Case Study Requirements for PDEng SAM Cases

Case Study Requirements for PDEng Student Academic Misconduct (SAM) Cases
Due Date:
Case study must be submitted for final assessment on or before the date outlined in the Final Decision Letter sent by
the Associate Dean of Undergraduate Studies (W.M. Loucks).

Objective:
The requirement to complete a case study as part of the penalty related to a violation of UW Policy #71 is specified
for two main reasons:

1. The Associate Dean of Undergraduate Studies wishes to ensure that the individual completing the case
study has an understanding of UW Policy #71 and why they have been found guilty of violating this policy.

Why Is This Important?

Unfortunately, some students commit more than one academic offence during the course of their academic career. Sometimes, the
reason for repeated offences is a lack of understanding of why previous actions were violations of UW Policy #71. The case study
provides an opportunity for the Associate Dean to ensure that the student understands why their actions violated UW Policy #71,
to aid the student in avoiding any repeated offences.

2. The creation of a case study provides a practical example that can be used to help other students avoid
similar breaches of Policy #71.

Why Is This Important?

In investigating academic offences in the past, it is clear that while some individuals are familiar with UW Policy #71, they do not
appreciate what specific actions could be considered violations of this policy. The practical examples provided by case studies can
be used by the Engineering Undergraduate Office to help students understand what constitutes a breach of UW Policy #71. Case
studies could be provided to instructors to use in their courses and/or could be used as the basis for student assignments on
academic integrity.

Submission Requirements:
1. Format and Length of Case Study
1.1. 3 to 5 type written pages (single spaced) with margins set at 2.54 cm (or less)
1.2. 12 point font (Times New Roman)

2. Submission of Case Study:

2.1. A signed hard copy is to be submitted to the Engineering Undergraduate Office (CPH 1320)
Important Note: Your submission should arrive in the Engineering Undergraduate Office on or before the day that it is due. If
you will not be on campus to hand in your case study in person, please remember to leave enough time to mail in your
submission.

2.2. An electronic copy is to be submitted to Mr. Steffler at jr2steff@uwaterloo.ca. The submission should be
in Word (*.doc), Text (*.txt) or Rich Text (*.rtf) format.
Important Note: To verify your official UW identity, please be certain to email your electronic copy from your engmail account.
Using your engmail account is also important n the event you encounter technical problems when submitting your case study. UW
cannot verify whether or not you sent a message to or received a message from PDEng if you do not use your assignment engmail
account. Technical problems encountered with e-mail on an external server that is not maintained by UW cannot be verified. As
such, encountering technical difficulties on such servers is not a valid reason for missing a deadline or seeking an extension for
case study submission.

PDEng © 2006 Page 1 of 3 Faculty of Engineering

PDEng Case Study Requirements.doc University of Waterloo
/CGM/JS (11/13/06)
 Case Study Requirements for PDEng SAM Cases

3. Required Content:

The Case Study must include the following:

3.1. Scenario:
3.1.1. Describe the situation that lead to the breach of Policy 71.
3.1.2. Use third-person narrative style and be certain to sanitize the document (i.e., do not include
personal identifying information).

Things to Consider When Preparing Your Scenario Section:

1. Remember that one of the objectives of the Case Study is to help ensure that you understand why your actions were in
violation of UW Policy #71. You should include all pertinent information relating to your specific scenario and not a
general/fictional violation of UW Policy #71.
2. While you are discussing your specific scenario, do not argue whether or not the situation was in fact a violation of UW
Policy #71. The Associate Dean has already made a ruling on this matter, and arguing whether or not the case actually
violated UW Policy #71 does not meet the case study’s objectives.
3. Pay close attention to sanitizing your document. Remember that the case study is meant for wide distribution, so
personal details should be excluded. Some case studies have used false names for individuals and companies (e.g.,
Student X), which is acceptable, provided that a statement is made indicating that the names of individuals and other
personally identifying details are fictional, to protect the identity of all parties involved.

3.2. Critique:
3.2.1. Analyse the situation from the perspective of the student involved in the situation, and from the
perspective of others. At least four different perspectives (including your own) should be
considered.
3.2.2. Provide insight into the impact the actions of the student can have on others. You should include,
at a minimum, the parties whose perspectives you discussed in Section 3.2.2.

Things to Consider When Preparing Your Critique Section:

1. When looking at the situation from different perspectives, it is helpful to re-read the scenario you have provided as if
you were a member of the individual or group whose perspective you are presenting. What would that group or
individual think after reading the scenario? Examples of different perspectives you could consider include, but are not
limited to: other students enrolled in the course, PDEng Staff, the University of Waterloo, engineering professionals,
employers and society in general.
2. When examining different perspectives, consider the following questions: What would the person/group think about the
individuals involved? Would the actions that occurred be a concern to the person/group? Why or why not?
3. When looking at the impact of the scenario on others, it is often useful to consider the following questions: Did the
person/group have to take any additional actions as a result of the scenario? Might the person/group feel obligated to
take any action (e.g., modify policies, procedures, etc.)? Be sure to defend your response.

3.3. Recommendations:
3.3.1. Put forward recommendations in the form of guidelines that other students can follow to help
them avoid similar breaches of Policy 71. This recommendation should be specific to the
scenario described in Section 2.1.

Things to Consider When Preparing Your Recommendations Section:

1. Your recommendations should be specific to the scenario you have presented. It should be clear how the
recommendation you have provided could have prevented a violation of UW Policy #71 in your specific case. General
recommendations as to how individuals can avoid violating UW Policy #71 (not related to your specific scenario) are
not acceptable.
2. Recommendations generally come in two forms- what could have been done to have prevented the scenario from ever
having developed and what different decisions could have been made that would not have violated UW Policy #71 once
the individual found themselves in the scenario in question.

PDEng © 2006 Page 2 of 3 Faculty of Engineering

PDEng Case Study Requirements.doc University of Waterloo
/CGM/JS (11/13/06)
 Case Study Requirements for PDEng SAM Cases

3.4. References
3.4.1. APA, MLA, or IEEE style of referencing is permitted.
Things to Consider When Preparing Your References Section:
1. While references are not necessarily required in all case studies, as the case studies are based on UW Policy #71 and
personal correspondence from the Associate Dean detailing the reasons why the actions of the individual violated UW
Policy #71 would have been sent to the author of the case study, it would be extremely rare for a case study not to have
UW Policy #71 and some form of personal communication referenced.

3.5. Acknowledgments
3.5.1. Must acknowledge input from others (students, faculty, family) who may have assisted in
preparing the case study.
Things to Consider When Preparing Your Acknowledgements Section:
1. Did you discuss your case study with any third party? Did somebody proofread your paper? It is always better to be safe
and list any assistance you have received in preparing your case study.

4. Assessment
4.1. The Case Study will be assessed for competency (75% or better) by the Associate Dean of Undergraduate
Studies and the Assistant Director of PDEng Programme (J. Steffler).
4.1.1. Assessment will be based on the ability of individuals to meet the specifications outlined in these
case study requirements.
4.1.2. All arguments presented in the case study should be properly defended with appropriate
references or links to personal experiences.

5. Important Notes:
5.1. While the administration of the Case Studies is being performed by PDEng Staff, the requirement to
complete the case study and the due date for the case study, have been specified by the Associate Dean of
Undergraduate Studies. Any requests for extensions or other accommodations related to the case study
requirements must by made directly to the Associate Dean.
5.2. If you have any questions related to the case study requirements, please feel free to contact the Assistant
Director of the PDEng Programme (J. Steffler) at jr2steff@uwaterloo.ca. Mr. Steffler or another
member of the PDEng Staff will respond to your message.
5.3. If you would like somebody to review your case study, prior to submission, please feel free to forward a
draft copy of your case study to the Assistant Director of the PDEng Programme (J. Steffler) at
jr2steff@uwaterloo.ca. Mr. Steffler or another member of the PDEng Staff will respond with
comments. Given the number of case studies that need to be reviewed and other commitments of PDEng
Staff, you will need to allow at least three weeks for your case study to be reviewed and returned to you.
Please note that submitting a draft copy of your case study to PDEng for review:
5.3.1. does not guarantee that the Associate Dean of Undergraduate Studies will accept the case study
once submitted. The assessment of the case study by the Associate Dean of Undergraduate
Studies is independent of any draft review provided by PDEng.
5.3.2. does not exempt you from the requirement to submit a copy of your case study to the Associate
Dean of Undergraduate Studies by the assigned due date.
5.4. Your case study must be submitted for final assessment on or before the date outlined in the Final
Decision Letter sent by the Associate Dean of Undergraduate Studies (W.M. Loucks). If you will not be
on campus to hand in the hard copy of your case study in person, please remember to leave enough time
to mail in your submission.

PDEng © 2006 Page 3 of 3 Faculty of Engineering

PDEng Case Study Requirements.doc University of Waterloo
/CGM/JS (11/13/06)