This is an interactive story about teamwork. It is fiction, but based on real challenges faced by students like you every day.
Because it is an <i>interactive</i> story, you will be asked to make choices, and the choices you make will affect how the story unfolds.
But this is a story, not a test. There are no right or wrong answers — just choices that make the story unfold in different ways. <i>Your choices are not being recorded in any way.</i>
At the end, you'll be given the chance to go back to the beginning, and to see how the story unfolds if you make different choices.
ONE LAST THING: don't use the "Back" button on your browser (or you'll be brought back to this page, wherever you are in the story!)
Go ahead and click to [[start the story....|*start - group assignment 4 sections]]
© Choice Point Solutions, Inc.<!-- customize node-->
So you've decided to tackle Question 1, about what the relevant law actually says about how companies advertise their prices.
You know that the prof discussed a law called <i>the Competition Act</i> during the lecture, and referred to some part of the textbook. So you check the notes you took during the lecture. You find that you wrote "Competition Act", and circled it, with the word "Federal" beside it. But that's all.
Do you:
[[Go online to find the Competition Act.|*Competition Act]]
or
[[Message Joseph to see if his notes are more helpful|*message Joseph]]<!-- customize node -->You wait a day until Joseph has added his part to the team's Google Doc, namely the answer to Question 1, about what the relevant legislation says. He adds a paragraph explaining the relevant section of the Competition Act, about companies making claims about "sale" prices that aren't actually lower than their regular prices.
Your part is Question 2, about what the key legal principles are. You know that the prof discussed this during the lecture, and referred to some part of the textbook. So you check the notes you took during the lecture. You find that you wrote "CHAPTER 7", and circled it, but there's no page number.
Do you:
[[Re-read all of Chapter 7.|*re-read ch7]]
or
[[Message Hong to see if her notes are more helpful.|*message Hong for notes]]So you spend nearly an hour re-reading Chapter 7 on <!-- customize -->price advertising. You're mostly skimming, but it's still time-consuming. You finally find the part you need.
<!-- customize node -->The assignment instructions say to "explain the relevant legal principle or principles in your own words," so you start trying to type a short paragraph doing that. But that turns out to be hard, and it seems kind of a waste of time. The textbook wording is right there, in black and white. Why not just say what it actually says?
Do you:
Spend 20 minutes [[summarizing in your own words, and add it to the team's Google Doc.|summarize main ideas]]
or
<!-- customize node -->Type out the relevant paragraph from the textbook, [[adding "The relevant legal principle is" at the beginning, and put it onto the team's Google Doc.|*copy-paste from textbook]]You message Hong, and she messages back right away.
"No," he says. "My notes just say 'Chapter 7', no page number or anything <!-- customize -->like that, and the words <i>ordinary selling price representations</i>. Sorry!"
So, you'll need to try something else.
Do you:
Open another browser window and [[search for the Competition Act|*re-read ch7]]
or
Message Joseph to [[see if his notes are more helpful than yours or Hong's|*send message Joseph]]You message Joseph, and he messages back a few minutes later.
<!-- customize -->"No," he says. "My notes just say 'Competition Act 1985,' that's all, no Section information or anything."
So, you'll need to try something else.
Do you:
Open another browser window and <!-- customize -->[[search for the Competition Act|*Competition Act]]
or
Message Hong to [[see if her notes are more helpful than yours or Joseph's|*message to Hong]]<!-- customize node -->
So you open a new browser window and type in <i>Competition Act</i>, and the first results are about the U.K. Competition Act. So next you try <i>Competition Act Canada</i>. The first result is right on-target: the Competition Act, hosted on the Government of Canada's "Justice Laws" website. <i>Perfect.</i>
You click, and start reading. The Competition Act is not easy reading. But you eventually find what seems to be the right section -- the section on advertising "sale" prices that aren't actually lower than a store's regular prices.
The assignment instructions say to "explain the relevant law in your own words," so you start trying to type a short paragraph doing that. But that turns out to be hard, and it seems kind of a waste of time. The law is right there, in black and white. Why not just use what it actually says?
Do you:
Spend 20 minutes [[summarizing in your own words, and add that to the group's Google Doc.|*summarize in own words]]
or
Copy-and-paste most of the relevant paragraph, [[adding "The law basically says" at the beginning, into the group's Google Doc.|copy and paste from website]]<!-- customize node -->It turns out to take longer than you thought, but 30 minutes later you've got a short explanation of this bit of the Competition Act. You're not sure the details are right, but you're pretty sure you've got the overall idea.
Do you:
Go ahead and [[add it to the team's Google Doc.|*add to Google Doc]]
or
Email it to [[Joseph so he can look it over|email to Joseph]]So you go ahead and copy-and-paste the relevant paragraph from the Competition Act into the Google Doc. Over the next day, your team-mates add answers for their parts.
A week later, you receive an email from Ryerson's Academic Integrity Office. It's a long email, but it begins like this:
<blockquote><i><b>Facilitated Discussion and Suspicion of Academic Misconduct</b>
I am writing to inform you of a suspicion of academic misconduct in your Law & Business course on your 'Group Discussion' assignment. The suspicion is related to the misconduct category: Plagiarism.... </i></blockquote>
The email then goes on to invite you to a "facilitated discussion" with your prof, and someone from the Academic Integrity Office, two weeks later.
It doesn't make sense: you didn't do anything wrong. You said what was said in the actual Competition Act for your part of the assignment. It was all right there on the government website. How can you be in trouble?
After two stressful weeks of waiting, you attend the Facilitated Discussion, and tell your side of the story. You emphasize that this was a group assignment, and you did your component carefully, summarizing the Competition Act in your own words. What the other members of your group did was up to them.
Three days later, you receive another official email, [[outlining the decision.|*receive decision letter]]Once you've added your paragraph to the team's Google Doc, your wait for Joseph to add his answer to Question 2, about <!-- customize -->what the key legal principles are.
But you're impatient, so you message Joseph to ask when he's adding his answer.
"Soon!" says Joseph. "I found a copy of the Instructor's Manual for the textbook online, at EZ-Course."
"Where?" you ask.
"At EZ-course," says Joseph. "EZ-course.com. They've got all kinds of stuff to help students. Lecture notes and old exams and stuff."
You say:
"Oh that's cool. [[Did you find what you needed?"|find what you needed?]]
or
"Those sites can be inaccurate. [[Is it legit?"|ask is website legit?]]You email your paragraph to Joseph, and ask him if he thinks it's right.
"I guess it sounds right to me," says Joseph. "Put it in the Google Doc. I'm ready to add my part next. I got it from the Instructor's Manual for the textbook."
"Instructor's manual?" you ask. "How did you get that?"
"I found it online, at EZ-Course," he responds.
"Where?" you ask.
"At EZ-course," says Joseph. "EZ-course.com. They've got all kinds of stuff to help students. Lecture notes and old exams and stuff."
You say:
"Oh that's cool. [[Did you find what you needed?"|find what you needed?]]
or
"Some of those sites aren't reliable. [[Is it accurate?"|ask is website legit?]]"Yeah, it's great," says Joseph. "I use EZ-Course all the time. It saves me lots of time. The question for this assignment was a question from the end of Chapter 7, so the Instructor's Manual had, like, a beautiful answer."
You say:
"That's great. [[I'm going to check the site out for myself."|*you receive AI email]]
or
"Be careful. [[People get in trouble for that kind of thing."|*in trouble]]"Yeah, it's fine," says Joseph. "I use EZ-Course all the time. It saves me lots of time."
You say:
"That's great. [[I'm going to check it out myself."|*you receive AI email]]
or
"Be careful. [[People get in trouble for that kind of thing."|*in trouble]]<!-- customize node-->"You should," says Joseph. "It's a life-saver."
A week later, you receive an email from Ryerson's Academic Integrity Office. It's a long email, but it begins like this:
<blockquote><i>Facilitated Discussion and Suspicion of Academic Misconduct
I am writing to inform you of a suspicion of academic misconduct in your Law & Business course on your 'Group Discussion' assignment. The suspicion is related to the misconduct category: Plagiarism.... </i></blockquote>
The email then goes on to invite you to a "facilitated discussion" with your prof, and someone from the Academic Integrity Office, two weeks later.
It doesn't make sense: you didn't do anything wrong. You summarized the Competition Act for your part of the assignment. How can you be in trouble?
After 2 stressful weeks of waiting, you attend the Facilitated Discussion, and tell your side of the story. You emphasize that this was a group assignment, and you did your component carefully, summarizing the Competition Act in your own words. What the other members of your group did was up to them.
Three days later, you receive another official email, [[outlining the decision.|*decision letter]]<!-- customize node -->"Don't worry," says Joseph. "I changed a few words and made it sound a bit more like me, not like a texbook answer."
A week later, you receive an email from Ryerson's Academic Integrity Office. It's a long email, but it begins like this:
<blockquote><i>Facilitated Discussion and Suspicion of Academic Misconduct
I am writing to inform you of a suspicion of academic misconduct in your Law & Business course on your 'Group Discussion' assignment. The suspicion is related to the misconduct category: Plagiarism.... </i></blockquote>
The email then goes on to invite you to a "facilitated discussion" with your prof, and someone from the Academic Integrity Office, two weeks later.
It doesn't make sense: you didn't do anything wrong. You summarized the Competition Act for your part of the assignment. How can you be in trouble?
After 2 stressful weeks of waiting, you attend the Facilitated Discussion, and tell your side of the story. You emphasize that this was a group assignment, and you did your component carefully, summarizing the Competition Act in your own words. What the other members of your group did was up to them.
Three days later, you receive another official email, [[outlining the decision.|*decision letter]]<!-- customize node -->The decision is that "a finding of academic misconduct is warranted." The result is -- in this case -- that you're losing a letter grade on your Group Discussion Assignment. It would have been a B+, but now it's a C+.
While you personally did not engage in plagiarism, one of your teammates did, and under Ryerson's Policy 60, you are all responsible -- together -- for the work submitted by your team.
So you're all getting the grade reduction, and a disciplinary notation (DN) is also being placed on your academic records.
The "DN" means that the Academic Integrity Office is now keeping track of you. Further offences will most likely result in more serious penalties.
But as long as you don't make the same mistake again, that's the [[end of the story.|*end1]]<!-- customize node -->The decision is that "a finding of academic misconduct is warranted." The result is -- in this case -- that you're losing a letter grade on your Group Discussion Assignment. It would have been a B+, but now it's a C+. A disciplinary notation (DN) is also being placed on your academic record.
The "DN" means that the Academic Integrity Office is now keeping track of you. Further offences will most likely result in more serious penalties.
But as long as you don't make the same mistake again, that's the [[end of the story, as far as impact on you is concerned.|*group trouble]]*Policy 60 says that "Plagiarism includes but is not limited to...." among other things, "claiming, submitting, or presenting collaborative work as if it were created solely by oneself or one’s group."
The instructor in this case was the Decision Maker, and decided that all members of the Group were responsible for what each member submitted. That kind of decision does sometimes happen, depending on the facts of the case.
If you felt that this finding is unfair, you could of course appeal it -- that's your right under Policy 60. But even better would have been to find some way of avoiding the trouble in the first place. Discussing academic integrity openly, as a group, might be a good start. It's worth thinking a bit <i>now</i> about how you might start such a conversation.
<hr>
At this point, you can feel free to go back to [[the beginning of this story|*start - group assignment 4 sections]] to explore other ways it might have gone.
After you're done, please click [[HERE|survey consent]] to complete a very short survey specific to this simulation about Team Work. (Students who are part of the Fit for Business program can earn 1 TedPoint by completing the survey! There's a survey, and a TedPoint, for <b>each</b> of the two simulations.)<!-- customize node -->Copying and pasting without citing the source of the material is always a mistake. It counts as plagiarism. And besides, it is a bad way to prove that you understand what you're posting. It's always much better -- academically, and in terms of avoiding trouble -- to say things in your own words.
Note that Policy 60 says that "Plagiarism includes but is not limited to...." among other things, "claiming, submitting, or presenting collaborative work as if it were created solely by oneself or one’s group."
The instructor in this case was the Decision Maker, and decided that all members of the Group were responsible for what each member submitted. That kind of decision does sometimes happen, depending on the facts of the case.
If your teammates felt that this finding is unfair, they could of course appeal it -- that's their right under Policy 60. But even better would have been to find some way of avoiding the trouble in the first place. Discussing academic integrity openly, as a group, might be a good start. It's worth thinking a bit <i>now</i> about how you might start such a conversation.
<hr>
At this point, you can feel free to go back to [[the beginning of this story|*start - group assignment 4 sections]] to explore other ways it might have gone.
After you're done, please click [[HERE|survey consent]] to complete a very short survey specific to this simulation about Team Work. (Students who are part of the Fit for Business program can earn 1 TedPoint by completing the survey! There's a survey, and a TedPoint, for <b>each</b> of the two simulations.)You message Hong, and she messages back right away.
<!-- customize -->"No," she says. "My notes just say 'Competition Act', and 'Section 74.' But that's all. I hope that helps!"
<!-- customize -->Open another browser window and [[search for the Competition Act|*Competition Act]]
or
Check out EZ-course.com to see if anyone from a previous year has [[uploaded an answer|*try EZ-course website]]<!-- customize node -->You go to EZ-course.com, a website with all kinds of stuff to help students, like lecture notes from previous years and old exams."
You search for "Ryerson" and for the course code for your Law & Business course.
After scrolling a bit, you find an item labeled <i>Group Discussion Assignment -- Pricing.</i> Yes! Someone who took the course last year has uploaded all the components of their D2L discussion assignment, including a summary of the part you need from the Competition Act.
So you go ahead and copy-and-paste the relevant paragraph into your team's Google Doc, and over the next few hours the rest of your team add their parts.
A week later, you receive an email from Ryerson's Academic Integrity Office. It's a long email, but it begins like this:
<blockquote><i>Facilitated Discussion and Suspicion of Academic Misconduct
I am writing to inform you of a suspicion of academic misconduct in your Law & Business course on your 'Group Discussion' assignment. The suspicion is related to the misconduct category: Plagiarism.... </i></blockquote>
The email then goes on to invite you to a "facilitated discussion" with your prof, and someone from the Academic Integrity Office, two weeks later.
It doesn't make sense: you didn't do anything wrong. You said what was said in the actual Competition Act for your part of the assignment. It was all right there on the government website. How can you be in trouble?
After 2 stressful weeks of waiting, you attend the Facilitated Discussion, and tell your side of the story. You emphasize that this was a group assignment, and you did your component carefully, summarizing the Competition Act in your own words. What the other members of your group did was up to them.
Three days later, you receive another official email, [[outlining the decision.|*receive decision letter]]It turns out to go quicker than you thought, but in about 15 minutes you've got a short explanation of the principles explained in the textbook's chapter. You're not sure the details are right, but you're pretty sure you've got the overall idea.
Do you:
Go ahead and [[add it to the team's Google Doc.|*put into google doc]]
or
Email it to [[Hong so she can look it over|email to Hong]]<!-- customize node -->So you go ahead and copy-and-paste the relevant paragraph from the Chapter into the D2L discussion board. You click "Submit."
A week later, you receive an email from Ryerson's Academic Integrity Office. It's a long email, but it begins like this:
<blockquote><i>Facilitated Discussion and Suspicion of Academic Misconduct
I am writing to inform you of a suspicion of academic misconduct in your Law & Business course on your 'Group Discussion' assignment. The suspicion is related to the misconduct category: Plagiarism.... </i></blockquote>
The email then goes on to invite you to a "facilitated discussion" with your prof, and someone from the Academic Integrity Office, two weeks later.
It doesn't make sense: you didn't do anything wrong. You said what was said in the actual Competition Act for your part of the assignment. It was all right there on the government website. How can you be in trouble?
After 2 stressful weeks of waiting, you attend the Facilitated Discussion, and tell your side of the story. You emphasize that this was a group assignment, and you did your component carefully, summarizing the Competition Act in your own words. What the other members of your group did was up to them.
Three days later, you receive another official email, [[outlining the decision.|*receive decision letter MISCONDUCT]]Once you've added your paragraph on the Google Doc, it's your turn to wait, while Hong and Kim add their answers to Questions 3 and 4. <!-- customize node -->.
But you're impatient, so you message Hong to ask when she's added her answer.
"Soon!" says Hong. "I found a copy of the Instructor's Manual for the textbook online, at EZ-Course."
"Where?" you ask.
"At EZ-course," says Hong. "EZ-course.com. They've got all kinds of stuff to help students. Lecture notes and old exams and stuff like that."
You say:
"Oh that's cool. [[Did you find what you needed?"|find what needed?]]
or
"Is it reliable? [[Some of those sites aren't."|ask website legit source?]]You email your paragraph to Hong, and ask her if she thinks it's right.
"I guess it sounds right to me," says Hong. "Add it to the Doc. I'm ready to add my part next. I got it from the Instructor's Manual for the textbook."
"Instructor's manual?" you ask. "How did you get that?"
"I found it online, at EZ-Course," she responds.
"Where?" you ask.
"At EZ-course," says Hong. "Like EZ-course.com. They've got all kinds of stuff to help students. Lecture notes and old exams and stuff."
You say:
"Oh that's cool. [[Did you find what you needed?"|find what needed?]]
or
"Some of those sites aren't reliable. [[Is it legit?"|ask website legit source?]]<!-- customize node -->The decision is that "a finding of academic misconduct is warranted." The result is -- in this case -- that you're losing a letter grade on your Group Discussion Assignment. It would have been a B+, but now it's a C+. A disciplinary notation (DN) is also being placed on your academic record.
The "DN" means that the Academic Integrity Office is now keeping track of you. Further offences will most likely result in more serious penalties.
Under Ryerson's Policy 60, you are all responsible -- together -- for the work submitted by your team. That kind of decision does sometimes happen, depending on the facts of the case.
But as long as you don't make the same mistake again, that's the [[end of the story, as far as impact on you is concerned.|*trouble for group]]
"Yeah, it's great," says Hong. "I use EZ-Course all the time. It saves me lots of time. The question for this assignment was a question from the end of Chapter 7, so the Instructor's Manual had the right answer."
You say:
"That's great. [[I'm going to check the site out myself."|*AI letter]]
or
"Be careful. [[People get in trouble for that kind of thing."|*group in trouble]]"Yeah, it's fine," says Hong. "I use EZ-Course all the time. It saves me lots of time."
You say:
"That's great. [[I'm going to check it out myself."|*AI letter]]
or
"Be careful. [[People get in trouble for that kind of thing."|*group in trouble]]You message Joseph, and he messages back a few minutes later.
<!-- customize -->"No," he says. "My notes just say 'Competition Act', and 'Section 74.' But that's all. I hope that helps!"
Open your textbook and [[re-read Chapter 7|*re-read ch7]]
or
Check out EZ-course.com to see if anyone from a previous year has [[uploaded an answer|*use EZ-course2]]<!-- customize node -->You go to EZ-course.com, a website with all kinds of stuff to help students, like lecture notes from previous years and old exams."
You search for "Ryerson" and for the course code for your Law & Business course.
After scrolling a bit, you find an item labeled <i>Group Discussion Assignment -- Pricing.</i> Yes! Someone who took the course last year has uploaded all the components of their D2L discussion assignment, including a summary of the legal principles you need.
So you go ahead and copy-and-paste most of the relevant paragraph into the group's Google Doc, and over the next couple of hours the rest add the answers to the other questions.
A week later, you receive an email from Ryerson's Academic Integrity Office. It's a long email, but it begins like this:
<blockquote><i>Facilitated Discussion and Suspicion of Academic Misconduct
I am writing to inform you of a suspicion of academic misconduct in your Law & Business course on your 'Group Discussion' assignment. The suspicion is related to the misconduct category: Plagiarism.... </i></blockquote>
The email then goes on to invite you to a "facilitated discussion" with your prof, and someone from the Academic Integrity Office, two weeks later.
It doesn't make sense: you didn't do anything wrong. You said what was said in the actual Competition Act for your part of the assignment. It was all right there on the government website. How can you be in trouble?
After 2 stressful weeks of waiting, you attend the Facilitated Discussion, and tell your side of the story. You emphasize that this was a group assignment, and you did your component carefully, summarizing the Competition Act in your own words. What the other members of your group did was up to them.
Three days later, you receive another official email, [[outlining the decision.|*receive decision letter MISCONDUCT]]<!-- customize node -->"You should," says Hong. "It's a life-saver."
A week later, you receive an email from Ryerson's Academic Integrity Office. It's a long email, but it begins like this:
<blockquote><i>Facilitated Discussion and Suspicion of Academic Misconduct
I am writing to inform you of a suspicion of academic misconduct in your Law & Business course on your 'Group Discussion' assignment. The suspicion is related to the misconduct category: Plagiarism.... </i></blockquote>
The email then goes on to invite you to a "facilitated discussion" with your prof, and someone from the Academic Integrity Office, two weeks later.
It doesn't make sense: you didn't do anything wrong. You summarized the Competition Act for your part of the assignment. How can you be in trouble?
After 2 stressful weeks of waiting, you attend the Facilitated Discussion, and tell your side of the story. You emphasize that this was a group assignment, and you did your component carefully, summarizing the Competition Act in your own words. What the other members of your group did was up to them.
Three days later, you receive another official email, [[outlining the decision.|*decision letter - misconduct]]<!-- customize node -->"Don't worry," says Hong. "I changed a few words and made it sound a bit more like me, not like a texbook answer."
A week later, you receive an email from Ryerson's Academic Integrity Office. It's a long email, but it begins like this:
<blockquote><i>Facilitated Discussion and Suspicion of Academic Misconduct
I am writing to inform you of a suspicion of academic misconduct in your Law & Business course on your 'Group Discussion' assignment. The suspicion is related to the misconduct category: Plagiarism.... </i></blockquote>
The email then goes on to invite you to a "facilitated discussion" with your prof, and someone from the Academic Integrity Office, two weeks later.
It doesn't make sense: you didn't do anything wrong. You summarized the Competition Act for your part of the assignment. How can you be in trouble?
After 2 stressful weeks of waiting, you attend the Facilitated Discussion, and tell your side of the story. You emphasize that this was a group assignment, and you did your component carefully, summarizing the Competition Act in your own words. What the other members of your group did was up to them.
Three days later, you receive another official email, [[outlining the decision.|*decision letter - misconduct]]<!-- customize node -->The decision is that "a finding of academic misconduct is warranted." The result is -- in this case -- that you're losing a letter grade on your Group Discussion Assignment. It would have been a B+, but now it's a C+.
While you personally did not engage in plagiarism, one of your teammates did, and under Ryerson's Policy 60, you are all responsible -- together -- for the work submitted by your team. That kind of decision does sometimes happen, depending on the facts of the case.
So you're all getting the grade reduction, and a disciplinary notation (DN) is also being placed on your academic records.
The "DN" means that the Academic Integrity Office is now keeping track of you. Further offences will most likely result in more serious penalties.
But as long as you don't make the same mistake again, that's the [[end of the story.|*end3]]<!-- customize node -->Copying and pasting without citing the source of the material is always a mistake. It counts as plagiarism. And besides, it is a bad way to prove that you understand what you're posting. It's always much better -- academically, and in terms of avoiding trouble -- to say things in your own words.
If you felt that the professor's decision in this case was unfair, you could of course appeal it -- that's your right under Policy 60. But even better would have been to find some way of avoiding the trouble in the first place. Discussing academic integrity openly, as a group, might be a good start. It's worth thinking a bit <i>now</i> about how you might start such a conversation.
<hr>
At this point, you can feel free to go back to [[the beginning of this story|*start - group assignment 4 sections]] to explore other ways it might have gone.
After you're done, please click [[HERE|survey consent]] to complete a very short survey specific to this simulation about Team Work. (Students who are part of the Fit for Business program can earn 1 TedPoint by completing the survey! There's a survey, and a TedPoint, for <b>each</b> of the two simulations.)<!-- customize node -->Copying and pasting without citing the source of the material is always a mistake. It counts as plagiarism. And besides, it is a bad way to prove that you understand what you're posting. It's always much better -- academically, and in terms of avoiding trouble -- to say things in your own words.
Note that Policy 60 says that "Plagiarism includes but is not limited to...." among other things, "claiming, submitting, or presenting collaborative work as if it were created solely by oneself or one’s group."
The instructor in this case was the Decision Maker, and decided that all members of the Group were responsible for what each member submitted. That kind of decision does sometimes happen, depending on the facts of the case.
If your teammates felt that this finding is unfair, they could of course appeal it -- that's their right under Policy 60. But even better would have been to find some way of avoiding the trouble in the first place. Discussing academic integrity openly, as a group, might be a good start. It's worth thinking a bit <i>now</i> about how you might start such a conversation.
<hr>
At this point, you can feel free to go back to [[the beginning of this story|*start - group assignment 4 sections]] to explore other ways it might have gone.
After you're done, please click [[HERE|survey consent]] to complete a very short survey specific to this simulation about Team Work. (Students who are part of the Fit for Business program can earn 1 TedPoint by completing the survey! There's a survey, and a TedPoint, for <b>each</b> of the two simulations.)You've been enjoying your <!-- customize -->Business Law class. The material -- <!-- customize -->Advertising Law -- has been tough, but the prof does a pretty good job of making the lectures interesting.
One of the less-good parts of the course is the group work. The class has been broken into groups of four, to work together on short weekly assignments worth 2% each. Your group's topic this week is "Advertising About Pricing."
Your team for the term consists of you, plus your classmates Joseph, Hong, and Kim. The assignment has four parts. You decide each to handle one question, and insert your answers into a single Google Doc. You've set up a group chat to stay in touch. Hong and Kim have already chosen their topics from the four provided by the prof. They've chosen Questions 3 and 4.
Joseph says, "I'm fine with either of the remaining questions. Which one do you want?"
You say:
"I'll do Question 1, about<!-- customize --> [[what the law says about companies advertising their prices."|*work on legislation section]]
or
"I'll do Question 2, about<!-- customize --> [[what the key legal principles are."|*work on legal principles section]]<!-- customize node -->The next day, however, you receive another bit of bad news: your team mates have all received emails from the Academic Integrity Office, inviting them for facilitated discussions related to your group's work.
While they personally did not engage in plagiarism, <i>you did,</i> and under Ryerson's Policy 60, you are all responsible -- together -- for the work submitted by your team.
That's the end of the story, and maybe the end of [[your group's friendship.|*end2]]<!-- customize node -->But the next day, more bad news: the other three members of your team have received emails from the Academic Integrity Office, inviting them for facilitated discussions related to your group's work.
Of course, as far as you know they personally did not engage in plagiarism. But <i>you did,</i> and under Ryerson's Policy 60, you are all responsible -- together -- for the work submitted by your team.
That's the end of the story, and maybe the end of [[your group's friendship.|*end4]]This is short, voluntary survey about the academic integrity simulation you just went through.
The survey asks just 4 questions.
<b>The survey is anonymous: you can complete it without providing any identifying information.</b>
Your answers will help TRSM and <a href="http://www.choicepoint.ca">Choice Point Solutions, Inc.</a> to improve our simulations for future students.
Students who are in <b>TedPacks</b> who wish to earn TedPoints can provide their email and student number at the end of the survey. If you provide that information, ONLY that information will be provided to TRSM for verification, and will not be associated with any survey answers you provide.
Questions about the survey or about TedPoints should go to fitforbusiness@ryerson.ca
<a href="https://forms.gle/htreSqxqVRzroifq6">Click here to proceed.</a>