The customer isn\u27t always right: Limitations of \u27customer service\u27 approaches to education or why Higher Ed is not Burger King

The increasingly popular trend of conceptualising education in terms of \u27customer service\u27 is, in some ways, attractive. It encourages educators to think in terms of meeting students\u27 needs and to develop innovative ways to deliver their product. In other ways, however, it fails to convey the essential collaborative, participatory, reciprocal relationship that is central to effective teaching and learning. With respect to academic integrity, the customer service model also obscures students\u27 roles and responsibilities. In this paper, we identify some of the ways this model provides an inappropriate metaphor for understanding the project of teaching and learning (i.e., education) and argue that, when embraced uncritically, the model has the potential both to undermine education and at the same time derail efforts to develop and sustain a culture of integrity. After identifying this model\u27s shortcomings, we suggest ways to develop and promote a more robust model in which faculty and students work together toward a shared purpose while recognising and embracing their interlocking responsibilities

Cutting the vicious circle: Addressing the inconsistency in teachers’ approaches to academic integrity breaches

Dysfunctional educational system has been identified as one of the causes of academic dishonesty in Eastern Europe. This case study combines quantitative self-reported data and qualitative data from students and teachers with hard data from the disciplinary committee, collected at one Czech university. We analyse cases and types of breaches, identify characteristics of students that incline them toward cheating and investigate some of the reasons why. Our research confirms that the inconsistent approach of teachers is a contributing factor to students’ propensity to violate academic integrity rules and identifies reasons for such behaviour. Teachers play a key role in prevention, it is their duty to report cases of suspected misconduct, but they need tools to improve the culture of academic integrity. The contribution of this paper is to provide an inspiration for policy makers how to tackle the inconsistency of teachers’ approaches to student misconduct

“We know it when we see it” is not good enough: toward a standard definition of plagiarism that transcends theft, fraud, and copyright

Many of the assumptions that inform the ways we respond to issues of plagiarism are based in laws and traditions that pertain to stealing or to copyright. Laws about stealing, however, assume key concepts that are at odds with the conceptual realities of plagiarism. The notion of taking something, for instance, carries with it the concomitant idea that the rightful owner is deprived of the use of that thing. Laws about copyright are similarly derived from the notion of a physical text being duplicated to make additional (physical) copies to be sold, implying that if copyright is violated, the rightful owner suffers (financial) harm. Neither set of laws appropriately addresses plagiarism, however, which can occur without depriving the author/owner of the work or the right to profit from it. This paper will differentiate the elements of plagiarism from those of theft and copyright violations, and attempt to define plagiarism in terms that accurately describe its essential elements

The customer isn’t always right: Limitations of “Customer Service” Approaches to Education Or Why Higher Ed is Not Burger King

The increasingly popular trend of conceptualizing education in terms of “customer service” is, in some ways, attractive. It encourages educators to think in terms of meeting students’ needs and to develop innovative ways to deliver their “product.” In other ways, however, it fails to convey the essential collaborative, participatory, reciprocal relationship that is central to effective teaching and learning. With respect to academic integrity, the customer service model also obscures students’ roles and responsibilities. In this paper, we will identify some of the ways this model—in which the customer expresses a need and the vendor meets that need in exchange for payment—provides an inappropriate metaphor for understanding the project of teaching and learning (i.e., education). When embraced uncritically, the model has the potential both to undermine education and at the same time derail efforts to develop and sustain a culture of integrity. After identifying this model’s shortcomings, we will suggest ways to develop and promote a more robust model in which faculty and students work together toward a shared purpose while recognizing and embracing their interlocking responsibilities

The customer isn't always right: Limitations of 'customer service' approaches to education or why Higher Ed is not Burger King

The increasingly popular trend of conceptualising education in terms of 'customer service' is, in some ways, attractive. It encourages educators to think in terms of meeting students' needs and to develop innovative ways to deliver their "product." In other ways, however, it fails to convey the essential collaborative, participatory, reciprocal relationship that is central to effective teaching and learning. With respect to academic integrity, the customer service model also obscures students' roles and responsibilities. In this paper, we identify some of the ways this model provides an inappropriate metaphor for understanding the project of teaching and learning (i.e., education) and argue that, when embraced uncritically, the model has the potential both to undermine education and at the same time derail efforts to develop and sustain a culture of integrity. After identifying this model's shortcomings, we suggest ways to develop and promote a more robust model in which faculty and students work together toward a shared purpose while recognising and embracing their interlocking responsibilities. This is a revised version of a paper presented at the 4th Asia Pacific Conference on Educational Integrity: Creating an Inclusive Approach, University of Wollongong, NSW, Australia, 2009

Changing trends in academic integrity policy development: Implications for the post-COVID era

As adherence to academic integrity standards is one of the most important aims of academia, many institutions develop academic integrity policies which should be regarded as a core element by quality and qualification assurance agencies. A well-developed policy should reveal responsibilities of stakeholders and provide guidance on investigating suspected cases and delivering sanctions (Razı et al., 2021). Bretag (2013b) also remarks on the importance of a holistic and multi-stakeholder approach in the establishment of a culture of academic integrity. Policies are seen as documents providing guidance to institutions to develop a culture of academic integrity by helping them define their standards, prepare related guidelines and procedures for their stakeholders. Keeping the policies up-to-date is as important as developing them; otherwise, an out-of-date policy may bring more harm than benefit. It is therefore essential to address the changing trends during the COVID-19 pandemic in academic integrity policies by carefully blending what was already in place from pre-COVID era literature. Thus, this presentation aims to first highlight the general framework for academic integrity policies, and then present examples of the changing trends in academic integrity policies during COVID-19. Paine (1994) suggested two approaches: rule compliance strategy and integrity strategy. The former corresponds to the punitive approach to academic integrity, whereas the latter refers to the educative approach. Although earlier conceptions of academic integrity or responses to academic misconduct focused on how to prevent academic malpractice and what sanctions should apply to different academic integrity breaches, Bretag (2013b) spoke of an educative approach to academic integrity where proactive measures are prioritized over detection of and reaction to academic misconduct. Such developments fundamentally changed how we formulate our questions from “how do we stop students from cheating?” to “how do we ensure students are learning?” (Bertram Gallant, 2017). A good, robust, and holistic policy can help build a culture of integrity in an institution by emphasizing the values of integrity (Khan et al., 2019). Policies also serve the purpose of “affecting the way [values are] taught and embedded in curricula” (Bretag, Mahmud, East et al., 2011, p. 1) and good policies can help in reducing misconduct (Stoesz & Eaton, 2020). If policies are not clear, comprehensive, easy to understand or inconsistent, these can raise serious doubt on the quality of the institution’s programs, teaching and learning (Bretag, Mahmud, East et al., 2011; Tennant et al., 2007). Policies serve the purpose of contributing to quality and quality management at an institution, which will help to develop shared values stemming from genuine commitment by all stakeholders (Bretag, Mahmud, Wallace et al., 2011; Exemplary Academic Integrity Project – EAIP, 2013). Fundamentally, integrity is based on ethical principles and values of being honest, consistent, transparent and fair to the participant, public and scientific community. Ethics provides and underpins these principles as guides for research, whilst integrity makes us practise (or carry out) these principles in our day-to-day academic lives (Malan, 2007); therefore, both ethics and integrity collaboratively support appropriate and responsible behaviour in education and research. Organisational policies are usually based on ethical values (Polowczyk, 2017), but they should be written to suit all the different discipline (or subject) areas of an institution. Policies should consider the deviations and/or exceptions to the basic ethical principles. Academic integrity policies are meant to be holistic, inclusive, and educative (Peters, 2019). Bretag, Mahmud, Wallace et al. (2011) list five core elements to be addressed in an academic integrity policy: access, approach, responsibility, detail, and support. Access refers to the ease with which the policy can be accessed or located, read and understood by all stakeholders of the institution, be it staff, students, or faculty. Approach refers to the manner in which the concept is approached or addressed. Responsibility refers to the roles played by all stakeholders involved and what is expected of them in those capacities. Detail refers to the depth of information provided in terms of types of misconduct, severity levels, approach to deal with allegations and processes. Finally, support refers to how the process is implemented, the type of training available for all stakeholders to understand the policy, and on how the process works. Consulting existing policies might be an effective strategy as a point of departure for those who are either writing or revising policies. Researchers involved with the EAIP identified exemplary policies in Australia that others could use as a reference point (Bretag & Mahmud, 2016; Bretag, Mahmud, East et al., 2011, Bretag, Mahmud, Wallace et al., 2011; EAIP, 2013). Although consulting exemplary policies is an approach we recommend, we caution against lifting text or passages from other policies verbatim without acknowledgement as it could be considered plagiarism. Policies themselves can model ethical decision-making and behaviour that they wish constituents to follow. Policy documents that obviously plagiarise from other sources could lead to public outrage and negative media reporting. Institutional policies can vary according to the institutional view about academic integrity, academic misconduct or cheating. A reactive approach might be the most primitive form of policy as each academic takes individual responsibility for identifying the misconduct and its consequences. Another approach adopted by some institutions is a formal, almost judicial stance towards handling breaches of academic integrity, seeing cheating as an aberration to be punished. Detection policies focus on catching and generating evidence about academic integrity breaches. Proactive, deterrent or preventative approaches are designed to discourage and reduce cheating in academic work. Policies that have an educative focus are based on the premise that developing skills and knowledge related to academic integrity is at least as important as punishing students for academic misconduct. This presentation mainly aims to present examples of the changing trends in academic integrity policies during COVID-19. Despite ill-designed assessment practices during COVID-19, responsible academics and administrators were forced to rethink, redefine, and reassess common policies. For example, invigilated examinations were not viable, and they were replaced by online open book tests, short answer questions, timed assessments etc. Some institutions have tried to introduce new preventive measures such as the controversial ‘e-proctoring’ (Hollister & Berenson, 2009; Kharbat & Abu Daabes, 2021; Reedy et al., 2021;) which itself created additional challenges to the integrity policies. Therefore, it is essential for the integrity policy to holistically consider the ethical principles, their exceptions, national/international legislation that underpins integrity, and most importantly the situational changes, their needs and implications

An Adaptive Image-based Plagiarism Detection Approach

Identifying plagiarized content is a crucial task for educational and research institutions, funding agencies, and academic publishers. Plagiarism detection systems available for productive use reliably identify copied text, or near-copies of text, but often fail to detect disguised forms of academic plagiarism, such as paraphrases, translations, and idea plagiarism. To improve the detection capabilities for disguised forms of academic plagiarism, we analyze the images in academic documents as text-independent features. We propose an adaptive, scalable, and extensible image-based plagiarism detection approach suitable for analyzing a wide range of image similarities that we observed in academic documents. The proposed detection approach integrates established image analysis methods, such as perceptual hashing, with newly developed similarity assessments for images, such as ratio hashing and position-aware OCR text matching. We evaluate our approach using 15 image pairs that are representative of the spectrum of image similarity we observed in alleged and confirmed cases of academic plagiarism. We embed the test cases in a collection of 4,500 related images from academic texts. Our detection approach achieved a recall of 0.73 and a precision of 1. These results indicate that our image-based approach can complement other content-based feature analysis approaches to retrieve potential source documents for suspiciously similar content from large collections. We provide our code as open source to facilitate future research on image-based plagiarism detection.publishe