1 / 27

Use the spacebar to advance the slides. . .

Use the spacebar to advance the slides. To begin, click below. To begin, click below. To begin, click below. Distance Learning Environments. Academic Integrity. Integrity. Definition Motivating Factors Grades vs. Learning Expectations of Institutions and Faculty. Defining Integrity.

vaughan
Download Presentation

Use the spacebar to advance the slides. . .

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Use the spacebar to advance the slides. . .

  2. To begin, click below. . .

  3. To begin, click below. . .

  4. To begin, click below. . .

  5. Distance Learning Environments Academic Integrity

  6. Integrity • Definition • Motivating Factors • Grades vs. Learning • Expectations of Institutions and Faculty

  7. Defining Integrity • Adherence to moral and ethical principles, soundness of moral character; honesty • Quality or state of being of sound principle; uprightness, honesty, and sincerity • Pursuit of scholarly activity in an honest and responsible manner

  8. Teaching Integrity • 97% of students informed • 21% understand • Of these, 67% gained understanding from faculty • Of these, 21% gained understanding during first semester orientation • 30% believe penalty is severe • 11% believe effective

  9. Online vs. F2F • Cheating holds across all modalities • Reasons for cheating mostly the same • Possibly LESS cheating online • Student centered, interactive course design significantly reduces cheating

  10. Motivating Factors • Pressure to get good grades • Lack of preparedness • Challenge/thrill

  11. Who cheats? • Males more likely • Students active in extracurricular activities • Inferior students • Unmotivated students • Unchallenged students • Peer groups

  12. Reasons for cheating • Time • Assignment is a waste of time • Student doesn’t have enough time • Student poorly manages time • Ethics/Societal • Cheating is accepted • Confusion about educational goals • Knowledge and education as a commodity • Faculty reluctance to enforce penalties

  13. Reasons, cont. • Survival • Scholarship and job opportunities • Everyone else is doing it • Knowledge • Lack of skills • Research • Citation • Understanding assignment • Self-doubt

  14. Reasons, cont. • Ease • Personal • Laziness • Thrill seeking • Simply hate tests

  15. Superior Grades • Do superior grades indicate superior learning? • Do superior grades contribute to acceptance at other schools?

  16. Choose Learning vs. Grades • Measureable objectives • Assessments aligned with objectives • Summative • End of course • Tied to grading • Evaluative • Formative • Throughout course • Aids learning • Not tied to grading • Diagnostic

  17. Assessments • Formative vs. Summative • Which appears superior for best learning? • Is the goal to assign grades or promote learning? • Which would most likely realign student perception from grades to learning? • Could use of formative assessments reduce cheating?

  18. Example – READ! • Weekly open book, MC/TF quizzes • Encourage use of book/reading • Fear factor reduced – multiple attempts • Motivation to cheat reduced • Repetition improves retention • End of semester exams based on quizzes indicate retention

  19. Example – Hands On • Weekly hands on assignments • Multiple attempts, open resources • Encourage analysis, evaluation, critical thinking • Fear factor reduced • Motivation to cheat reduced • Demonstrate mastery of skill • Cumulative assignments reinforcing prior learning • End of semester project demonstrates mastery of course objectives

  20. Digital Submissions • Document • File ownership • Creation/modification dates • Indicate duplication • Screening using applications • IP addresses

  21. SACS Expectations • Institution must demonstrate that the student who registers is the same student doing the work and receiving the grade/credit • Acceptable verification • Secure login and pass code • Proctored exams • New/other technologies (cameras, software, etc.)

  22. SACS Best Practice • “The importance of appropriate interaction between instructor and students and among students is reflected in the design of the program and its courses. . .”

  23. US Department of Education • Secretary of Education seeks to improve integrity • NPRMs under Administrative Procedure Act • Student “identification” changed to “identity” • Commenters suggest means beyond those currently approved (login and pass code) • Congress conference report “continued use of PINs and passwords is consistent with both the statutory language and the intent of the Congress.” (2010)

  24. Conclusion • Students cheat • Faculty CAN effect change using learning centered tools • Course development, design, and structure • Learning centered assessments • Adequate communication of expectations, position, and penalties for cheating • Seek innovative alternatives to ensure integrity

  25. By students for students

  26. References For reference list contact Susan Booth at sbooth@cfcc.edu

  27. Contact Information Susan Booth Faculty, Cape Fear Community College Business Technologies Department 4500 Blue Clay Road Castle Hayne, NC 28429 910.362.7450 sbooth@cfcc.edu

More Related