General Faculties Council discusses CMA and LearnWise pilot

At the October 5 General Faculties Council (GFC) meeting, councillors approved amendments to the Student Conduct Policy and procedures.

GFC also discussed a proposal to establish a department of biomedical sciences and a new recruitment policy framework. 

Additionally the University of Alberta Students’ Union (UASU) and Graduate Students’ Association (GSA) presented on its goals for the year ahead.

Updates to the Student Conduct Policy and procedures aim to clarify process and powers

The Office of the Provost and Vice-President (Academic) proposed updates and changes to the Student Conduct Policy and Student Misconduct Complaints Procedures. The U of A is required to review the policy and procedures every five years.

The changes are not meant to change the student conduct process, but rather clarify the steps and put terms into plain language. The changes also make clear the authority to control the process and protect its integrity.

One update aims to clarify the jurisdiction of the university. Previously the policy stated that it applied to situations with “real and substantial link and or material effect on the learning environment.” 

The updated policy would make clear that the university only has jurisdiction over conduct in a person’s capacity as a student, not as a private citizen, in accordance with the Post-Secondary Learning Act (PSLA).

Another amendment would clarify the interim measures that the Student Conduct and Accountability (SCA) team can use during an ongoing misconduct case. 

“This clarifies that interim measures can be applied without a complaint, and that the criteria for accepting a complaint do not apply to interim measures,” Ravina Sanghera, the dean of students, explained. “The threshold is lower, and the intent is not to be punitive. It is to recalibrate safety.”

She added that the interim measures affect privileges, not academic rights, and only apply to active students.

Additionally, the amended policy would explicitly state the inherent authority of those administering the policies to make adjustments to the process to ensure procedural fairness. This change is meant to help guard against abuses of the process. 

Questions around extended timeline for student conduct investigations

Other changes clarified the timeline of the process and opportunities to respond to a misconduct case. The updates will change the timeline for SCA to complete an investigation report from six weeks to 12–16 weeks. 

“The amendments replace timelines that we cannot reliably meet with realistic ones because accurate expectations are both a matter of procedural fairness and a trauma-informed practice,” Sanghera said. “We commit to consistent communication that is done throughout the entire process.”

Several GFC members asked about this change.

Lee Merry, a graduate student in the School of Public Health, asked how the new timeline was decided on.

Laura Lucien-Bay, the manager of SCA, explained that the new timeline came from a review of 93 misconduct cases. The average timeline was 15 weeks for the investigation and 15 weeks for the decision making.

“We were finding the six weeks was a challenge because every six weeks we’re going back to people who have been traumatized … to say ‘hey, it’s going to be another six weeks,’” she said. 

Robert Prybysh, an academic teaching staff representative, raised a concern that the extended timeline may mean students graduate before the conduct process is complete. He referenced other professions that maintain jurisdiction over individuals for a certain period of time once they leave.

Deb Eerkes, the lead for sexual- and gender-based violence response, clarified that sanctions can still be applied after individuals graduate. 

“It may change the nature of the sanctions that might be useful,” Eerkes explained. “For example, instead of a suspension, we might say we’re going to exclude you from campus.”

Five medicine and dentistry departments proposed to be consolidated into one

The faculty of medicine and dentistry brought forward a discussion item on a proposal to consolidate some of its departments into a single biomedical sciences department. 

After an internal and external review, the faculty recommended that the departments of biochemistry, cell biology, medical microbiology, and immunology be restructured into a new, single department of biomedical sciences.

“We believe this proposal provides a stronger foundation for research and education, greater opportunities for collaboration and growth, and flexibility to respond to what comes next,” Brenda Hemmelgarn, dean of the faculty of medicine and dentistry said. 

The proposed change comes, in part, due to funding constraints. Hemmelgarn said that no job losses are planned as a result of the restructuring, and programs will remain unchanged for undergraduate and graduate students. She clarified that there may be a change in roles and responsibilities, particularly for support staff.

GFC members asked about the impacts this change would have on advocacy and representation within governance. 

“It says here, in the document, that this merger will allow for more effective advocacy and strategic positioning,” Amit Bhavsar, an associate professor in the department of medical microbiology and immunology, said. “I do agree it’ll be a unified voice, although I worry it’ll be a diminished voice.”

Hemmelgarn said that changes will be made to the Faculty Evaluation Committee (FEC) to account for five department voices being consolidated into one chair.

Susan Huseynova, the UASU vice-president (academic), stated her support for the change. 

As an immunology student, “myself and my peers tend to fall into this twilight zone,” she said. “We just don’t really have a place to belong, so having an explicit kind of department for us will really help the student experience and also having an identity on campus.”

If approved by the Board of Governors, the change would come into effect in January 2027.

Students raise concerns with the Course Material Access program’s launch

Question period revolved around Course Material Access (CMA) and LearnWise Artificial Intelligence (AI).

Vaughn R.J. Kurylowich, an undergraduate student in the faculty of arts, asked about an information gap he and other students have witnessed with faculty knowledge of CMA. 

Katherine Huising, associate vice-president (campus services), said that information was sent out to faculty before the fall term began. 

“We knew that this fall was going to be a heavy lift,” she said. “This program is brand new to every undergraduate student and every instructor.”

Naomi Bagna, also an undergraduate student in the faculty of arts, highlighted the issues students experienced when trying to opt-out of the program.

“Many students found the subsequent restructuring of the bookstore following CMA’s implementation confusing,” she said. “Additionally, students who have had difficulties opting out have had to wait in long lines in order to access information.”

Bagna asked what steps were being taken to reduce barriers for students that choose to opt-out of the program.

Huising admitted that the “opt-out did not work as smoothly as it should have.”

“I have a call on Friday [October 9] with the president of higher education with Follett [CMA’s vendor] to outline that that is not acceptable and changes have to be implemented before the winter term,” she said. 

Approval and cost of LearnWise AI pilot questioned

Two questions were submitted and responded to in writing about LearnWise AI, a pilot that embeds an AI software directly into Canvas. 

Aaryan Shetty, an undergraduate student from the faculty of science, had submitted a question in writing, but followed up during the meeting. 

“The written response states that [the Committee on Learning Environment and Student Affairs (CLESA)] terms of reference does not allow for the selection of specific AI tools,” he said. 

He questioned how the selection of LearnWise fell out of scope with CLESA and GFC as a whole “because this impacted all students.”

Karsten Mundel, vice-provost (learning and digital integration), said that CLESA had discussed AI tools numerous times. “It’s almost the biggest topic right now that many of us are grappling with,” he said. 

He clarified that the conversations with CLESA are informative and are intended to gather feedback rather than to select specific AI tools. Mundel added that GFC does not typically make decisions on the selection of specific tools either.

Professor of fine arts and design, Allen Ball, said, “I think the big question is, should GFC be involved in something so fundamental to education as AI? This isn’t a database tool or Excel. This changes the way we learn and the learning environment.”

“Maybe there’s a time that we could make GFC more effective in actually having that conversation here before we go down the road of pilots,” he added.

Verna Yiu, provost and vice-president (academic), said that she and Mundel would take this feedback from GFC and return with a proposal on how to engage GFC on these tools.

Ryan McKay, an academic staff member in the faculty of science, asked Mundel about a report from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) that recommended a measured approach to integrating AI in education.

Mundel said he hadn’t “memorized” the MIT report, but has considered it and similar reports. He noted that MIT is a smaller institution than the U of A, and the “encouragement to be bold.”

“I think trying different pilots and seeing how they work is one way in which we can be bold,” Mundel said.

McKay said later that “my impression of the MIT report about ‘be bold’ was not in favour [AI], but was to stand in the way and not be afraid to question and not jump on the bandwagon.”

He asked what the U of A paid LearnWise for the pilot.

Mundel said he was unable to disclose the exact amount. Mundel clarified that the procurement information is protected under a non-disclosure agreement (NDA).

McKay asked if the request for proposal (RFP) was available. 

Todd Gilchrist, vice-president (university services, operations, and finance), said the RFP would have been public on the Alberta Public Service website at some point, but he wasn’t sure where it went after the contract was closed.

Framework for reviewing recruitment policies presented

As a continuation of the university’s review of its recruitment policies, the Office of the Provost and Vice-President (Academic) and Vice-President (University Services, Operations, and Finance) presented a framework for the updated recruitment procedures. 

The U of A hopes to consolidate the existing 28 procedures into 11. The focus areas would be posting and advertising, selection and appointment, academic leader, executive, and other.

“The goal here is to simplify, improve clarity, reflect current practice and provide that consistent and equitable candidate experience,” Marcie Chisholm, chief human resources officer, said.

She added that the university of “very committed to ongoing dialogue and learning to ensure that our recruitment procedures, practices, and guide reflect our institutional values and support fair access to opportunities.”