ay 1995 The Other Press BC supreme court involved in Douglas election Tarren Mckay and the Douglas ollege student Society have been kept y lately handling appeals from dis- ntled candidates in the recent 1995 pring election. In a surprise move newly elected iniversity Transfer (UT) Representa- ve Zach Zacharias has filed an offi- al appeal to “overturn the decision of e Chief Returning Officer [CRO] to rmit the Douglas College Student lection to be valid." The appeal dis- utes the validity of the entire election, nsed on several decisions made by the RO, Tarren McKay. The move comes after Troy pwnsend and his slate of executive didates were disqualified for alleg- ily violating college campaigning di- tives. Zacharias, who headed a slate of ine UT representatives, seven of which Election problems continue for student CRO by Paul Andrew were elected to take office this fall, al- lege “several decisions made by the CRO resulted in the illegality of [the] election,” and has listed no fewer than five ‘standing rules’ he claims were vio- lated by the Student Society as guide- lines for the Spring election. The document submitted by Zacharias alleges the Student Society breached it’s own constitutional bylaws by closing nominations early, which denied the right of at least one indi- vidual to participate in the Spring elec- tion. The appeal also claims a breach of election autonomy because a Student Society employee was appointed as a Deputy Returning Officer, and may have “threatened the integrity of Douglas College Student Society and the election process” by having a Student Society employee in the position of handling ballots of cur- rent or would be employers. Although this suggests a con- flict of interest on the part of the DCSS, the document submitted by Zacharias concedes there are no con- flict of interest guidelines to follow for the 1995 Spring election. The appeal also cites improper balloting for the Business Rep. Po- sition, a violation in Closed Program voting, and a detailed description claiming the bylaw for the posting of nominees was violated when the nominees were not posted until the day polling began. The appeal specifies nomi- nees for vacant positions must be posted seven days prior to the day polling begins. Zacharias feels other candidates were not given a fair chance in the election, cit- ing the fact when only one ballot is re- ceived for any position, the membership should be allowed to approve or disap- prove of that nominee. “That’s the yes/no vote thing,” he said. “ For instance if there’s only one person running for a position...you need a choice whether you want [that person] in there or not, you need to have a yes box or ano box on the ballots, and they were in- correctly printed up, with only just a yes vote,” Zacharias explained. “The incorrect ballots sort of ran across the board,” he added. “I’m fairly confident we’ll win the appeal.” Meanwhile, Troy Townsend and his slate of executive candidates who were disqualified from the Spring Election, have petitioned the Supreme Court of British Columbia with affidavits stating they were not responsible for advertising which appeared in the Other Press, a move that ultimately disqualified the entire slate of executives. Jimmy MaClaren and Sarah Roberts have also filed affidavits with the BC Supreme Court. © No official ruling has been reached yet by the Student Society appeals committee concerning these issues. Mckay said she will be ready to give a statement as soon as all meet- ings are completed. ollege board re-defines plagiarism/cheating y Paul Andrew Students enrolled in the Summer mester at DC should take heed if they e considering to be less than honest ). exams this term. ~The College Board at Douglas has ade revisions to the existing policy so lat it gives department heads definite hidelines when an incident of cheat- ig occurs. The policy, now referred to as Academic Dishonesty,’ is specific and aves little room for error when a stu- nt is suspected of being less than hon- on his or her test or essay. ~ John McKendry, a member of the lucation council here at DC, says the licy has been revised because of lack larity. He also says the old policy yy have been impractical for the com- titive atmosphere at the post-second- - tanford } Paul Andrew For the past two years Douglas pllege has been involved in a ‘Portfo- D Pilot Project’ designed to evaluate nd improve the level of instruction at post-secondary level. The project as initially expected to accommodate Pp to twenty instructors, but quickly ew to facilitate sixty participants in 1e college community. The portfolio project was co- funded by Gilles Malnarich from the tructional Media Services at Doug- is, and has been operating with the co- peration of Dr. Lee ulman, a profes- br of psychology at fanford University | California. , “We asked Dr. ulman to come to louglas and give us n update of the fogress of the project in the United tates,” Malnarich explained. | Shulman’s research involves peer aluation as a way for teachers to im- ove the quality of classroom educa- on. . “The main point of concer is that re know so little about what’s happen- ng in classrooms,” Shulman said. Teaching remains this private interac- on between moderately consenting dults, and therefore never gets treated / “The main point of concern is that we know so little about what’s happening in classrooms,” Shulman said. ary level. “The policy was a little abstract in some ways,” McKendry said. “ The new policy, when you compare the two, is a little bit clearer. The policy has been changed from~“‘plagiarism and cheating’ to ‘academic dishonesty’ so it covers any and all those kinds of things,” he continued. McKendry stressed there has been no sudden increase in cheating on ex- ams and essays this year, other than the normal amount that comes up every school year. However, there has been more emphasis over the past year to notify students of the penalties for aca- demic dishonesty. The College Board defines pla- giarism as “the deliberate formal pres- entation or submission of the research, words, ideas, illustrations or diagrams of others as one’s own without citation or credit.” Cheating, on the other hand, comes in many forms, and is generally creative in nature. If you happen to lean back and stretch dur- ing that 3 hour exam, and your pa- per is “deliberately exposed,” that is considered cheating. And the “re- submission of one’s own work for which credit has already been granted in another course,” is also considered cheating. “There were a number of peo- ple that concluded there was becom- ing an awful lot more competition...in the instructional environment, to gain admission to courses where a certain level of aca- demic performance is required,” McKendry said. “There’s been a general agree- ment that the policy should be clari- fied and tightened up...and what the various penalties are that might be as- sessed against a student or students.” The new policy stresses there are dif- ferent degrees-of plagiarism and “consid- ered judgment is required” when an in- structor is evaluating whether a student is guilty of intentional plagiarism, or is sim- ply too naive to use proper documenta- tion or citation on an essay. If a student is accused of academic dishonesty, and wishes to dispute the charge, he or she must go through the col- lege’s appeal process to defend him/her- self. The ‘student appeals’ committee is made up of the college registrar, one fac- ulty member, one administrative member and one Douglas College student. The procedure states “the student must first attempt to resolve the issue through an informal process.” This means the parties involved, usually the student in question, along with the instructor and the respective department head, are encouraged to reach an agreement with- out pursuing a formal hearing. If an agreement cannot be reached, the stu- dent must then conduct his or her ap- peal with the help of a college councilor or Student Society Ombudsperson. A first offense for cheating will result in a failing grade on a test or for the entire course, and may cause a stu- dent to be expelled from the college. A student who has been found guilty of a second offense will be permanently ex- pelled from the college. There are 3,000 students on campus this semester. We will be following this story with an article concerning the problems one paricular DC student is having regard- ing an appeal of her final grade. educator visits Douglas College as a form of scholarship,” he explained. Shulman is involved in the study along with twelve other American post- secondary institutions, and his research seems to center on three major areas of education. First, the instructor is expected to develop a list of priorities for improve- ment in a course they enjoy teaching. The second step is to observe a teach- ing colleague in a classroom setting, or simply exchange video’s of a class for evaluation. The next step is to look at student progress, and provide it as evidence of how the course may be im- proved, and also to see whether or not students are actu- ally absorbing what is being discussed in the classroom. “We ask students to evaluate our teaching every time we teach,” Shulman says. Shulman is regarded as a leader in his field, and believes post-secondary education could be more effective if the instruction was evaluated on a regular basis. “Solitude leads to teaching that has a lower probability to become better,” Shulman says. The portfolios, which have now been completed by the instructors who participated in the project, will provide a basis for investigating whether they can be used to identify the required credentials for future instructors of Douglas College. “The main point of concern is that we know so little about what's happening in the classroom,” Dr. Lee Shulman, Professor of Education and Psychology at. Stanford Universty in| California | i.