Competing Visions. PAST Desire to return to what worked (or what we believe worked) in the past;...

THE FUTURE OF ACADEMIC INTEGRITY

Competing Visions

VISION I

PAST

Traditionalist Approach

Desire to return to what worked (or what we believe worked) in the past;

Static rules and expectations;

Traditional honor codes;

“Defensive pedagogy”

Traditional sanctions;

VISION II

Mechanistic Approach

Focus on “solutions” like text-matching,

Remote proctoring,

Bio-recognition,

Test-banks

Tools & Rules

This is not an indictment of the traditionalists’ rules or the mechanistic tools.

All of these things can be useful.

The weakness of many of our approaches to academic integrity lies in the expectation that tools and rules will solve the problem.

We can’t return to the past (and we really don’t want to.)

Our current circumstances are different from the past (because of changing demographics, changing technology, changing economies) but with respect to integrity, these are mainly differences of degree rather than differences in kind.

Of Integrity, technology solutions, and horse sense . . .

Of integrity, technology and horse sense

Image credit: http://theperfecthorse.blogspot.com/2009/07/head-tossing.html

Option 1: A “tie-down”• Immediate

results

• Put it on and it works without further input

• It’s a (nearly) sure thing—the device does the work.

Image credit: http://mylerbitsusa.com/images/combination/Numbe

r-14.jpg

Option 2: Teaching the horse

• Takes time and repeated effort

• Requires feedback

• The horse makes the decision (and sometimes it won’t be the right one)

Image credit: http://americashorsedaily.com/wp-content/uploads/Lynn-Palm1304.jpg

Image credit: http://cdn.thehorse.com/images/cms/2012/11/pay-per-use-chestnut-horse-headshaking.jpg?preset=feature

Image credit: http://www.writingofriding.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/girl-riding-black-horse.jpg

If we don’t teach students and help them understand the significance of academic integrity . . .

If we rely solely on mechanisms that prevent them from cheating rather than teaching them why they should choose not to . . .

If the only reason students aren’t cheating is because we are stopping them from cheating. . .

. . . then they are not developing the

capacity to make ethical choices.

Vision III: “To boldly go”

Image credit: http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/60152000/jpg/_60152494_beaming_rex464.jpg

Proactive, Personalized, Pro-integrity Approach

Primary:+ Education+ Conversations+ Expectations___ Culture of Integrity

Supported by: Vigilance Policies, Codes, and Rules Technology

There is no way to teach students to make good choices without giving them enough freedom to make bad ones.

That is not to say that there shouldn’t be consequences, but it is suggesting they must have room to fail.

There is no way to teach students to make good choices without allowing freedom to make bad ones.

That is not to say that there shouldn’t be consequences, but it is suggesting they must have room to fail.

When they do (and some will), if we provide the right kind of response, more of them will get it right the next time—and they will understand why.

Failures are finger posts on the road to achievement.

~C. S. Lewis

Remember that failure is an event, not a person.

Zig Ziglar

Education:

“a constellation of encounters, both planned and unplanned, that promote growth through the acquisition of knowledge, skills, understanding and appreciation”

Noddings, Nel (2002) Starting at Home. Caring and Social Policy

Thank you!You are what makes ICAI work.

Connect with us!

www.Facebook.com/AcademicIntegrity

Twitter.com/TweetCAI

We’ll see you next year in Vancouver!