................................................................................................................................... 2 Pre-requisites ................................................................................................................................... 3 Learning Resources ........................................................................................................................... 3 Library ................................................................................................................................... 3 Student Evaluation and Grading ...................................................................................................... 4 Course Structure and Assignments .................................................................................................. 4 Course Seminars…………………… ............................................................................................... 4 Course Evaluation ............................................................................................................................. 5 Academic Integrity............................................................................................................................ 5 Schedule at a Glance ........................................................................................................................ 6 Submission Deadlines ....................................................................................................................... 7 Section 1: Writing – Genres, Styles, Conventions, & Getting the Word Out................................... 8 Section 2: Writing for Different Audiences ...................................................................................... 9 Section 3: Reviewers’ Perspectives .................................................................................................. 10 Section 4: Presenting Research ......................................................................................................... 11 Appendix A – Academic Integrity – ‘Don’t Cheat Sheet’ .............................................................................. 13 Appendix B – Grading Guidelines .................................................................................................................. 15
Course Guide: SPH 603
Page 1
Background and Rationale Communication is one of seven core competencies identified by The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC, 2008) necessary for practice in the Canadian public health system. PHAC defined communication as follows: Communication involves the interchange of ideas, opinions, and information. This category addresses numerous dimensions of communication including internal and external exchanges; written, verbal, non-verbal and listening skills; computer literacy; providing appropriate information to different audiences; working with media and social marketing techniques. The essential knowledge, skills and attitudes enables a public health practitioner or researcher to: 1. Communicate effectively with individuals, families, groups, communities and colleagues. [e.g., front line service providers revise oral presentations to meet the needs of various audiences.] 2. Interpret information for professional, non-professional and community audiences. [e.g., front line providers develop fact sheets for people with low literacy levels. Consultants/specialists [researchers] discuss population health information about health status and demographics with front line workers.] 3. Mobilize individuals and communities by using appropriate media, community resources and social marketing techniques. [e.g., front line providers use multiple strategies to communicate health messages appropriately to a variety of audiences. Managers/ Supervisors [researchers] use community networks to receive and provide information about issues affecting the health of citizens.] 4. Use current technology to communicate effectively.” [e.g., Consultants/Specialists [researchers] develop an internet-based chronic disease prevention resource for front line workers] (PHAC, 2008 pp.5, 22) Regardless of where your career takes you, each of you will be required to communicate effectively using a broad range of media. SPH 603 is designed to provide you with opportunities and experiences to enhance your communication skills.
Course Description SPH 603: Scientific Communication in Public Health is an interdisciplinary seminar designed to explore communication in public health: written and oral communication of research to scientific and lay audiences, grant proposal and manuscript writing, and poster and oral presentations. The competencies you gain and refine in this course will have application to everything that you do en route to your PhD and beyond. Through SPH 603 you will learn to adapt your writing style to suit the audience, purpose, and genre or conventions in your area of specialization.
Objectives Viewed through a PHAC competency lens SPH 603 is designed to enable you to demonstrate and develop your knowledge and skills in: 1. communicating research findings in oral and written form; 2. explaining research findings and the relevance to diverse communities through poster sessions, presentations, etc; and 3. writing material of professional quality for submission in scholarship applications, grant applications, CVs.
Course Guide: SPH 603
Page 2
Pre-requisites It is expected that you will have already had considerable experience in written and oral communication: • You will have given oral presentations to peers, faculty groups, professional/student organizations, or lay audiences. • You will be technically proficient in the use of such programs as PowerPoint. • You will have selected a thesis topic. If you have already begun to work on your thesis proposal, so much the better.
Learning Resources: •
Williams, J. & Nadel, I. (2005). Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace. Canadian Edition, Toronto: Longman.
• Faigley, L. Graves, R., & Graves, H. (2010). The little penguin handbook. Canadian Edition. Toronto: Pearson Canada. • Kamler, B. & Thomson, P. (2006). Helping doctoral students write: Pedagogies for supervision. New York: Routledge. • Mathews, J. R., & Mathews, R. W. (2008). Successful scientific writing (3rd ed.). Cambridge: University Press • Belcher, W. L., (2009). Writing your journal article in twelve weeks: A guide to academic publishing success. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage: http://www.wendybelcher.com/pages/WorkbookForms.htm • OWL The Purdue Online Writing Lab is an excellent online resource. There you will find information on the writing process, general academic writing, research and citation, style guides, internet literacy, writing in various fields including the social sciences etc: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/ • Centre for Writers http://c4w.ualberta.ca/ provides free one-to-one and group writing support for University of Alberta students, staff, and instructors in any faculty and at any level. You will find additional readings and other resource materials in each of the sections that follow.
Library The University of Alberta library system’s website www.library.ualberta.ca details the range of services offered to students on and off campus. • Off-campus students can access on-line journals and take full advantage of the library services, but will need to enter the system via the proxy server. For instructions on how to configure your web browser, see the “off-campus access” page at http://www.library.ualberta.ca/remote/index.cfm • If you need further information or assistance, contact the John W. Scott Health Sciences Library: http://guides.library.ualberta.ca/healthsciences
Course Guide: SPH 603
Page 3
Student Evaluation and Grading The final grade in SPH 603 will be credit or no credit. Evaluation will be both formative and summative. • Formative evaluation. Feedback will be provided throughout the course through discussions and comments on the various assignments/in-class exercises. • Summative evaluation. Grades reflect the judgments of students’ achievements made by the course coordinator, as well as those of the relevant facilitators and reviewers. To obtain a grade of “credit” you must achieve a cumulative grade of no less than a B-. A grading guide is included in Appendix B. Acceptable products will be returned with comments; unacceptable products will be returned to the student with a one-time opportunity to revise and resubmit.
Course Structure & Assignments You will submit a combination of material from assignments, presentations, proposals, submissions etc that you are already working on in other courses and material prepared specifically for this course. You are free to raise questions or emerging issues with the course coordinator at any time. During SPH 603 you will: • develop a one page summary of your research for use in scholarship applications; • write a lay summary of a journal article; • MAJOR WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT: write a four page answer to a mock comprehensive exam question OR a four page mini-essay on a topic related to your thesis research; • write a short review of another student’s major written assignment according to set guidelines; • prepare questions for expert panels on grant and journal review processes; • review and rate posters exhibited in class; • participate in a public speaking workshop; • participate in a mini-symposium where you will present your research and review the presentations of your classmates.
Course Seminars •
•
•
In the SPH 603 weekly 3-hour seminars you will explore six major topic areas. Seminars are designed to give you an opportunity to review and critique each other’s work. SPH 603 will provide you with a safe, secure, constructive environment where you will give and receive critiques of the writing and/or presentations that you complete in each section of the course. The seminar format will usually include a presentation from an expert or resource person in a particular topic area, critique of the written work that students have submitted, and/or feedback on students’ in-class exercises. For those seminars where written work is required you will submit your work electronically to the coordinator, facilitator/s and/or reviewers on the Thursday prior to each class or in –class as indicated. A contact list with the relevant e-mail addresses and details of the dates, topics, and material to be submitted may be found below under Submission Deadlines.
Course Guide: SPH 603
Page 4
Course Evaluation Mid Point Evaluation:
As is the case with all SPH instructors, I am interested in improving the course. I need to hear from you in order to do that well. I will gather feedback and recommendations from you at the mid-point of the course, through; (1) a discussion of the class to date; and (2) asking a student to administer and deliver an anonymous course evaluation back to the instructor.
Final Course Evaluation:
Following completion of the course, you will receive a standardized summative evaluation. Course evaluations will be done online by Test Scoring and Questionnaire Services. An invitation to participate in the survey is emailed to each student. One email will be sent for each start date, i.e., if a student has surveys with different start dates, they will receive multiple messages. Note that the message includes a login button.
Academic Integrity Plagiarism is a serious offence: (See Appendix A) The University of Alberta is committed to the highest standards of academic integrity and honesty. Students are expected to be familiar with the standards regarding academic honesty and to uphold the policies of the University in this respect. Students are particularly urged to familiarize themselves with the provisions of the Code of Student Behaviour (online at http://www.governance.ualberta.ca/CodesofConductandResidenceCommunityStandards/CodeofStudentB ehaviour.aspx ) and avoid any behavior which could potentially result in suspicions of cheating, plagiarism, misrepresentation of facts and/or participation in an offence. Academic dishonesty is a serious offence and can result in suspension or expulsion from the University.
Course Guide: SPH 603
Page 5
Schedule at a Glance (Subject to change) SPH 603 – Fall Term 2016 ECHA 1-125; Tuesday 1:00 – 3:50 pm Wk 1 2
Date Sept. 6 Sept. 13
3
Sept. 20
4
Sept. 27
Section Topics Introductory Class SECTION 1 Writing- Genres, Styles, Conventions SECTION 1 Getting the word out SECTION 2 Writing for different audiences
Facilitator Dr. Cindy Jardine Dr. Roger Graves
Associated Assignment Nothing due #1 CCV (Vanier Banting)
Dr. Roger Graves
#2 Lay summary of journal article #3 One-page summary for QEII Graduate Scholarship application
Dr. Stephanie Yanow
5
Oct. 4
SECTION 3 Journal Review Panel
SPH Journal Review Panel: Drs. Linda Carroll, Dean Eurich and Cindy Jardine
6
Oct. 11
SECTION 3 Grant Review Panel
SPH Grant Review Panel: Drs. Cam Wild, Jeff Johnson and Tania Bubela
#4 Mock candidacy miniessay Questions for panel
Questions for panel #5 Review of classmates essay #6 Revised essay in response to comments #7 Bring poster to class; review all posters
7
Oct. 18
SECTION 4 Presenting your research: Powerpoint, Posters
Dr. Bob Luth Virginia Quist
8
Oct. 25
SECTION 4 Presenting your research: Public Speaking Workshop
Shankar Jha
#8 Participation in workshop; 1 minute selfintroduction
9
Nov. 1
SECTION 4 Mini-Symposium
Dr. Cindy Jardine
#9 Oral presentation of research #10 Review and comment on classmates’ presentations
Course Guide: SPH 603
Page 6
Electronic Assignment Submission Deadline: 4:00 pm on Due Date Late assignments will be penalized 5% per 12 hour period late To pass the course, each assignment must be completed at a PhD student level. Wk
Due Date(s)
% Value
1 2
Sept. 15
5%
3
Sept. 22
5%
Sept. 23
What’s Due Nothing due Assignment 1 – Common CV for Vanier CGS Assignment 2 – Lay summary of journal article Receive mock comprehensive exam questions Assignment 3 – One-page summary for QEII Scholarship application
Who Needs It?
[email protected] [email protected]
4
Sept. 29
5%
5
Oct. 4
*
Come to class with prepared questions for journal review panel
In Class Participation
Oct. 6
20%
[email protected]
6
Oct. 11
*
7
Oct. 18
5%
Assignment 4 – Four-page mock candidacy mini-essay Come to class with prepared questions for grant review panel Assignment 7 – Bring a poster to class; review all posters
Oct. 20
10%
Assignment 5 – Review of your classmate’s essay
[email protected]
Oct. 21 8
Oct. 25
5%
9
Nov. 1
15%
Receive comments back on your mock candidacy essays Assignment 8 – Participate in public speaking workshop Assignment 9: Oral presentation using PowerPoint
5%
Assignment 10: In-class review and comments on your classmates’ presentations
Oct. 27
15%
Throughout
10%
Assignment 6: Revised mock candidacy essay based on comments with response to reviewers In Class Participation
Course Guide: SPH 603
[email protected] [email protected]
In Class Participation
In Class Participation and 1 minute selfintroduction Copy to Dr. Jardine
[email protected] on Oct. 31; Presentation on Tuesday Nov. 1
Based on quality not quantity of comments and prepared questions for panelists
Page 7
SECTION 1: Writing – Genres, Styles, Conventions, & Getting the Word Out September 13 and 20, 2016 Facilitator: Dr. Roger Graves, Director Writing Across the Curriculum Learning Objectives: By the end of this section you should: • be familiar with the genres or conventions that apply to writing for the different areas within public health, • recognize the conventions in your area of specialization, • be able to identify the most appropriate method of getting your message out, and • have reflected upon your own writing, strengths and areas of improvement, as demonstrated in your outline of proposed research. Assignment # 1 - DUE Thursday September 15, 2016 by 4:00pm Prepare a Curriculum Vita using the Common CV format for a Vanier Banting Scholarship Application: https://ccv-cvc.ca/indexresearcher-eng.frm. Email a validated PDF copy to Dr. Jardine. Assignment # 2 – DUE Friday September 22, 2016 by 4:00 pm Select a recent publication from your area of specialty in public health. Read the paper thoroughly. On the basis of what you have read write an abstract for the paper that is applicable for readers who are nonspecialists in your field. The existing abstract that accompanies the paper that you selected is not appropriate for this exercise – do not use it. Make sure that your abstract speaks to a broader, general audience. Your abstract should be no more than 250 words in length. (Adapted from Graves, H. WRS 500, 2009) Email both the original article and summary to Dr. Jardine. Readings/Resources: • Lesson 7 (pp. 107-124) Williams J. & Nadel, I. (2005). Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace. Canadian Edition. Toronto: Longman • Chapter 21 (pp. 175-180) Faigley, L. Graves, R., & Graves, H. (2010). The Little Penguin Handbook. Canadian Edition. Toronto: Pearson Canada. • Chapter 5 (pp.59-80) Kambler, B. & Thomson, P. (2006). Helping doctoral students write: Pedagogies for supervision. New York: Routledge.
SECTION 2: Writing for Different Audiences September 27, 2016 Facilitator: Dr. Stephanie Yanow, School of Public Health Learning Objectives: By the end of this section you should be able to determine: • What message you want to convey? • Who will be interested in that message? • What format would be the most appropriate? • Where and how should the information be released and/or published?
Course Guide: SPH 603
Page 8
Assignment # 3 - DUE Thursday September 29, 2015 by 4:00 pm Prepare a draft of your 1-page summary based on the Queen Elizabeth II Graduate Scholarship (doctoral award) following the award specifications below. Email to Dr. Jardine and Dr. Yanow. Queen Elizabeth II Graduate Scholarship Guidelines for Outline of Proposed Research: •
• •
• • • •
Outline your proposed research - maximum of 1 page (1” margins, Times New Roman 12 pt. Font; single spacing, maximum of ~400 words). You may attach one additional page for a bibliography. Program proposals should demonstrate evidence of solid and wide knowledge of the discipline and must be written by the student, not the supervisor. The most effective proposals are clear, concise and coherent yet demonstrate a clear focused approach, explaining how the research would advance the discipline. Write in plain language. Proposals should be clear not only to people within the field, but also to a general audience. When describing your methodology, be careful not to present too technical a description and avoid jargon. Your statement should describe your general area of research or study and explain how it fits within a broader context. Clearly indicate what you hope to accomplish during the period of the award and also how you plan to accomplish it. Be sure to explain how your doctoral research will advance theory or make an original contribution to knowledge in your field.
Readings/Resources: • Lessons 1, 3, and 5: Williams J. & Nadel, I. (2005). Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace. Canadian Edition. Toronto: Longman • Chapter 20 (pp. 171-175) Faigley, L. Graves, R., & Graves, H. (2010). The Little Penguin Handbook. Canadian Edition. Toronto: Pearson Canada. • Wells, W. (2004). Me write pretty one day: How to write a good scientific paper. Journal of Cell Biology 165,6, 757-758 http://www.jcb.org/cgi/doi/10.1083/jcb.200403137 Assignment # 4 – DUE Thursday October 6, 2016 by 4:00 pm You will be given two mock Comprehensive Exam Questions by your supervisor on or before September 23, 2016. Select one question and write a 3-4 page mini-essay (single line spacing, 12 pt Times New Roman font, 1” margins). References (in a consistent and recognized format of your choice) are required and are in addition to the 3-4 pages. Note that the ‘reviewers’ for this assignment will not necessarily be specialists in your area. Your assignment must therefore be written for such a non-specialist audience in keeping with the lessons you have already learned on clarity, succinctness and structure. If you have already passed your comprehensive exam, you may, in consultation with your supervisor and Dr. Jardine select a topic relevant to your thesis for a 3 - 4 page mini-review essay You will receive: (1) written comments from Dr. Jardine and one classmate on style and clarity; and (2) comments on content from your supervisor by Friday October 14, 2016. Readings/Resources: • Lesson 4, 10, 11. Williams J. & Nadel, I. (2005). Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and grace. Canadian Edition. Toronto: Longman • Chapters 1 & 2 Kambler, B. & Thomson (2006). Helping doctoral students write: Pedagogies for supervision. New York: Routledge.
Course Guide: SPH 603
Page 9
SECTION 3: Reviewers’ Perspectives October 4 and October 11, 2016 Facilitators (Grant Review Panel): Drs. Cam Wild, Jeff Johnson, and Tania Bubela Facilitators (Journal Review Panel): Drs. Linda Carroll, Dean Eurich and Cindy Jardine Learning Objectives: By the end of this section you should be able to • Outline the key points that reviewers are seeking in your area of specialization • Outline the key points that reviewers are seeking in other areas of public health • Review manuscripts using a systematic approach Assignment # 5 – DUE Thursday October 13, 2016 In this Assignment you will have the opportunity to review (in a respectful manner) the Assignment 4 mini-essay written by one of your classmates. Your reviews will be graded for quality. It is not possible to blind the reviews. You will provide a review of the essay (maximum 1 page) based on four criteria: 1. How well it answers the question. 2. Clarity for a non-specialist audience. 3. Style, including grammar and structure. Readings/Resources: • Lesson 12, Williams J. & Nadel, I. (2005). Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and grace. Canadian Edition. Toronto: Longman • Canadian Journal of Public Health http://journal.cpha.ca/index.php/cjph/about/submissions • Provenzale, J. M., & Stanley, R. J. (2006). A systematic guide to reviewing a manuscript. Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology, 34, 2, 92-98 http://tech.snmjournals.org/cgi/reprint/34/2/92.pdf • Smith, R. (2006). The trouble with medical journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99, 115-119. [This article is a summary of the first chapter of the book by the same author that is listed below] • Smith, R. (2006). The trouble with medical journals. London: Royal Society of Medicine Press. Assignment #6 – DUE Thursday October 27, 2016 1. Revise your Assignment 4 according to the reviewers’ comments. 2. Write a ‘mock’ letter to the editor outlining how you have addressed the reviewers’ comments. Note that this is particularly tricky when the reviewers’ comments are contradictory. Note also that you may choose to disregard some reviewer comments, in which case, that decision must be justified.
SECTION 4: Presenting Your Research October 18 and 20 and November 1, 2016 Facilitators: Dr. Bob Luth, Dept. of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Ms. Virginia Quist, School of Public Health Mr. Shankar Jha, President, University of Alberta Toastmasters Club Learning Objectives: By the end of this section you should be able to • Select the appropriate media for your purposes • Outline the key principles that would guide the presentation of your work
Course Guide: SPH 603
Page 10
• Constructively critique presentations using a systematic approach Topics to be covered • Posters • PowerPoint slides • Oral Presentations Assignment #7 – In Class Tuesday October 18, 2016 Bring a poster that you prepared for a previous conference or research related-event to class and place it on display. Using the guide provided in class, review each of the posters on display, including your own, and note the strengths, areas for improvement, etc. Join your peers and the facilitators in a constructive critique of the work on display. Don’t worry if you don’t have a poster—there is no need to prepare one especially for the class. If there is a shortage, we will supply some posters from the last Insights. Assignment #8 – In Class Tuesday October 25, 2016 Participate in a workshop on public speaking. I will be asking for volunteers to introduce themselves – hopefully there will be time for everyone. This is a very useful skill to have as often in smaller professional and workshop settings you will be asked to introduce yourself, your background, where you are from and what your research interests are in under a minute. Assignment #9 – DUE Monday October 31 (copy of Powerpoint) and Tuesday November 1, 2016 Based on what you have learned about PowerPoint presentations, you will present your PhD research to your classmates in a 15 minute presentation with 5 minutes for questions. You will be kept strictly to time and will lose marks if you do not finish your presentation within the 15 minutes. You will be graded on clarity, content, graphic presentation and speaking style. Email your power point notes to Dr. Jardine by October 31. Assignment #10 – In Class Tuesday November 1, 2016 Using the guide provided in class, review each of your classmates’ presentations, and note the strengths, areas for improvement, etc. Join your peers and the facilitators in a constructive critique of the presentations and be prepared to ask questions of your classmates. Readings/Resources: • Giving a Good Scientific Presentation, Part 1: Oral Presentations. Prepared for the American Society of Primatologists by members of the ASP Education Committee: Lynne Miller (Chair), Ann Weaver & Christine Johnson. http://www.asp.org/education/EffectivePresentations.pdf • PowerPoint / PowerPoint Slide Presentations. Prepared for the American Society of Primatologists by members of the ASP Education Committee: Lynne Miller (Chair), Christine Johnson, & Ann Weaver. https://www.asp.org/education/powerpoint.cfm • Harrison, J. (2002). Planning a Scientific Presentation (University of British Columbia) http://people.cs.ubc.ca/~harrison/PowerPoint/Scientific-Presentation-Planning.pdf • Connor, C. W. (nd). The poster session: A guide for preparation. http://www.sou.edu/aaaspd/PosterPrep.html • Mandoli, D. F. (2007). How to make great posters. http://www.aspb.org/EDUCATION/poster.cfm • Mathews, J. R., Mathews, R. W. Successful scientific writing (3rd ed.) Cambridge University Press. Poster presentations: A happy hybrid (pp. 97-102)
Course Guide: SPH 603
Page 11
APPENDIX A – ACADEMIC INTEGRITY Amendments to the Code of Student Behaviour occur throughout the year. For the most recent version of the Code, visit http://www.governance.ualberta.ca/ NOTICE TO INSTRUCTORS REGARDING PLAGIARISM, CHEATING, MISREPRESENTATION OF FACTS AND PARTICIPATION IN AN OFFENCE The U of A considers plagiarism, cheating, misrepresentation of facts and participation in an offence to be serious academic offences. Plagiarism, cheating, misrepresentation of facts and participation in an offence can be avoided if students are told what these offences are and if possible sanctions are made clear at the outset. Instructors should understand that the principles embodied in the Code are essential to our academic purpose. For this reason, instructors will be fully supported by Departments, Faculties and the University in their endeavours to rightfully discover and pursue cases of academic dishonesty in accordance with the Code. At the beginning of each term, we ask you to review with your students the definitions of plagiarism and cheating. We are now also asking you to review with your students the definition of Misrepresentation of Facts and Participation in an Offence. Your cooperation and assistance in this matter are much appreciated. 30.3.2(1) Plagiarism No Student shall submit the words, ideas, images or data of another person as the Student’s own in any academic writing, essay, thesis, project, assignment, presentation or poster in a course or program of study. 30.3.2(2) Cheating 30.3.2(2)a No Student shall in the course of an examination or other similar activity, obtain or attempt to obtain information from another Student or other unauthorized source, give or attempt to give information to another Student, or use, attempt to use or possess for the purposes of use any unauthorized material. 30.3.2(2)b No Student shall represent or attempt to represent him or herself as another or have or attempt to have himself or herself represented by another in the taking of an examination, preparation of a paper or other similar activity. See also misrepresentation in 30.3.6(4).
Course Guide: SPH 603
Cheating (Continued) 30.3.2(2)c No Student shall represent another’s substantial editorial or compositional assistance on an assignment as the Student’s own work. 30.3.2(2)d No Student shall submit in any course or program of study, without the written approval of the course Instructor, all or a substantial portion of any academic writing, essay, thesis, research report, project, assignment, presentation or poster for which credit has previously been obtained by the Student or which has been or is being submitted by the Student in another course or program of study in the University or elsewhere. 30.3.2(2)e No Student shall submit in any course or program of study any academic writing, essay, thesis, report, project, assignment, presentation or poster containing a statement of fact known by the Student to be false or a reference to a source the Student knows to contain fabricated claims (unless acknowledged by the Student), or a fabricated reference to a source. 30.3.6(4) Misrepresentation of Facts No Student shall misrepresent pertinent facts to any member of the University community for the purpose of obtaining academic or other advantage. This includes such acts as the failure to provide pertinent information on an application for admission or the altering of an educational document/transcript. 30.3.6(5) Participation in an Offence No Student shall counsel or encourage or knowingly aid or assist, directly or indirectly, another person in the commission of any offence under this Code. The Truth In Education (T*I*E) project is a campus wide educational campaign on Academic Honesty. This program was created to let people know the limits and consequences of inappropriate academic behaviour. There are helpful tips for Instructors and Students. Please take the time to visit the website at: http://www.ualberta.ca/tie
Page 12
EXCERPTS FROM THE CODE OF STUDENT BEHAVIOUR UPDATED AUGUST 26, 2014 FOR REVIEW WITH EACH CLASS AT THE BEGINNING OF EVERY TERM Procedures for Instructors Regarding Plagiarism, Cheating, Misrepresentation of Facts and Participation in an Offence The following procedures are drawn from the Code of Student Behaviour as approved by GFC and the Board of Governors. The guidelines summarize what instructors must do when they have reason to believe that a student has plagiarized, cheated, misrepresented facts or participated in an offence. If you have questions about these guidelines, or about the policies, please talk with the senior administrator in your Faculty responsible for dealing with student discipline—usually an Associate Dean – or the Appeals and Compliance Officer (Appeals Coordinator), University Governance (2-2655). 30.5.4 Procedures for Instructors in Cases Respecting Inappropriate Academic Behaviour 30.5.4(1) When an Instructor believes that a Student may have committed an Inappropriate Academic Behaviour Offence [30.3.2] or that there has been Misrepresentation of Facts [30.3.6(4)] or Participation in an Offence [30.3.6(5)] in cases respecting Inappropriate Academic Behaviour in the course that he or she instructs, the Instructor will meet with the Student. Before such a meeting, the Instructor shall inform the Student of the purpose of the meeting. In the event that the Student refuses or fails to meet with the Instructor within a reasonable period of time specified by the Instructor, the Instructor shall, taking into account the available information, decide whether a report to the Dean is warranted. 30.5.4(2) If the Instructor believes there has been a violation of the Code, the Instructor shall, as soon as possible after the event occurred, report that violation to the Dean and provide a written statement of the details of the case. The instructor may also include a recommendation for sanction.
PROFESSOR STEVEN PENNEY CHAIR, CAMPUS LAW REVIEW COMMITTEE
Possible Sanctions One or more of the following sanctions given in 30.4.3 (2) and (3) of the Code are commonly used for plagiarism, cheating, participation in an offence, and misrepresentation of facts: 30.4.3(2) a.i a mark reduction or a mark of 0 on any term work or examination for reason of Inappropriate Academic Behaviour 30.4.3(2) a.ii Reduction of a grade in a course 30.4.3(2) a.iii a grade of F for a course 30.4.3(2) a.iv a remark on a transcript of 8 (or 9 for failing graduate student grades), indicating Inappropriate Academic Behaviour, in addition to 30.4.3(2)a.i, 30.4.3(2)a.ii or 30.4.3(2)a.iii 30.4.3(3) b Expulsion 30.4.3(3) c Suspension The following sanctions may be used in rare cases: 30.4.3(3) e Suspension of a Degree already awarded 30.4.3(3) f Rescission of a Degree already awarded 30.6.1 Initiation of an Appeal 30.6.1(1) When a Student has been found to have committed an offence under the Code of Student Behaviour or an Applicant is found to have committed an offence under the Code of Applicant Behaviour, whether or not that Student or Applicant has been given a sanction, the Student or Applicant may appeal that decision, except in the case of a decision of the Discipline Officer under 30.5.6(2)e.ii, which remains final and is not subject to appeal. In cases where a severe sanction has been recommended to the Discipline Officer, once the student receives the final decision of the Discipline Officer, the student can appeal the decisions of both Dean and the Discipline Officer at the same time. The written appeal must be presented to the Appeals Coordinator in University Governance within 15 Working Days of the deemed receipt of the decision by the Student or Applicant. The finding that an offence has been committed, the sanction imposed or both may form the basis of appeal. The written appeal must also state the full grounds of appeal and be signed by the Appellant. The appeal shall be heard by the UAB. DR CARL AMRHEIN PROVOST AND VICE-PRESIDENT (ACADEMIC)
* The Campus Law Review Committee is a standing committee of General Faculties Council (GFC) responsible for the review of the Code of Student Behaviour and of student disciplinary procedures.
Course Guide: SPH 603
Page 13
APPENDIX B – GRADING GUIDELINES Letter Grade
Descriptors
A+
Excellent
A
Excellent
A-
Excellent
B+
Good
B
Good
B-
Satisfactory
C+
Satisfactory
C
Failure
Percentage Grade Pt Criteria Guide Value (assigned by (assigned by U instructor) of A) 95-100 4.0 An exemplar and could be publicly presented by a leader in the field. Key health promotion values and issues are considered, and the complexity of the field is reflected as appropriate. Critical thinking is evident throughout. Literature review is appropriately thorough. Clear evidence of thoughtful analysis and synthesis (i.e., not just summary) of concepts and strategies. Theoretical concepts are integrated and applied effectively and creatively to generate implications/applications for practice and/or research. The submission is organized, clear and concise – a good read/listen - and is free of errors in composition, formatting and referencing. 89-94 4.0 Evidence of the above, but not as strong in one of the essential elements (e.g., synthesis and/or critical thinking) 82-88 3.7 Evidence of the above, but not as strong in two of the essential elements (e.g., synthesis, critical thinking, implications) 78-81 3.3 A leader in the field could publicly present the piece after revision according to comments and further thought in some areas. The majority of the elements described above are addressed well, but further development would be required in at least one of the essential elements (e.g., values/issues, critical thinking, integration, application). The submission is organized, clear and concise – a good read/listen - and is free of errors in composition, formatting and referencing. 74-77 3.0 Many elements are done well, but further development would be required in at least two major areas (e.g., HP values/issues, thorough treatment, critical thinking, integration, application). 70-73 2.7 Considerable revision would be required before this piece could be publicly presented by a leader in the field. Some elements are addressed thoughtfully and appropriately, but several require further attention and development (e.g., values/issues, critical thinking, integration, application, organization/presentation). 66-69 2.3 Demonstrates graduate level thoughtfulness and organization, but requires further attention and development in several areas. 2.0 The piece could not be publicly presented by a leader in the field without major rethinking and reconstruction. Does not reflect a graduate level standard of research, thought and organization/presentation.
Course Guide: SPH 603
Page 14
