Academic misconduct has taken various forms in present-day educational systems. One method that is on the rise is the use of artificially generated software compositions. The capabilities and sophistication of these new technologies are improving steadily. We are conducting a study to gauge the sophistication of the current artificial intelligence (AI) software-generated text. To that end, we are recruiting participants to evaluate the level of writing level of small compositions (260 words in length at most).
Your participation in this study would be to evaluate two small pieces of text presented in a survey and optionally make comments on your observation. We appreciate your consideration in this matter. This research provides an opportunity for the participants to contribute to the state of AI software used for various educational purposes. Participation in this study is voluntary, and you are free to terminate the survey and withdraw at any time and for any reason without censor. There are no known physical, psychological, or social risks associated with participation in the study.
All demographic data collected will be kept strictly confidential. Only the researchers listed in this letter will have access to the raw data. The data (in electronic format) will be retained indefinitely. Participation in the study will be asked for some basic demographic information and then presented with a 260- word length composition. After reading, the participants will be asked to evaluate the level, assign a mark to the composition, and note any pertinent observations. The second piece of composition, also of the same length, will be followed by the same set of questions. The total anticipated time for completing the survey is about 9-12 minutes, but it can vary based on reading speed and consideration afforded to the assigned grade.
If you have any questions or concerns about your participation in this study, you can contact the Principal Investigator, Dr. Sarah Elaine Eaton, seaton (at) ucalgary.ca
This study is funded by a University of Calgary Teaching and Learning Grant. This study has been approved by the Conjoint Faculties Research Ethics Board at the University of Calgary: REB22-0137.
Share this post: Invitation to Participate: Research Study on Artificial Intelligence and Academic Integrity: The Ethics of Teaching and Learning with Algorithmic Writing Technologies – https://wp.me/pNAh3-2U3
This blog has had over 3 million views thanks to readers like you. If you enjoyed this post, please “like” it or share it on social media. Thanks! Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, is a faculty member in the Werklund School of Education, and the Educational Leader in Residence, Academic Integrity, University of Calgary, Canada. Opinions are my own and do not represent those of the University of Calgary.
As I write this, the Handbook of Academic Integrity (2nd ed.) is well underway. All the chapters have been submitted and are at various stages of review, revision, and production. Page proofs should start going out to contributing authors this month. This has been a massive project: 150+ authors, 109 chapters, 9 section editors, and me herding all the cool cats who have made it happen.
After all the chapters had been submitted, I realized that we had something new and fresh with this edition. We have pushed the boundaries beyond persistently historical ideas about academic integrity only as a matter of student conduct. So, I wrote an introduction for the handbook that synthesizes some its through lines. The common threads of this updated edition are summed up in this Comprehensive Academic Integrity (CAI) framework.
I wrote this intro in two epic writing sessions, fuelled by gallons of coffee, Vegemite on toast, and a pizza that a friend had delivered to my house because he felt sorry for me eating Vegemite on toasted bread crusts. (I am not kidding.) Anyway, first, I drafted the chapter in full. Then I asked a couple of other section editors and contributors to the handbook to provide me with an open peer review of the draft. In the chapter I acknowledge them by name and I re-iterate my gratitude to them here. Thanks are due to Guy Curtis, Brenda M. Stoesz, Rahul Kumar, Beatriz Moya, and Bibek Dahal for their feedback that helped me to improve the chapter. In the second writing session, I incorporated just about all of their suggestions and completely re-vamped the visual image to the one you see below. The CAI Framework is a high-level synthesis of all the chapters in the handbook and as such, every single author who has contributed to the handbook (as well as those they have cited in their respective chapters) all deserve credit.
According to the publisher’s rules around self-archiving and pre-prints, I am not allowed to share the entire chapter with you ahead of publication. But I can share a summary of it, so I’m doing that here. I’ve also self-archived a copy of this overview (minus the background commentary about Vegemite and pizza) in our university’s digital repository. On the off-chance you want to cite the “official” version of the summary, I have included instructions below. You’ll have to wait for the Handbook to be published to read the full chapter, but in the meantime, I hope this overview is useful.
For years scholars and other experts have called for a more holistic approach to academic integrity (e.g., Bertram Gallant, 2008; Boud & Bearman, 2022; Bretag et al, 2014; Carrol & Duggan, 2005; Löfström et al., 2015; Morris & Carrol, 2016; Turner & Beemsterboer, 2003). The CAI framework synthesizes ideas that have been repeated for decades in various iterations.
The central argument behind a wholistic framework is that academic integrity must encompass, but extend beyond, notions of student conduct, and should be considered a foundation of all aspects of education. In this framework, I do not propose a new definition of academic integrity in part, because several useful definitions already exist (see Bretag, 2016; ICAI, 2021; Tauginienė et al., 2018). Instead, this framework can be used with existing definitions.
The Comprehensive Academic Integrity (CAI) framework includes eight (8) essential elements that includes, and extends beyond traditional notions of academic integrity merely as a student responsibility:
Appreciation to Kieran Forde at the University of British Columbia for his most awesome interpretation of the graphic as a “colourful swirly donut”. Who doesn’t love donuts?! Thanks, Kieran!
References
Bertram Gallant, T. (2008). Academic integrity in the twenty-first century: A teaching and learning imperative. Wiley.
Boud, D., & Bearman, M. (2022). The assessment challenge of social and collaborative learning in higher education. Educational philosophy and theory, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2022.2114346
Bretag, T. (2016). Educational integrity in Australia. In T. A. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of Academic Integrity (pp. 1-13). Springer Singapore.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-079-7_2-1
Bretag, T., Mahmud, S., Wallace, M., Walker, R., McGowan, U., East, J., Green, M., Partridge, L., & James, C. (2014). ‘Teach us how to do it properly!’ An Australian academic integrity student survey. Studies in higher education, 39(7), 1150-1169. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.777406
Carroll, J., & Duggan, F. (2005, December 2-5). Institutional change to deter student plagiarism: What seems essential to a holistic approach? 2nd Asia-Pacific Educational Integrity Conference, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia.
Eaton, S. E. (forthcoming). Comprehensive academic integrity (CAI): An ethical framework for educational contexts. In S. E. Eaton (Ed.), Handbook of Academic Integrity (2nd ed.). Springer.
Löfström, E., Trotman, T., Furnari, M., & Shephard, K. (2015). Who teaches academic integrity and how do they teach it? Higher Education, 69(3), 435-448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9784-3
Morris, E. J., & Carroll, J. (2016). Developing a sustainable holistic institutional approach: Dealing with realities “on the ground” when implementing an academic integrity policy. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of Academic Integrity (pp. 449-462). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-098-8_23
This blog has had over 3 million views thanks to readers like you. If you enjoyed this post, please “like” it or share it on social media. Thanks!
Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, is a faculty member in the Werklund School of Education, and the Educational Leader in Residence, Academic Integrity, University of Calgary, Canada. Opinions are my own and do not represent those of the University of Calgary.
Edwards explains in clear language, with lots of details and examples, how and why large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT make up content. As I read this article, it occurred to me that it could serve as a really great way to have pro-active and generative conversations with students about the impact of artificial intelligence for teaching, learning, assessment, and academic
integrity. So, here is a quick lesson plan about how to use this article in class:
Education level
Secondary school and post-secondary (e.g., community college, polytechnic, undergraduate or graduate university courses)
Lesson Plan Title: Understanding ChatGPT: Benefits and Limitations
Learning Objectives
By the end of this lesson students will be able to:
Understand how and why AI-writing apps make up content.
Explain the term “confabulation”.
Discuss the implications of fabricated content on academic integrity
Generate ideas about how to fact-check AI-generated content to ensure its accuracy
Class discussion (large group format if the class is small or small group format with a large group debrief at the end):
Possible guiding questions:
What is your experience with ChatGPT and other AI writing apps?
What were the main points in this article? (Alternate phrasing: What were your key takeaways from this article?)
What are some of the risks when AI apps engage in confabulation (i.e., fabrication)?
Discuss this quotation from the article, “ChatGPT as it is currently designed, is not a reliable source of factual information and cannot be trusted as such.”
Fabrication and falsification are commonly included in academic misconduct policies. What do you think the implications are for students and researchers when they write with AI apps?
What are some strategies or tips we can use to fact-check text generated by AI apps?
What is the importance of prompt-writing when working with AI writing apps?
Duration
The time commitment for the pre-reading will vary from one student to the next. The duration of the learning activity can be adjusted to suit the needs of your class.
Students’ pre-reading of the article: 60-minutes or less
Learning activity: 45-60 minutes
Lesson closure
Thank students for engaging actively in the discussion and sharing their ideas.
Possible Follow-up Activities
Tips for fact-checking. Have students in the class generate their own list of tips to fact-check AI-generated content (e.g., in a shared Google doc or by sharing ideas orally in class that one person inputs into a document on behalf of the class.)
Prompt-writing activity. Have students use different prompts to generate content from AI writing apps. Ask them to document each prompt and write down their observations about what worked and what didn’t. Discuss the results as a class.
Academic Integrity Policy Treasure Hunt and Discussion. Have students locate the school’s academic misconduct / academic integrity policy. Compare the definitions and categories for academic misconduct in the school’s policies with concepts presented in this article such as confabulation. Have students generate their own ideas about how to uphold the school’s academic integrity policies when using AI apps.
Creative Commons License
This lesson plan is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0). This license applies only to the lesson plan, not to the original article by Ben Edwards.
Additional Notes
This is a generic (and imperfect) lesson plan. It can (and probably should) be adapted or personalized depending on the needs of the learners.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Dr. Rahul Kumar, Brock University for providing an open peer review of this lesson plan.
_________________________________
Share or Tweet this:
How to Talk to Your Students about ChatGPT: A Lesson Plan for High School and College Students – https://drsaraheaton.wordpress.com/2023/04/07/how-to-talk-to-your-students-about-chatgpt-a-lesson-plan-for-high-school-and-college-students
This blog has had over 3 million views thanks to readers like you. If you enjoyed this post, please “like” it or share it on
social media. Thanks!
Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, is a faculty member in the Werklund School of Education, and the Educational Leader in Residence, Academic Integrity, University of Calgary, Canada. Opinions are my own and do not represent those of the University of Calgary.
Posted by Sarah Elaine Eaton, Ph.D. 
Learning, Teaching and Leadership 
You must be logged in to post a comment.