Latest news with #academicintegrity
Reuters
17-07-2025
- Sport
- Reuters
NCAA places Memphis basketball, softball on probation
July 17 - The NCAA has placed the University of Memphis athletic department on probation for two years and levied financial penalites because of academic integrity violations in the men's basketball and softball programs. An NCAA investigation found that an academic counselor paid two softball players to do classwork and provide test answers for a men's basketball player that they shared classes with during the 2023-24 season. Memphis already was on probation because of two previous infractions cases and will have the penalty extended through July 15, 2027. In addition, the university must pay a $30,000 fine and 1 percent of the combined budgets for the two sports. The Tigers basketball team vacated three wins over Wichita State, Temple and Tulane from the span between Jan. 25 and Feb. 18, 2024. The softball team was winless during that period. The NCAA report did not name basketball coach Penny Hardaway in the case, nor did it identify the student-athletes involved. The Memphis Commercial Appeal reported that the men's player was forward Malcolm Dandridge, a fifth-year graduate student who was held out of the last five games of the 2023-24 season, and the softball players were catcher Ally Callahan and outfielder Aaliyah Dixon. The university fired academic advisor Leslie Brooks in February 2024, and the NCAA gave her a 10-year show-cause penalty, which can impact her ability to find another job in college athletes. The NCAA said Brooks paid the softball players $550 from her personal account to perform the schoolwork. A softball trainer overheard players on the team discussing the situation, according to the NCAA, and another softball player later reported it to the trainer and the head coach, who informed the administration. In an interview with university officials about paying the softball players to help Dandridge, Brooks admitted that she knew she was violating NCAA rules but he needed academic help and "she felt sorry for him," according to the NCAA report. The university negotiated the penalties with the NCAA's committee on infractions. "I would like to thank our staff who worked swiftly and collaboratively with the NCAA to take appropriate action and implement corrective measures," Memphis president Bill Hardgrave said in a prepared statement. "The University of Memphis is committed to a culture of compliance with all NCAA rules and will move our program forward accordingly." --Field Level Media
CNA
16-07-2025
- CNA
Commentary: Lecturers need to give students clearer instructions about AI use
SINGAPORE: Imagine you are a lecturer grading students' essays about their research methods for the term project. You notice that three students mentioned using artificial intelligence in different ways. Jane used an AI tool to help format citations in APA style. Don discussed topic ideas with ChatGPT to help narrow down his research focus. Beatrice ran her draft through an AI writing assistant to catch grammatical errors before final submission. You realise that you did not explicitly address AI use in your course syllabus, and your university's policy broadly states that students must not use such tools without permission from the instructor. The three students made good-faith attempts at disclosure, but you are uncertain whether their uses violate the spirit of academic integrity. How do you proceed? This is a hypothetical scenario, but it is happening across universities. Students routinely use programmes like Grammarly without considering them AI, while lecturers may permit some tools such as citation assistance. The recent incident at Nanyang Technological University illustrates how students and lecturers can have different interpretations of what's acceptable. FAIR AND UNFAIR AI USE In recent years, artificial intelligence has advanced more rapidly than policies can keep up with, resulting in a grey area between AI use and abuse. Most universities have broad definitions on the acceptable use of AI. The University of Pennsylvania gives a simple analogy: 'In the absence of other guidance, treat the use of AI as you would treat assistance from another person. For example, this means if it is unacceptable to have another person substantially complete a task like writing an essay, it is also unacceptable to have AI to complete the task. ' Generally, the use of AI for brainstorming, drafting and idea generation is permitted, and where permitted, the explicit declaration or acknowledgement of the use of AI in assignments is also required. Unfair AI use then entails passing off AI-generated work as one's own without proper attribution, or employing it when it was explicitly prohibited to gain an unfair advantage. TASK-SPECIFIC GUIDELINES FOR AI Given the wide scope of universities' academic policies, it is up to lecturers to give instructions regarding AI use, specific to each assignment. For essays and written tasks, instructors should ensure students understand the distinction between research and writing assistance. Students should be required to disclose AI usage and show documentation to verify authentic thinking. Problem sets and technical work such as coding require a different approach. Instructors must distinguish between when AI assistance is educational and when it becomes academic dependency. In mathematics courses, for instance, AI might be permitted for checking calculations but prohibited for generating solution methods. Students can also be told to show all work steps manually and to be prepared to explain their solution process to the class. For creative and analytical assessments, instructors can tell students that AI may be used for initial inspiration and research, but that all content must be produced by students. Students in fine arts, for instance, may be allowed to utilise AI for brainstorming sessions, but must develop original pieces. Meanwhile, business students may utilise market analysis tools powered by AI, but must produce unique strategy recommendations. Lecturers can also require students to document any AI-generated ideas that influenced their work. These guidelines seek to develop each student's capability not only in critical thinking but also develop capabilities in the area of human-AI collaboration. PREVENTION OVER PUNISHMENT However, even with clear AI guidelines, there will be students tempted to use tools and software to circumvent the rules. For example, students may use 'humanising' software to disguise an AI-generated assignment to bypass detection software. Students may also use AI tools in oral exams, as current technologies allow for such apps to reside on mobile phones and communicate wirelessly to the students via discreet earpieces. Rather than play detective, institutions should focus on prevention through clear communication. This means writing unambiguous AI policies with concrete examples. Other prevention strategies include AI literacy training for faculty and students, redesigning assessments that are more focused on processes rather than answers, and verifying students' understanding through conversational assessments and in-class discussions. Universities can also consider "AI-transparent" approaches where students document their use of AI tools throughout the assignment, similar to how they cite traditional sources. This creates accountability on the students' part while avoiding the adversarial effects of detection-based enforcement. Clear AI guidelines protect the value of university degrees and prepare students for an AI-driven future. They help students develop ethical instinct, emotional intelligence and creative thinking – human skills that AI cannot replace. University graduates will likely work alongside AI tools and apps throughout their careers. The problem for universities is not about addressing the over-reliance on AI or banning it outright, but teaching students how to collaborate with AI responsibly. With clear and transparent guidelines, universities can uphold educational integrity while preparing students for an AI-enhanced world.
Yahoo
16-07-2025
- Sport
- Yahoo
Memphis receives two-year probation, fine from NCAA due to academic integrity violations
The University of Memphis was placed on two years probation and fined as a result of academic-integrity violations involving a counselor, softball players and men's basketball players, the NCAA announced Wednesday. The punishments were handed down after the NCAA determined former academic counselor Leslie Brooks paid two softball student-athletes to complete course work and provide quiz and test answers to a player on the men's basketball team. As a result of those findings, the school was placed on two years of probation, and received a fine of $30,000, The university was also fined one percent of the combined men's basketball and softball budgets. Brooks received a 10-year show-cause order for her involvement in the scandal. The school will also vacate all records for the games in which the men's basketball player competed while he was ineligible. This story will be updated.
Khaleej Times
16-07-2025
- Business
- Khaleej Times
Explained: 'Grade inflation' that prompted ban on new admissions at some UAE schools
As concerns around inflated grading gains traction across certain schools in the UAE's private education sector, many other institutions are also stepping up efforts to safeguard academic integrity. Most recently, Abu Dhabi Department of Education and Knowledge (ADEK) temporarily barred 12 private schools in the Capital from enrolling students in Grades 11 and 12 due to grade inflation. With education regulators intensifying their oversight of academic records, schools in the country are not just reacting to compliance requirements — they are proactively implementing quality assurance and fairness in their assessment practices. In an interview with Khaleej Times, school leaders explained how they are aligning predicted grades with actual student outcomes in external assessments such as NGRT (New Group Reading Test), Progress Tests, and international benchmark exams. These comparisons help ensure accountability, sharpen teaching practices, and align internal evaluations with global standards. Understanding grade inflation Grade inflation refers to the trend of rising student grades over time without a corresponding increase in academic achievement. When students receive higher marks without demonstrating deeper learning, those grades become inflated. This shift undermines the reliability of grades as a true measure of academic performance, making it harder for stakeholders — such as parents, educators, and college admissions officers — to accurately assess student capabilities, allocate resources effectively, or hold students accountable. But even as fresh discussions around this emerge in the country, concerns about the credibility of course grades are not new. In fact, grade inflation has been appearing to be accelerating, even among elite institutions like the Ivy League. For instance, The Daily Princetonian reported that 'The average GPA (at Princeton University) for the 2022–2023 academic year was 3.56 out of 4.00, an increase from the 2018–2019 average of 3.46.' While notable, this increase is still lower than Harvard's average GPA of 3.80 in 2020–21 academic year and Yale's 3.70 in 2022–23. A similar pattern has been unfolding in the UK. Both Oxford and Cambridge have seen a growing number of students earning first-class degrees over the past decade. However, Oxford's rate of inflation has remained lower compared to other institutions. Ensuring consistency Lyudmyla Klykova, Founding Principal at Hampton Heights International School under the Woodlem Education group, highlighted how their commitment to compliance is embedded in their assessment culture. 'We place deep importance on compliance and transparency to meet rigorous assessment standards. As part of our education group, we engage in cross-campus audits where assessment policies, marking schemes, and sample student work are reviewed collaboratively to ensure consistency and adherence to external benchmarks.' The school has implemented a multi-layered internal system to detect discrepancies and support staff in maintaining grading integrity. 'Our internal quality assurance system rigorously tracks discrepancies between predicted grades and actual student performance on standardised or external exams such as NGRT, Progress Tests, and Cambridge Checkpoint assessments. Data from internal assessments and predicted grades is systematically compared against external results each term. Any significant gaps trigger a detailed analysis led by the Senior Leadership Team and Heads of Department.' These efforts are reinforced with professional development initiatives. 'Teachers participate in internal training sessions focused on aligning assessments with the British Curriculum and Cambridge International standards. These sessions include moderation workshops where teachers collaboratively review student work to establish consistent marking practices and grading standards. Additionally, our senior staff lead workshops on developing high-quality assessments and using detailed rubrics to ensure transparency and fairness.' To further align with international best practices, the school encourages staff to attend training organised by reputed boards. 'Many also participate in Cambridge examiner training to gain insights into external assessment expectations. Through this combination of internal and external training, our teachers build shared understanding, maintain high standards, and ensure that assessment practices are both rigorous and fair.' Such data-driven approaches not only enhance accountability but also support school improvement efforts. 'Moderation sessions and data review meetings help refine prediction accuracy and maintain accountability. Patterns identified across subjects or year groups inform broader school improvement plans.' Global alignment in assessment standards For Global Indian International School (GIIS) Dubai, alignment across the group's 64 schools in 11 countries plays a central role in preventing grade inflation. Anita Singh, Principal of GIIS Dubai, said, 'To ensure fair practices and prevent grade inflation, we review the worksheets or revision work given to students. The format/blueprint is discussed with students to improve their understanding and how they should answer it. Webinar is conducted for parents before assessments for their understanding.' She explained how the school's group-wide coordination contributes to maintaining consistency. 'GIIS Dubai is part of the Global Schools Group, Singapore, with more than 64 schools across 11 countries. We take education very seriously. To ensure compliance and transparency, we follow the practice of setting a common paper for all GIIS schools across different countries. The common paper set by one school is reviewed, revised as per expected standards and shared before the assessments. This is done in senior school and now we are implementing it in primary and middle school too. This helps raise standards and ensures no grade inflation.' The school also uses assessment data to pinpoint skill gaps and take corrective measures. 'Data analysis is done for internal assessments and targets are set phase wise and grade wise based on students' performance. Data triangulation is done with external benchmarks to identify learning gaps for skills and competences. If the actuals are not at par with the predicted scores, a data review meeting is held with the subject head and SLT to brainstorm and draw strategies for the red flags and bridge the gaps.' Progress is closely monitored through monthly reviews. 'The Academic Head holds monthly campus review meetings to discuss the progress which is tracked to ensure the actions taken bring positive results.'
Khaleej Times
15-07-2025
- Business
- Khaleej Times
Abu Dhabi bans 12 private schools from enrolling grades 11, 12 students amid inflation probe
In a move to uphold academic integrity, the UAE capital's education regulator has temporarily barred 12 private schools in the emirate from enrolling students in Grades 11 and 12. The Abu Dhabi Department of Education and Knowledge's (ADEK) decision, follows the launch of a wide-ranging review targeting grade inflation and inconsistencies in academic records. The crackdown — part of Phase One of ADEK's new compliance initiative — aims to ensure that high school grades are a genuine reflection of student performance and learning quality. According to ADEK, the review was triggered by red flags raised through internal quality assurance mechanisms, which detected discrepancies between students' internal school grades and their performance on external benchmark exams. 'These measures are essential to protect the integrity of student qualifications,' ADEK said. 'Grade inflation not only misrepresents student learning, it also undermines trust in the education system and limits fair academic competition.' As part of the initial phase, the 12 affected schools must now submit detailed academic records for all Grade 12 students. This includes transcripts, grading frameworks, assessment samples, and documentation of graduation requirements. The goal is to identify patterns of grade inflation, inconsistencies in awarding credits, and any mismatch between reported grades and actual student performance. ADEK emphasised that each student should earn their graduation credential through genuine academic achievement — not through inflated scores or unreliable internal assessments. What's next? The ongoing review will soon expand to cover Grades 9 through 11. Future phases will also compare internal grades with external test results and look at longer-term trends to detect potential systemic issues across schools. Schools found non-compliant may face further administrative action, including mandatory corrective measures, under ADEK's regulatory policy.
