In 1965, computer engineer Gordon Moore made a prediction that the number of transistors on a silicon chip would double every year (Moore’s Law | Computer Science | Britannica, n.d.). In basic terms, he predicted that each year, engineers would double the thinking power of the “brain” of a computer (known as the CPU or Processor). Moore’s prediction held true for a time, but some now question his law as upgrading silicon chips can no longer come down to simply “more transistors!”. His prediction inspired me to think about how the technologies we use can be replaced so quickly; the concept of his law need not only be applied to computer processors.
In our age of almost total digital immersion, we see the developing and upgrading of digital tools/devices at rapid rates, sometimes using ‘users’ as testers and innovators. At present, technological automation/assistance can be used in academic composition in extremely comprehensive ways (see Grammarly). I believe that educators will need to pivot in how they assess and assign work to students to avoid the trap of playing whack-a-mole against automated composition and/or plagiarism.
My thinking was connected to the outcome of Academic Integrity while remote teaching, as follows:
- Instructors and students will be able to utilize and draw from the appropriate resources (accessed from a variety of platforms: ie. videos, articles, blogs) to develop their own unique ideas and conclusions.
- The educator will prepare students to include any citations or references in their work.
- The educator will prepare assignments that include tasks that allow students to respond in original ways.
Based on the outcome, this piece is meant to encourage all players in the education domain (teachers, parents, students, etc..) to consider how they approach academic integrity.
What mindset do we have when thinking of plagiarism/cheating?
In his article arguing for the importance of writing by hand, Wrigley (2017) coined a term called de-plagiarism which is the act of manipulating simple components of a copied text (prepositions, conjunctions, pronouns) such that no plagiarism can be detected. While one may think this is sinister, Wrigley argued that de-plagiarizing is actually an innocent, ignorant act: students may believe that it is the equivalent of “putting it in their own words” (2017). The prevalence of de-plagiarism, Wrigley argues, lies at the feet of educators as we too often only use reactive tools to gauge and police plagiarism (2017). Since the outcome reads that “instructors…will be able to utilize…appropriate resources” and “the educator will…allow students to respond in original ways”, Wrigley’s point of view is extremely important to Academic Integrity; it will need to start with the educator.
Consider a recent study conducted in Pakistan by Mukhtar, Javed, Arooj, and Sethi which sampled undergrads in the faculty of science. The survey sought out to find the advantages, limitations, and recommendations (from both educators and students) of online learning as the country shifted due to the COVID-19 pandemic. A limitation teachers identified was that students “tried to access online resources during assessments” (Mukhtar et al., 2020) and recommended buying “premium software and other proctoring software to detect cheating and plagiarism” (Mukhtar et al., 2020). The mindset of the educators was to stop the cheating…recommendations to change the nature of assessment were lacking.
Another example along this theme can be found in Mellar, Peytcheva-Forsyth, Kocdar, Karadeniz, and Yovkova’s article featuring the reasoning of using an intensive software tool as a deterrence to cheating (see TeSLA). They surveyed both educators and students. In the survey, teachers stated that students wanted to get higher grades, that the internet encourages simplified cheating and plagiarism, and that there would not be any serious consequences if cheating or plagiarism was discovered (Mellar et al., 2018). Students stated that they had a lack of knowledge about what cheating and plagiarism are, experienced high expectations from their parents, had no time to learn due to work, had multiple assessments (exams/assignments) in a week, and wouldn’t engage with course content unless it is provided in an interesting and accessible way (Mellar et al., 2018). In this scenario, student voices were seemingly never sought out by the teachers; they just assumed the students had greedy ambitions and did not consider the students’ overall positions.
These examples demonstrate how educators need to pivot their own practice and content in response to the realities of remote learning: students require opportunities to compose original work. It is unethical to simply bolster pre-lockdown content with policing software, especially when considering the very first professional standard in B.C.: “Educators value the success of all students. Educators care for students and act in their best interests” (BC Teachers Council, 2019, p. 4).
Pivoting our content and assessment techniques
I found that some educators and researchers are aligned with Wrigley in that we must shift away from using only mechanical checks of plagiarism. Such checks or tools are a reactive response to Academic Integrity. The blog Cult of Pedagogy features a post by Jennifer Gonzales (the editor-in-chief of the blog) about teaching students how to avoid plagiarism. Her approach towards plagiarism is not to go to straight to plagiarism checkers, but to practice avoiding plagiarism repeatedly in a proactive approach.
Gonzales has designed several exercises in a mini-unit for avoiding plagiarism, where she addresses the problem of students not knowing the importance of avoiding plagiarism, or how to do so. In their study of distance-learning cheating, Lucky, Branham, and Atchison reinforce this approach suggesting that systematic changes in institutional structures and creating assignments that reduce the opportunities for students to cheat would be effective to deter it (Lucky et al., 2019). Moreover, they suggested students’ awareness of the importance of academic honesty could be completed in courses to increase awareness of academic integrity (Lucky et al., 2019), akin to Gonzales’ mini-unit.
Also, it seems that even when researchers evaluate the various reactive tools available, they come to the same conclusion of requiring a proactive approach. Teclehaimanot, You, Franz, Xiao and Hochberg tested three proctoring tools, yet concluded that: “The possibility of academic dishonesty can be better handled by proactively assisting our students to develop legitimate strategies and providing resources and support throughout their academic journey. When designing student assessments, faculty can consider different types of assessments to evaluate student performance against the stated learning objectives” (Teclehaimanot et al., 2018).
To best simplify how educators need to pivot their approach in line with the Academic Integrity outcome, I believe a final thought of Wrigley’s to be most appropriate: “the focus is still very much on student writing, not student writers” (2017). Despite the challenges of remote learning, our approach should not be to verify student product, but provide and teach ways for students to generate original thought.
References:
BC Teachers Council, (2019). Professional Standards for BC Educators. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/kindergarten-to-grade-12/teach/teacher-regulation/standards-for-educators/edu_standards.pdf
Grammarly. (n.d.). Write your best with Grammarly. Retrieved July 15, 2020, from https://www.grammarly.com/
Gonzales, J. Teaching Students to Avoid Plagiarism. (2017, February 26). Cult of Pedagogy. https://www.cultofpedagogy.com/preventing-plagiarism/
Lucky, A., Branham, M., & Atchison, R. (2019). Collection-Based Education by Distance and Face to Face: Learning Outcomes and Academic Dishonesty. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28(4), 414–428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-9770-8
Mellar, H., Peytcheva-Forsyth, R., Kocdar, S., Karadeniz, A., & Yovkova, B. (2018). Addressing cheating in e-assessment using student authentication and authorship checking systems: Teachers’ perspectives. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 14(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-018-0025-x
Moore’s law | computer science | Britannica. (n.d.). Retrieved July 27, 2020, from https://www.britannica.com/technology/Moores-law
Mukhtar, K., Javed, K., Arooj, M., & Sethi, A. (2020). Advantages, Limitations and Recommendations for online learning during COVID-19 pandemic era. Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences, 36(COVID19-S4), S27–S31. https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.36.COVID19-S4.2785
Teclehaimanot, B., You, J., Franz, D. R., Xiao, M., & Hochberg, S. A. (2018). Ensuring Academic Integrity in Online Courses: A Case Analysis in Three Testing Environments. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 19(1), 47–57.
Wrigley, S. (2017). Avoiding ‘de-plagiarism’: Exploring the affordances of handwriting in the essay-writing process – Stuart Wrigley, 2019. Active Learning in Higher Education. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1469787417735611?utm_source=summon&utm_medium=discovery-provider
Leave a Reply