RMIT University policy granting the University ownership of intellectual property created by students for assessment has been struck down by the Academic Board in its February meeting.
Section 3.2 of the ‘Assessment: Conduct of Assessment and Appeals’ procedure was deleted following an amendment submitted by the RMIT Student Union.
The controversial policy allowed the University to claim ownership of any ‘ideas’ submitted for assessment created using “resources, materials or equipment owned or controlled by the University other than library facilities”.
With the deletion of Section 3.2 from the assessment policy, cases will now refer to Section 2 (b) of the ‘Statute 7.1 – Intellectual Property’ procedure which guarantees students ownership of their intellectual property precluding prior and specific arrangements.
RMIT Student Union General Secretary and Academic Board member Gabriel Brady said the policy contained in Statute 7.1 is significantly more lenient.
“The alternative intellectual property policy was much more comprehensive, and also more versatile,” he said.
Changing technology makes policy obsolete
The University completed a comprehensive review of its assessment policy during 2011 and 2012.
Rowan Simpson, Senior Advisor to the RMIT Academic Policy & Governance Office, said the review “included the development of new assessment principles, review of existing material, and in some cases a simple carrying forward of existing provisions”.
Section 3.2 of the assessment policy has existed in some form since the RMIT Act of 1992, which first established RMIT as a university.
The latest Act, from 2010, can be read here.
Student Rights Officer Steve Boucher said intellectual property procedure had become much more complex than when the policy was first enacted over 20 years ago.
“When this policy was restated (as part of the review) we were very concerned, because the resources of the University are very broad.
“It includes internet bandwidth, it includes computer labs – it includes a whole lot of things that weren’t anticipated in 1992,” he said.
Mr Boucher also believes the policy conflicts with common assumptions about the role of universities.
“The thrust of assessment is supposed to be developing creativity and real-world knowledge.
“Once a student becomes aware of the claim available to the institution, it means that people start self-censoring what they say and what they seek feedback on,” he said.
Concerns raised about anti-plagiarism policy
The Union also had concerns about new policy within the ‘Academic Integrity and Plagiarism Procedure‘, notably in Section 1.1 – Student Responsibilities.
The relevant passage reads:
To maintain academic integrity students must:
– not leave assignments around for others to access
– log off and remove USBs or related devices from computers in the library or labs to protect the integrity of electronic work on shared drives and in the ‘cloud’.
The Union argued the policy leaves students whose work has been stolen or lost open to punishment for aiding cheating, and attempted in a meeting of the Policy and Programs Committee to have the wording changed to a more flexible alternative.
The suggestion was not supported by the Committee, meaning students whose work is stolen and subsequently plagiarised will face disciplinary proceedings requiring proof of non-collusion.
The City Journal understands in 2012 a computer science student claimed his USB stick had been stolen after he was accused of sharing his work with another student.
The student appealed and was eventually cleared of wrong-doing, which appears to have inspired the University to enforce a stricter policy.
Ninety-four students sought help from the Union in 2012 for plagiarism related discipline issues.
About 30 of these students – who cases could not be resolved at the college level – appeared before a disciplinary board.
The University has since 2005 relied on a software program called Turnitin to monitor student assessments for plagiarism.
What do you think of RMIT’s assessment policy? Does the new plagiarism policy worry you? Leave your comments in the box below.
