Under a prior administration, we were told to retain for a period of two
years --final exams and any other significant components of the grade
which were not returned to the students. The current administration has
not published a policy to my knowledge.
Carol Miller
Missouri State University
-----Original Message-----
From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michael O'Hara
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 12:23 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Use of student work product
ALSBTALK:
FIRST:
Within the UoN system, by Regent Bylaw, all professors are
required
to return to students or to personally retain all graded materials for a
period of 30 days. Those Bylaws also specify a default statute of
limitations for grade appeals of 30 days, but expressly allow each
college
to pick a longer duration. UNO CBA expressly picked 30 days.
SECOND:
Any professor who participates in any computerized plagiarism
program
nearly always imposes upon the student a permanent record.
THIRD:
Major student research outputs are retained in the campus library
as
part of the campus achieves. What is major will differ by campus. Some
only retain Ph.D. dissertations; others reach down so far as to retain
all
undergraduate honors papers.
FOURTH:
We do not bar student output from the reappointment, promotion,
and
tenure review process or from the annual review process. Nor do we
encourage its inclusion. Volume of photocopying, more than student
rights,
drive that approach.
FIFTH:
AACSB accreditation documentation requires retention of a small
sample of completed assessment tools for the accreditation visitation
team's review and comment. That sample is not required to satisfy the
requirements of statistical sampling; but, must not have been sampled
with
the intent to skew the results represented in the sample. The
accreditator's interest is in the assessment tool and the need for
completed assessment tools is so that the accreditator is in a position
to
comment on whether the tool is functioning as intended by its creators.
AACSB requires each school to rigorously separate [1] the grading
evaluation function completed by individual faculty members of the
academic
performance of an individual student; and [2] the assessment function
completed by a program of the program's performance that fractionally
utilizes individual student efforts as data points.
AACSB encourages not assessing in the course that a skill is
taught.
For example, if your first BSBA core course is accounting and your
second
is economics, then, IDEALLY, your first assessment opportunity for
accounting would be in the following semester's economics course.
However,
since assessment is to measure the output of a program it would be
superior
to assess skills later in the program rather than earlier (depending
upon
the program's remediation efforts in response to identified
deficiencies).
AACSB prohibits assessing in courses that will create a clear skew to
the
results. For example, assessment of the BSBA program's success with
delivery of accounting skills may not be done in courses only accounting
majors take as seniors (the marketing seniors-only course would be
closer
to the ideal).
An accredited program -may- choose to assess in the course where a
skill is taught. An accredited program -may- choose to use as the
student
output that will be used to assess the program a graded event. AACSB
recommends against both in most instances. Given that, if one is
leaning
on the FERPA the "required" reed may be a bit weak, but possibly not too
weak.
Michael
Professor Michael J. O'Hara, J.D., Ph.D.
Finance, Banking, & Law Department Editor, Journal of Legal
Economics
College of Business Administration (402) 554 - 2014 voice fax
(402)
554 - 3825
Roskens Hall 502 www.AAEFE.org
University of Nebraska at Omaha
www.JournalOfLegalEconomics.com
Omaha NE 68182 http://nbdc.unomaha.edu/aaefe
[log in to unmask]
(402) 554 - 2823 voice fax (402) 554 - 2680
http://cba.unomaha.edu/faculty/mohara/web/ohara.htm
|
