Here are three things you can do to prioritize human rights and dignity when it comes to policies and procedures to address allegations of academic or research misconduct:
Use a human-rights-by-design approach to developing, revising, and implementing policies by conducting a comprehensive review of existing academic integrity policies. Update policies to explicitly incorporate human rights principles, ensuring they address fair process, privacy, equitable treatment, and respect for human dignity. It is essential to involve individuals from representative groups in this process.
Provide ongoing training, education, and support to faculty, staff, and students about human rights principles and how they apply to misconduct investigations and case management. Create orientation programs that explain expectations for ethical conduct while respecting diverse cultural perspectives. Offer workshops and resources, peer mentoring programs, and support services.
Focus on continuous improvement and quality assurance of ethics and integrity practices by gathering feedback from students, faculty, staff and relevant stakeholders. Regularly review misconduct case management processes and data to ensure equitable treatment across different demographics.
Implementing human rights principles into misconduct investigations and case management helps to create more effective and sustainable learning environments. This approach prioritizes people over punishment, dignity over draconianism, and compassion over callousness.
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 Professor and Research Chair in the Werklund School of Education at the University of Calgary, Canada. Opinions are my own and do not represent those of my employer.
It’s the start of a new school year here in North America. We are into the second week of classes and already I am hearing from administrators in both K-12 and higher education institutions who are frustrated with educators who have turned to ChatGPT and other publicly-available Gen AI apps to help them assess student learning.
Although customized AI apps designed specifically to assist with the assessment of student learning already exist, many educators do not yet have access to such tools. Instead, I am hearing about educators turning to large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT to help them provide formative or summative assessment of students’ work. There are some good reasons not to avoid using ChatGPT or other LLMs to assess student learning.
I expect that not everyone will agree with these points, please take them with the spirit in which they are intended, which to provide guidance on ethical ways to teach, learn, and assess students’ work.
8 Tips on Why Educators Should Avoid Using AI Apps to Help with Assessment of Student Learning
Intellectual Property
In Canada at least, a student’s work is their intellectual property. Unless you have permission to use it outside of class, then avoid doing so. The bottom line here is that student’s intellectual work is not yours to share to a large-language model (LLM) or any other third party application, with out their knowledge and consent.
Privacy
A student’s personal data, including their name, ID number and other details should never be uploaded to an external app without consent. One reason for this blog post is to respond to stories I am hearing about educators uploading entire student essays or assignments, including the cover page with all the identifying information, to a third-party GenAI app.
Data security
Content uploaded to an AI tool may be added to its database and used to train the tool. Uploading student assignments to GenAI apps for feedback poses several data security risks. These include potential breaches of data storage systems, privacy violations through sharing sensitive student information, and intellectual property concerns. Inadequate access controls or encryption could allow unauthorized access to student work.
AI model vulnerabilities might enable data extraction, while unintended leakage could occur through the AI app’s responses. If the educator’s account is compromised, it could expose all of the uploaded assignments. The app’s policies may permit third-party data sharing, and long-term data persistence in backups or training sets could extend the risk timeline. Also, there may be legal and regulatory issues around sharing student data, especially for minors, without proper consent.
Bias
AI apps are known to be biased. Feedback generated by an AI app can be biased, unfair, and even racist. To learn more check out this article published in Nature. AI models can perpetuate existing biases present in their training data, which may not represent diverse student populations adequately. Apps might favour certain writing styles (e.g., standard American English), cultural references, or modes of expression, disadvantaging students from different backgrounds.
Furthermore, the AI’s feedback could be inconsistent across similar submissions or fail to account for individual student progress and needs. Additionally, the app may not fully grasp nuanced or creative approaches, leading to standardized feedback that discourages unique thinking.
Lack of context
An AI app does not know your student like you do. Although GenAI tools can offer quick assessments and feedback, they often lack the nuanced understanding of a student’s unique context, learning style, and emotional or physical well-being. Overreliance on AI-generated feedback might lead to generic responses, diminishing the personal connection and meaningful interaction that educators provide, which are vital for effective learning.
Impersonal
AI apps can provide generic feedback, but as an educator, you can personalize feedback to help the student grow. AI apps can provide generic feedback but may not help to scaffold a student’s learning. Personalized feedback is crucial, as it fosters individual student growth, enhances understanding, and encourages engagement with the material. Tailoring feedback to specific strengths and weaknesses helps students recognize their progress and areas needing improvement. In turn, this helps to build their confidence and motivation.
Academic Integrity
Educators model ethical behaviour, this includes transparent and fair assessment. If you are using tech tools to assess student learning, it is important to be transparent about it. In this post, I write more about how and why deceptive and covert assessment tactics are unacceptable.
Your Employee Responsibilities
If your job description includes assessing student work , you may be violating your employment contract if you offload assessment to an AI app.
Concluding Thoughts
Unless your employer has explicitly given you permission to use AI apps for assessing student work then, at least for now, consider providing feedback and assessment in the ways expected by your employer. If we do not want students to use AI apps to take shortcuts, then it is up to us as educators to model the behavior we expect from students.
I understand that educators have excessive and exhausting workloads. I appreciate that we have more items on our To Do Lists than is reasonable. I totally get it that we may look for shortcuts and ways to reduce our workload. The reality is that although Gen AI may have the capability to help with certain tasks, not all employers have endorsed their use in same way.
Not all institutions or schools have artificial intelligence policies or guideline, so when in doubt, ask your supervisor if you are not sure about the expectations. Again, there is a parallel here with student conduct. If we expect students to avoid using AI apps unless we make it explicit that it is OK, then the same goes for educators. Avoid using unauthorized tech tools for assessment without the boss knowing about it.
I am not suggesting that Gen AI apps don’t have the capability to assist with AI, but I am suggesting that many educational institutions have not yet approved the use of such apps for use in the workplace. Trust me, when there are Gen AI apps to help with the heaviest aspects of our workload as educators, I’ll be at the front of the line to use them. In the meantime, there’s a balance to be struck between what AI can do and what one’s employer may permit us to use AI for. It’s important to know the difference — and to protect your livelihood.
This blog has had over 3.6 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 at the University of Calgary, Canada. Opinions are my own and do not represent those of my employer.
Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, Editor-in-Chief, International Journal for Educational Integrity
This month marks the beginning of my fourth year as editor-in-chief of the International Journal for Educational Integrity. Before that I served as co-editor and before that, I served as a reviewer and article author. Last year, the journal received its first impact factor (4.6), putting it in the 95th percentile of all journals in the field of educational research. Since that happened, the number of submissions the journal has received seems to have skyrocketed. Every week I am reviewing submissions from authors eager to have their work published in a Q1 (top quartile) academic journal. In this post I offer five tips on how to get your work published in a top-ranking journal.
Tip #1: Read the Aims and Scope
Ensure your manuscript fits with the aims and scope of the journal. The number one reason I reject manuscripts outright without sending them for peer review is that the topic of the manuscript has no relevance whatsoever to our journal. Reputable journals publish their aims and scope on their website. As an example, here are the Aims and Scope of the International Journal for Educational Integrity.
As an interdisciplinary journal, we receive submissions from just about every academic field you can imagine, but just because a journal is interdisciplinary does not mean that anything goes. When I get a manuscript about the efficacy rates of a pesticide or new developments related to geo-spatial heat maps, I reject it automatically because the topic is outside the scope of our journal. Manuscripts that are about education broadly, but that have no direct connection to ethics and integrity, also get a desk rejection.
If you want to publish your article in a high quality journal, ensure it aligns with the aims and scope of the journal.
Tip #2: Focus on Quality
Poor-quality writing is one of the main reasons manuscripts get a desk rejection. Ensure the quality of your manuscript is your top priority. Markers of quality include, but are not limited to, writing that is comprehensible and error-free. (The odd typo can be fixed during the revision process.) Quality also means including a literature review that demonstrates that you understand previous scholarship in the field, a detailed methods section, and an in-depth analysis. The findings should show original contributions to the field, along with the limitations of the work.
Articles that are theoretical or conceptual in nature should still have a clear structure and be organized in a way that the reader can follow. The problem/gap/hook heuristic is one way to frame a conceptual article so that the value to the reader is clear.
Submissions that are difficult to read, either because of poor writing or because they lack organization, are more likely to be rejected. This does not mean that all articles have to follow a cookie-cutter formula. Unconventional articles can be interesting and valuable, but the reader still has to be able to follow them.
Tip #3: Follow the Submission Guidelines
Ensure your submission fits with the submission guidelines of the journal. Do not wait for a desk rejection and then tell the editor you can reformat the manuscript. Submit according to the guidelines.
I have had prospective authors argue with me via e-mail when I reject or request a revision to their submissions on the basis that their manuscript does not follow the journal’s guidelines. Arguing with an editor about how you do not have time or interest in submitting according to the journal’s guidelines is unlikely to persuade an editor that your submission should be reviewed. Saying that you will revise or reformat the submission only if your article is accepted is a fast track to a rejection.
Tip #4: Do Your Homework
Read recently published articles in the journal to understand what kinds of submissions make the cut. It can also be helpful to understand who the editors and editorial board members are and how their expertise contributes to the journal.
I reviewed a submission that claimed that female students were inherently prone to academic cheating because of their gender. (The main argument was that women are more morally corrupt than men.) Um…. Pardon me?!
Needless to say that the submission was problematic (and rejected) for a number of reasons, not the least of which was a lack of scientific basis for the claims made in the submission. As I conducted my preliminary editorial review, it occurred to me that the authors probably had no idea that the editor was a woman… And why would they, when only 8% of editors-in-chief of academic journals are women? It might not have even occurred to them to check. (If they had, they could have saved themselves the trouble of submitting…)
A quick check of the Editorial Board can give you a glimpse into who provides leadership for a journal. Reviewing the information about the editorial board is likely to provide an incomplete picture at best, but it can be helpful.
Tip #5: Provide Value
Ensure that your manuscript adds something new to the existing knowledge base. The best academic articles provide value to the reader and the wider scientific or scholarly community. Always keep your reader in mind. One reason submissions get rejected is that the authors are so self-absorbed in themselves and their own ideas or goals is that they fail to consider individual readers as well as the collective readership of the journal as a whole.
When prospective authors beg me to publish their article because they need a publication to graduate, get hired, keep their jobs, or get promoted, my heart aches. This is a sign of systemic dysfunction of academia in general, but it is a one that a journal editor cannot solve. The article itself must provide value to the reader or the piece is unlikely to get published. The more value you can provide to the readers, the more likely it is your manuscript will be published in a high-quality journal.
There are lots of other things to say about how to get your work published in a high-quality academic journal, but I’ll stop for now, as this covers some of the basics. I hope these tips are helpful for getting your academic work published in the coming year(s).
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 at the University of Calgary, Canada. Opinions are my own and do not represent those of my employer.
Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, Editor-in-Chief, International Journal for Educational Integrity
We are pleased to share the news that our edited book, Fake Degrees and Fraudulent Credentials in Higher Education, has been submitted for publication (Eaton, Carmichael, and Pethrick, eds.) to Springer Nature. The book is slated for publication in early 2023.
Book description
This book addresses an important topic in higher education: credential fraud. This includes, but is not limited to, fake degrees, diploma mills, admissions fraud, and cheating on standardized admissions tests. The book directly addresses fake and fraudulent credentials in higher education. It explores transcript tampering and fraud in varsity athletics and discusses lazy practices in the higher education hiring processes that open the door for professors without proper credentials to get jobs in post-secondary institutions.
The book also discusses how technology is being used to stop the proliferation of fake and fraudulent credentials in a variety of ways, including blockchain technology.
Table of Contents
Here is a sneak preview of the table of contents:
Chapter 1: Fake Degrees and Credential Fraud, Contract Cheating, and Paper Mills: Overview and Historical Perspectives – Sarah Elaine Eaton & Jamie Carmichael
Chapter 2: Admissions Fraud in Canadian Higher Education – Jamie Carmichael & Sarah Elaine Eaton
Chapter 3: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow: A Tour of Axact, the “World’s Largest Diploma Mill” – Allen Ezell
Chapter 4: Bridging Today to Tomorrow: A Historical and Technological Review of Credential Exchange in Higher Education within Canada – Joanne Duklas
Chapter 5: Fair play, Fraud, or Fixed? Athletic Credentials in US Higher Education – Kirsten Hextrum
Chapter 6: Corruption in Admissions, Recruitment, Qualifications and Credentials: from Research into Quality Assurance – Stella-Maris Orim & Irene Glendinning
Chapter 7: Avoiding Favouritism in the Recruitment Practice of Turkish Higher Education Institutions Özgür Çelik & Salim Razı
Chapter 8: None of the Above: Integrity Concerns of Standardized English Proficiency Tests – Soroush Sabbaghan & Ismaeil Fazel
Chapter 9: Examining the Problem of Fraudulent English Test Scores: What Can Canadian Higher Education Institutions Learn? – Angela Clark
Chapter 10: There is no culture? A Framework for Addressing Admissions Fraud – Brendan DeCoster
Chapter 11: Security Risks, Fake Degrees, and Other Fraud: A Topic Modelling Approach – Jamie Carmichael & Sarah Elaine Eaton
Chapter 12: Are You for Real? Lessons for the Academy About Professors with Fake or Fraudulent Degrees – Sarah Elaine Eaton & Jamie Carmichael
Chapter 13: Fake Degrees and Fake Degrees and Fraudulent Credentials in Higher Education: Conclusions and Future Directions – Jamie Carmichael & Sarah Elaine Eaton
About the editors
Sarah Elaine Eaton
Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, is an Associate Professor of Education at the University of Calgary, Canada, where she also serves as the inaugural Educational Leader in Residence, Academic Integrity. Eaton’s research focuses on academic ethics in higher education. Her work can be found in the British Educational Research Journal, the Journal of Academic Ethics, the Journal of Educational Thought and Interchange, among other places. She is the Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal for Educational Integrity (Springer Nature) and co-founder and co-editor of Canadian Perspectives on Academic Integrity. In 2020 she received the national Research and Scholarship award from the Canadian Society for the Study of Higher Education (CSSHE) for her contributions to research on academic integrity in Canadian higher education.
Jamie J. Carmichael
Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Jamie Carmichael is the Associate Registrar of Scheduling and Systems at Carleton University. She is responsible for the construction of the university timetable, scheduling and administration of examinations, the operation of two examination centres for students with disabilities, a university-wide space management system, and other core student administrative systems. Since 2009, she has received ten service excellence nominations for her work that ranges from information technology projects, team acknowledgment to innovation.
Carmichael’s research lies at the intersection of academic integrity and machine learning, with graduate education in Applied Science in Technology Information Management (Engineering). She has presented or co-presented at national and international conferences and is often called up on by specialized groups in higher education to present on her work.
Helen Pethrick
University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Helen Pethrick, MA, is a researcher and educator in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Research areas include academic integrity in higher education, post-secondary student mental health and well-being, and peer mentorship in educational settings.
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.
Now Jamie and I are working on an edited book to be published by Springer Nature later this year.
We have noticed more and more discussions of qualification fraud and impersonation in the news, such as this article that talks about a situation in which the person who showed up for an interview and was hired was not the same person who showed up for the job after the hiring process was complete.
Since starting this project almost two years ago our eyes have been opened to the massive global market that exists for fake and fraudulent degrees, diplomas, and other credentials. We’ll keep you updated as our research evolves, but for now we just wanted to let you know we are still working on this and learning more every day.
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.