Syllabus

Schedule

Course Weeks

Week 1: Oct 24 – Oct 28
Week 2: Oct 29 – Nov 4
Week 3: Nov 5 – Nov 11
Week 4: Nov 12 – Nov 18
Week 5: Nov 19 – Nov 25
Week 6: Nov 26 – Dec 2
Week 7: Dec 3 – Dec 9
Week 8: Dec 10 – Dec 16

With the exception of Week 1, which opens on a Wednesday, each week opens on Monday at 12:01 AM Eastern Time. Each week closes on Sunday at 11:59 pm ET. Specific due dates can be found within the Blackboard Calendar feature in your Global Navigation. For more information, review the following article:

https://help.blackboard.com/en-us/Learn/9.1_SP_12_and_SP_13/Student/110_Nav_My_Blackboard

The assignment/discussion descriptions mentioned below are summaries. Please make sure to review the full assignment prompts in Blackboard.  There may be additional readings/videos that are not mentioned in this weekly summary, make sure to carefully review the modules in Blackboard. 

Week 1: Introduction to Policy and the Structures of Government

Learning Objectives

1. Describe the relationship between policy and politics
2. Describe examples of differing, possibly paradoxical, policy views or underlying values of professions, organizations, or individuals
3. Identify examples of policy stemming from one or more of the three branches of a co-equal government

Readings and Lectures

Readings

• Text (Stone) – Introduction: Why This Book?
• Text (Stone) – Chapter 1 – The Market and the Polis
• Text (Stone) – Chapter 16 – Powers
• Text (Bardach) – Appendix B Things Governments Do
• Article – How to Really Understand Someone’s Point of View: HBR

Lectures

• A Civics Lesson, Part 1: The Structure of Government
• A Civics Lesson, Part 2: Policy Relevance of Government Action

Activities

Week 1 Discussion

Initial Post:Describe your understanding of the interface between policy and politics. What role does scientific evidence have in policy discussions? What role does it have in politics? Using Stone’s Introduction and Chapter 1 discussion, provide one example of a policy “paradox” in your field. 

Response Post: Respond to two (2) of your classmates’ examples by identifying some opposing, possibly paradoxical, views within or outside of your field.  To further the discussion, provide policy examples of your own from different branches of our co-equal federal or state governments. Identify the policy and which branch of government it initially stems from. Do you have any personal or professional view of this policy or its impact on people or communities? Has it been a successful policy or not? Explain the basis for your views and cite any reliable, credible evidence.

Week 2: Policy Analysis: Purpose, Audiences, Components, and Format

Learning Objectives

• Identify societal issues that would benefit from policy solutions
• Describe how different audiences interpret the need for policy solutions
• Describe the role of evidence in policy-making
• Apply awareness of cultural values and practices to the design or implementation of public health policies

Readings and Lectures

Readings

• IPEC Competencies (excerpt) 
• Text (Stone) – Chapter 2 Equity
• Text (Stone) – Chapter 5 Liberty
• Text (Stone) – Conclusion: Policy Analysis and Political Argument (pgs 379-385)
• Text (Bardach) – Appendices A, C, D, and E
• Policy Brief Example 1: An Examination of the Effects of U.S. School Nutrition and Food Service Programs on Child Nutrition and Obesity
• Policy Brief Example 2: Nutrition Education in America’s Schools
• Braveman, P. (2014). What are health disparities and health equity? We need to be clear.  Public Health Reports, 129(1_suppl2), 5-8.
• Cohen, A. R., & Bradford, D. L. (1989). Influence without authority: The use of alliances, reciprocity, and exchange to accomplish work.  Organizational Dynamics, 17(3), 5-17.
• Additional Suggested Reading: Codd, J. (1988) The Construction and Deconstruction of Educational Policy Documents

Lectures:

• Bardach’s Eightfold Path
• Policy Scenario: Body Mass Index (BMI) Screening and Surveillance in K-12 Schools

Activities

Week 2 Discussion

Stone writes (pg 381) “What people care about and fight about are interpretations of personhood, identity, economic welfare, war, and the proper relationship between religion and government. What communities decide about when they make policy is meaning, not matter. And science can’t settle questions of meaning.”

Initial Post: Write an original contribution about what this paragraph means to you. What does it say about the role of “evidence” in the policy process? How might you address differing interpretations by various audiences of a societal problem when thinking about how you will describe your problem and the potential policy options to address it? Describe a situation that involves differing views on “what people care about” and what evidence might be used to support various interpretations of the problem or proposed solutions.

Response Posts: Respond to two (2) of your classmates with further questions, constructive criticism, and/or connections to your own perspective on how different professions and different stakeholders view societal issues and concerns that require governmental involvement. What are some of the health equity implications of differing values, views, and perspectives of culturally different beliefs and practices?

Week 3: Define the Policy Problem

Learning Objectives

• Describe the policy problem from your own profession’s perspective
• Clearly articulate a specific policy problem in writing
• Discuss the different policy problem perspectives of your own and other professions

Readings and Lectures

Readings

• Text (Stone) – Chapter 8 Numbers
• Text (Stone) – Chapter 9 Causes
• Text (Stone) – Chapter 10 Interests
• Text (Bardach) – pages 1-12 and 113-124
• Mandinach, E. (2015) Ethical and Appropriate Data Use Requires Data Literacy
• Solomon, M. et al (2016) The Ethical Imperative And Moral Challenges Of Engaging Patients And The Public With Evidence
• The 12 Cognitive Biases that Keep You from Being Rational

Additional Suggested Reading:

• Thaler, R. H., Sunstein, C. R., & Balz, J. P. (2014). Choice architecture.
• Phillips, M. M., Ryan, K., & Raczynski, J. M. (2011). Peer Reviewed: Public Policy Versus Individual Rights in Childhood Obesity Interventions: Perspectives From the Arkansas Experience With Act 1220 of 2003. Preventing chronic disease, 8(5).
• Ryan, K. W. (2009). Surveillance, Screening, and Reporting Children’s BMI in a School-Based Setting: A Legal Perspective.  Pediatrics, 124(Supplement 1), S83-S88.

Lectures

• Door #1 or Door #2? HIPAA or FERPA?
• Cognitive biases

Activities

Small Group Discussion: Problem Statement

Initial Post:

• Use the information in the scenario and supporting external sources to write +/- 500 words defining the policy problem from the perspective of your own discipline. Keep in mind that your problem must be defined in ways that the use of public resources is authorized, makes sense, and is likely to be effective (see Bardach p. 2). Be sure to:
  • Articulate the problem concisely and clearly
  • Frame the problem as one for which a public policy solution is warranted, appropriate, and likely to be effective
  • Avoid vagueness, generalities, rhetoric, and cliché
• Provide preliminary information about what evidence will likely be available to support your definition and interpretation of the problem
• Submit your policy problem statement in the Discussion Forum

Response Posts: 

Respond to 2 of your groupmates’ submissions. Provide constructive feedback on some or all of the guidelines for the problem statement (i.e. is the policy problem clearly and concisely articulated? If the problem as framed one that can be addressed by public intervention [vs private]? Is the policy problem specific enough?). For each response post, title your post “Response to [student’s name]”

Final Discussion Post Submission:

• Read the policy problem statements of each of your group members and consider whether and in what ways the perspectives of other disciplines changes your views about or definition of the policy problem
• Revise your policy problem statement to reflect any new information, perspective, or comments from your groupmates’ posts. Resubmit in Discussion Forum.

Please note that the policy at issue is the proposed BMI screening policy. While BMI screening might be an upstream approach to addressing obesity over the longer term, this assignment should not be interpreted to mean that the policy “problem” is obesity in general. This assignment is requesting your to consider issues, concerns, benefits, and risks with the proposed BMI policy itself from your particular professional perspective. When you are invited to speak at any of the public forms (local, state, federal) on this proposed policy, what is it that you might want the policymakers to know and consider in their decision? For instance, if you are a public health professional, you might be particularly concerned about how this screening policy impacts sub-populations such as low-income communities or racially and culturally diverse communities. If you are a social worker, you might focus on a contemporaneous risk assessment for peer experiences of bullying and victimization.

Week 4: Describe the Policy Context and Landscape

Learning Objectives

• Identify support for your policy problem in the scientific or grey literature
• Evaluate and summarize evidence to describe or support your definition of the policy problem
• Consider the viewpoints of other professions in your description of the policy problem

Readings and Lectures

Readings

• Text (Bardach) – pgs 12-18
• Review chapters in text (Stone) that might apply to ways in which you have described the policy problem in Week 3.
• Shaxson, L. (2005) Is Your Evidence Robust Enough: Questions for Policy makers and Practitioners

Additional Suggested Readings

• Nutley, S., & Webb, J. (2000). Evidence and the policy process. What works, 13-41.

Lectures

• Key Higher Education Policies
• The Role of Evidence in Evaluating Policy Alternatives: Nutrition
• Health Informatics and Evidence

Activities

Small Group Discussion: Problem Summary

Initial Post: 

• Research any available trusted data or other reliable information that supports your updated definition of the policy problem, which includes the perspective of other disciplines and the impact or consequences of failing to address the issue with a policy intervention. Consider your primary objective for defining the problem; is it clearly stated and supported by your evidence? Have you used evidence ethically and responsibly, avoiding misrepresentation of available data and scientific evidence? Keep in mind what you have learned from your interprofessional groupmates about the description of the problem and include relevant evidence that reflects the perspective of disciplines, if it is helpful for your approach.
• Prepare a +/- 750-word summary of the data and information, including any charts or graphs depicting the data, and a brief summary of the evidence base, including relevant citations. If your policy recommendations are likely to require significant outlay of funds, be sure to include at least some preliminary financial data, or likely fiscal impact.

Response Posts: 

• Respond to 2 of your groupmates’ submissions. Using the concept of “robustness” from the Shaxson article, is your groupmates’ evidence “robust”? Have they provided reliable, clear evidence from trusted sources to support the problem? Have they described potential impact or consequences (of acting or failing to act) in a realistic, credible way without hyperbole? Have they considered or anticipated the views, impact, consequences on other professions or other stakeholders? Have they addressed any possible financial or resource impact? Can you identify ways in which working in interprofessional teams supports the robustness of evidence describing the policy problem? For each response post, title your post “Response to [student’s name]”

Final Discussion Post Submission:

• Read the initial posts of each of your group members and consider whether and in what ways the perspectives of other disciplines changes your view on the policy context or the evidence in support of your policy problem.
• Revise your +/- 750-word summary to include and reflect new information, perspective, or comments from your groupmates’ posts.
• Resubmit in Discussion Forum

Week 5: Identify your policy options and alternatives

Learning Objectives

• Identify various policy options to address policy problem
• Identify how perspectives of other professions might inform the policy
• Evaluate peer policy options and provide substantive feedback
• Analyze (or assess) the potential consequences (positive, negative, or unintended) of policy options
• Apply ethical principles of policy advocacy

Readings and Videos

Readings

• Text (Stone) – Chapters 13, 14, 15
• Text (Bardach) – pgs 18-46
• Jansson, B. (2003) Becoming an Effective Policy Advocate, Ch 5 Articulating Four Rationales for Participating in Policy Advocacy
• Norton, R. Unintended Consequences
• PBS: Prohibition and Unintended Consequences

Videos

• Unintended Consequences – Stossel in the Classroom
• 10 Fascinating Examples of Unintended Consequences

Activities

Small Group Discussion: Policy Alternatives

Initial Post:

• Create a list of several (+/-5) policy alternatives that are likely to address your policy problem, keeping in mind that focusing on different aspects of the problem might lead you to a diverse set of policy alternatives (which is fine).
• Briefly explain the basis or reason(s) behind your choice of alternatives (i.e. why you think this is an appropriate approach to solve your policy problem)
• Considering what you have learned from colleagues in the other professions, explain the likely impact of the policy options on individuals, populations, and/or communities (as appropriate to your issue). Be sure to address any foreseeable unintended consequences or possible negative impact.
• Review Jansson’s ethical principles in policy advocacy. Do any of them apply to your policy options? Are there aspects of your policy option that offend any of these principles?
• Submit to the Discussion Forum (should be +/- 1000 – 1100 words, or +/- 200 words for each policy alternative)

Response Posts: 

• Respond to 2 of your groupmates’ submissions. Do their policy alternatives make sense on their face? What questions do their policy alternatives bring up for you? What barriers can you identify? Do any of the policy alternatives interfere with the interests of other disciplines? Are the policy options consistent with ethical principles of advocating for one or more of the options? For each response post, title your post “Response to [student’s name]”

Final Discussion Post Submission:

• Revise your policy alternatives incorporating some of the feedback from your groupmates. Be sure to consider and incorporate ethical principles of policy advocacy.
• Resubmit to the Discussion Forum

Week 6: Select and apply your evaluation criteria

Learning Objectives

• Evaluate policy options according to various relevant criteria (e.g. feasibility, effectiveness)
• Evaluate policies for their impact on health and social equity
• Anticipate the likely concerns of policy making governing body in preparation for presenting testimony
• Analyze peer policy option evaluations for gaps and provide substantive feedback

Readings and Lectures

Readings

• Text (Bardach) – pgs 46-72
• Review Stone chapters to help you evaluate your options and to consider opposing views.

Lectures

• Legislative Q&A

Activities

Small Group Discussion: Evaluation of Policy Options

Initial Post: 

• Identify three (3) evaluative criteria (e.g. efficiency, cost-effectiveness) and more fully evaluate three (3) of your policy alternatives according to those evaluative criteria.
• Write +/- 300 words on each policy alternative, taking into account new knowledge and/or perspective from your peers. Identify possible opposing views and describe how you might respond to them in a hearing setting. Anticipate the likely concerns of the governing body.
• Be sure to evaluate your policy options for their impact on the health and social equity of individuals, communities, and/ or populations.
• Submit your statements to the Discussion Forum

Response Posts:

• Respond to 2 of your groupmates submissions. Provide substantive, constructive feedback on whether they have addressed the most likely concerns of a governing body. Are there any gaps in their evaluations of their proposed policy intervention(s)? Have they anticipated likely opposing views? Have they considered the impact of the policy on the health and social equity of various individuals, communities, or populations? For each response post, title your post “Response to [student’s name]”

Final Discussion Post Submissions:

• Revise your evaluation criteria taking into account feedback from your groupmates. Be sure to consider whether and in what ways the perspectives of other disciplines changes your views about how you are evaluating your policy options.
• Resubmit to the Discussion Forum

Week 7: Make policy recommendations and draft final policy analysis

Learning Objectives

• Synthesize recommended policy options in concise, professional written testimony
• Incorporate advocacy and persuasive principles into testimony
• Predict and address likely concerns of governing body
• Compile and integrate components of policy analysis into final written paper
• Apply awareness of cultural values and practices to policy recommendations

Readings and Videos

Readings

• Text (Bardach) – pgs 71-82
• Elizabeth Pratt legislative testimony
• A. Stanger legislative testimony
• R. Leach legislative testimony
• A. Bagga legislative testimony
• Chapter 2 from Jansson, B. (2011). Becoming an effective policy advocate: From policy practice to social justice.

Videos

• Attorney Jeremy Bailie Presented Testimony to Florida House of Representatives
• Making Your Voice Heard – How to Testify

Additional Suggested Video

• Fizzy Lizzy Testimony before the New York State Legislature 

Activities

Small Group Discussion: Written Testimony

Initial Post:

• Write a persuasive 2-3 minute (1,000 words) testimony before the governing body designated in your scenario. Be sure to make a compelling argument without distorting the facts, the impact, or the nature of the problem at issue. The testimony should progress from a concise statement of the problem in logical order to your final proposed policy recommendations.
• Incorporate new knowledge and/or perspective from your interprofessional peers in order to appropriately broaden the reach or appeal of your testimony.
• Be sure to demonstrate your awareness of different values and practices with regard to food, nutrition, weight, body image, and other culturally meaningful intersections with BMI.
• Submit your testimony to the Discussion Forum

Response Posts:

• Provide feedback to 2 of your groupmates. What parts of the testimony are most compelling and persuasive? What suggestions do you have for improvement? What types of questions do you think they will  receive from the target audience? Does the testimony unfold in logical order? For each response post, title your post “Response to [student’s name]”

Final Discussion Post Submission:

• Revise your testimony based on feedback received from groupmates.
• Resubmit to the Discussion Forum

Final Policy Analysis Paper

Click here to view the full instructions

Submit your final policy analysis paper, properly formatted and with appropriate references and citations.

This final policy analysis paper integrates your previous paper sections in prior assignments in a seamless document and incorporating previous feedback from your instructor and your peers. It will also include your final policy recommendations for your target stakeholder audience. 

Your final recommendations should take into account evaluative criteria identified as significant to policymakers as well as those factors that are important to the target population (e.g. cultural values or practices; health, social risks, or educational risks, privacy issues, etc).

Be sure to incorporate new learning and perspectives acquired through your weeks of discussions with your groupmates. While this paper builds on all the previous work you have done in this course, it should reflect the feedback you have received from your instructor and colleagues. Your final product should synthesize perspectives of other professions but be clearly written from the viewpoint of your own profession and the values and goals that matter most.

Suggested word count: +/- 3000 – 3500 words

Week 8: Review of Final Policy Analyses and Reflections on Interprofessional Collaboration

Learning Objectives

• Deliver persuasive oral testimony before governing body to advocate for policies that will improve health and well-being in diverse populations
• Respond effectively and appropriately to audience questions
• Reflect on interprofessional experiences
• Identify successes and challenges in interprofessional collaboration

Readings and Videos

Readings

• Tips for legislative testimony
• Full Report: IPEC Core Competencies for Interprofessional Collaborative Practice 2016 Update

Videos

• View your peers’ testimonies (see discussion)

Activities

Week 8 Discussion

Initial Post:

• Submit a 2-3 (1000 words) minute video of your hearing/meeting testimony using screencast-o-matic or Youtube. (Here’s a quick guide.)
• Be sure not to go over 3 minutes. Be sure to introduce yourself and present your testimony in a polite, professional manner.
• Your testimony should be clear and concise, address the policy issue directly, and incorporate appropriate persuasive strategies.

Response Posts:

• Provide feedback to 2 assigned presentations. Feedback should be substantive and constructive. Consider the questions in the Week 8 overview.
  • Does the testimony adequately describe the problem and propose feasible, effective, ethically appropriate policy solutions?
  • Is the testimony persuasive?
  • Are you left with lingering questions or concerns about any aspect of the policy recommendations? If so, what are they?
  • Did the testimony address potential negative consequences, if any?
  • Did it anticipate the likely concerns of the governing body and of other stakeholders?
• Was the testimony professionally delivered and clear? Was it delivered within an acceptable time frame?

Final Reflection

Prepare a +/- 750-word reflection on your interprofessional collaborative experiences.

Discuss at least six (6) of the specific interprofessional competencies across the four domains and provide at least one (1) specific example for each competency of how, or the circumstances in which, you practiced that competency.

Describe the competencies that were particularly challenging for you or for others in your group? In what ways? Be specific, but still and respectful.

What did you learn from your groupmates in other professions and describe how the experience in this course has changed the way you might approach professional collaborations in the future.

As you reflect back on your interactions with your groupmates in this course, is there anything you would do differently? 

Student Resources

Online Student Support

Your Student Support Specialist is a resource for you. Please don't hesitate to contact them for assistance, including, but not limited to course planning, current problems or issues in a course, technology concerns, or personal emergencies.

Questions? Visit the Student Support Public Health page

UNE Libraries:

• Library Access for all students: Your library login ID and password are the same as the ones you use to log into Brightspace.
• Public Health Databases: https://library.une.edu/library-materials/find/research-by-subject/public-health/
• Library Questions: Ask a librarian or phone library staff at (207) 602-2361 or (207) 221-4330.

UNE Student Academic Success Center

UNE's Student Academic Success Center (SASC) offers a range of free online services to support your academic achievement. Writing support, ESOL support, study strategy and learning style consultations, as well as downloadable resources, are available to all matriculating students. The SASC also offers tutoring for GPH 712 Epidemiology, GPH 716 Biostatistics, GPH 717 Applied Epidemiology, GPH 718 Biostatistics II, and GPH 719 Research Methods. To make an appointment for any of these services, go to une.tutortrac.com. For more information and to view and download writing and studying resources, please visit:

• UNE Student Academic Success Center

Information Technology Services (ITS)

• ITS Contact: Toll Free Help Desk 24 hours/7 days per week at 1-877-518-4673

Accommodations

Any student who would like to request, or ask any questions regarding, academic adjustments or accommodations must contact the Student Access Center at (207) 221-4438 or pcstudentaccess@une.edu. Student Access Center staff will evaluate the student's documentation and determine eligibility of accommodation(s) through the Student Access Center registration procedure.

Online Peer Support

Togetherall is a 24/7 communication and emotional support platform monitored by trained clinicians. It’s a safe place online to get things off your chest, have conversations, express yourself creatively, and learn how to manage your mental health. If sharing isn’t your thing, Togetherall has other tools and courses to help you look after yourself with plenty of resources to explore. Whether you’re struggling to cope, feeling low, or just need a place to talk, Togetherall can help you explore your feelings in a safe supportive environment. You can join Togetherall using your UNE email address.

Information Technology Services (ITS)

Students should notify their Student Support Specialist and instructor in the event of a problem relating to a course. This notification should occur promptly and proactively to support timely resolution.

ITS Contact: Toll-Free Help Desk 24 hours/7 days per week at 1-877-518-4673.

Career Ready Program

The College of Professional Studies supports its online students and alumni in their career journey!

The Career Ready Program provides tools and resources to help students explore and hone in on their career goals, search for jobs, create and improve professional documents, build professional network, learn interview skills, grow as a professional, and more. Come back often, at any time, as you move through your journey from career readiness as a student to career growth, satisfaction, and success as alumni.

Policies

Note on citation style: Students taking this course who are not enrolled in the Master of Public Health or Master of Science in Applied Nutrition programs may follow the APA citation style instead of AMA style. 

Notice: In this course, the general Late Policy noted below may not apply for all assignments or class discussions.  This is a course where interaction between students is not only encouraged, but a required learning outcome of the course as students are dependent on receiving feedback from classmates before proceeding with their work.  Please read the due dates within Blackboard carefully and note when late submissions will not be accepted. The extended time is suspended for some weeks.  As in all classes, there is no late submission in week 8 due to the course end. 

AMA Writing Style Statement

The American Medical Association Manual (AMA) of Style, 11th edition is the required writing format for this course. Additional support for academic writing and AMA format is provided throughout the coursework as well as at the UNE Portal for Online Students.

Online resources: AMA Style Guide

Turnitin Originality Check and Plagiarism Detection Tool

The College of Professional Studies uses Turnitin to help deter plagiarism and to foster the proper attribution of sources. Turnitin provides comparative reports for submitted assignments that reflect similarities in other written works. This can include, but is not limited to, previously submitted assignments, internet articles, research journals, and academic databases.

Make sure to cite your sources appropriately as well as use your own words in synthesizing information from published literature. Webinars and workshops, included early in your coursework, will help guide best practices in APA citation and academic writing.

You can learn more about Turnitin in the guide on how to navigate your Similarity Report.

Technology Requirements

Please review the technical requirements for UNE Online Graduate Programs: Technical Requirements

Course Evaluation Policy

Course surveys are one of the most important tools that University of New England uses for evaluating the quality of your education, and for providing meaningful feedback to instructors on their teaching. In order to assure that the feedback is both comprehensive and precise, we need to receive it from each student for each course. Evaluation access is distributed via UNE email at the beginning of the last week of the course.

Late Policy

Students are responsible for submitting work by the date indicated in Brightspace.

Quizzes and Tests: Quizzes and tests must be completed by the due date. They will not be accepted after the due date.

Assignments: Unless otherwise specified, assignments will be accepted up to 3 days late; however, there is a 10% grade reduction (from the total points) for the late submission. After three days the assignment will not be accepted.

Discussion posts: If the initial post is submitted late, but still within the discussion board week, there will be a 10% grade reduction from the total discussion grade (e.g., a 3 point discussion will be reduced by 0.3 points). Any posts submitted after the end of the Discussion Board week will not be graded.

Please make every effort ahead of time to contact your instructor and your student support specialist if you are not able to meet an assignment deadline. Arrangements for extenuating circumstances may be considered by faculty.

Student Handbook Online - Policies and Procedures

The policies contained within this document apply to all students in the College of Graduate and Professional Studies. It is each student's responsibility to know the contents of this handbook.

Student Handbook

UNE Course Withdrawal

Please contact your student support specialist if you are considering dropping or withdrawing from a course. The last day to drop for 100% tuition refund is the 2nd day of the course. Financial Aid charges may still apply. Students using Financial Aid should contact the Financial Aid Office prior to withdrawing from a course.

Academic Integrity

The University of New England values academic integrity in all aspects of the educational experience. Academic dishonesty in any form undermines this standard and devalues the original contributions of others. It is the responsibility of all members of the University community to actively uphold the integrity of the academy; failure to act, for any reason, is not acceptable. For information about plagiarism and academic misconduct, please visit https://www.une.edu/studentlife/plagiarism.

Academic dishonesty includes, but is not limited to the following:

1. Cheating, copying, or the offering or receiving of unauthorized assistance or information.
2. Fabrication or falsification of data, results, or sources for papers or reports.
3. Action which destroys or alters the work of another student.
4. Multiple submissions of the same paper or report for assignments in more than one course without permission of each instructor.
5. Plagiarism, the appropriation of records, research, materials, ideas, or the language of other persons or writers and the submission of them as one's own.

Charges of academic dishonesty will be reviewed by the Program Director. Penalties for students found responsible for violations may depend upon the seriousness and circumstances of the violation, the degree of premeditation involved, and/or the student’s previous record of violations.  Appeal of a decision may be made to the Dean whose decision will be final.  Student appeals will take place through the grievance process outlined in the student handbook.