The History and Social Science Department has implemented a new standard response to academic integrity violations since the start of winter term, and is now requiring students to complete out-of-class projects on Google Docs, according to Keri Lambert, Chair of the History and Social Science Department.
Generally, a 50 percent grade penalty is incurred for a confirmed academic integrity violation on a major graded assessment. If there is time left in the term for a rewrite, the student may redo the assignment at the discretion of the teacher and chair, that new grade being averaged with the initial 50 percent mark. A student with multiple confirmed academic integrity violations may receive a lower mark; if an academic integrity violation cannot be confirmed or ruled out, the student will redo the assignment or complete a modified version.
In an email to The Phillipian, Lambert explained why the department has adopted the grading aspect of this policy, noting that it provides a more standardized response to academic integrity violations across the department.
“Previously, when a student was found to have committed an academic integrity violation, the relevant assignment generally received a grade penalty, but it could vary from case to case. We also did not have a departmental policy around whether or not the student would need to redo the assignment. [This] opened the door to variability and bias in a way that made many instructors uncomfortable. By standardizing our approach and making the policy known, we want students to be able to trust that all infractions—across [History] sections and instructors—will be treated uniformly,” wrote Lambert.
Benjamin Levchin ’28 thought the specific amount of penalization was fair, noting that it balances grace and forcefulness.
“[The penalty] is positive in that it is a relatively good punishment. It doesn’t tank your grade entirely as it’s not a zero, but it is very clearly a bad thing, and it could give you a space to redo it and maybe bring it up to about a 75,” said Levchin.
Adam Sealfon ’29, on the other hand, viewed the policy as not severe enough.
“The penalty should be lowered to something like a 25. Which means [that], yes, it’s a deeper fail, but also it says ‘Don’t do this again. Here’s why this is what happened when you did use it,’ so the effects last longer in your head,” said Sealfon.
Regarding Google Docs, students must now share a link to their document with editing access to their teacher. In an email to The Phillipian, Caroline Odden, Dean of Studies and Instructor in Physics, noted that this usage of Google Docs also applies to various other departments, including STEM subjects. Odden further elaborated on the usefulness of the policy.
“This is a great approach — in fact, I use it myself in STEM courses. Asking students to use documents with version histories allows instructors to offer students feedback on their entire writing process while also having the benefit of allowing instructors to check that students are doing their own writing. In the age of AI, it is so tempting for students to use AI tools to generate writing, even when they are not allowed to do so. When that happens, students miss out on important learning opportunities,” wrote Odden in an email to The Phillipian.
Lambert emphasized that the work of the History and Social Science department in facilitating student-driven work is not done, especially with the advent and development of Artificial Intelligence; she further noted that part of this includes facilitating a mindset shift on the students’ part.
“Moving forward, in the face of a changing tech landscape, [History and Social Science] teachers will be collaboratively thinking through how we might adapt our teaching and assessment practices to help students feel confident that their own human-generated ideas are far stronger and more valuable than bot-produced content,” wrote Lambert in an email to The Phillipian.
