Examining the Ethical Environment in Higher Education

Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) across the world have found themselves faced with new challenges on issues of ethics. Much of this has been centred on issues of assessment: plagiarism, buying essays, sharing/lending of previously passed work and the stealing of marked/returned work of others. Institutions still treat academic misconduct as largely a behavioural difficulty rather than an issue of ethics (or education), suggesting that academia places a far greater emphasis on combating new forms of dishonesty than it does on encouraging ethical habits and a healthy ethical environment. To date, the majority of research in this area has examined these forms of academic misconduct from the point of view of the student and/or the university, with the perspective of academics receiving very limited attention. Our hypothesis is that academics are perhaps best placed to provide the education needed to create and sustain an ethical environment, and we argue that being ‘ethically aware’ is a critical factor in the development of academic competence for all parties. This study adds to existing research in three ways: firstly, by highlighting the importance of an overall framework for an ethical environment within HEIs; secondly, by suggesting an ecological model of key parties (the university, students and academics) with responsibility for this environment in assessment; and thirdly, by including new evidence (generated by a survey of academics) to extend our understanding of their views on these issues

Whose domain and whose ontology?:Preserving human radical reflexivity over the efficiency of automatically generated feedback alone

In this chapter, we challenge an increase in the uncritical application of algorithmic processes for providing automatically generated feedback for students, within a neoliberal framing of contemporary higher education. Initially, we discuss our concerns alongside networked learning principles, which developed as a critical pedagogical response to new online learning programmes and platforms. These principles now overlap too, with the notion that we are living in ‘postdigital’ times, where automatically generated feedback never stands alone, but is contested and supplemented by physical encounters and human feedback. First, we make observations on the e-marking platform Turnitin, alongside other rapidly developing artificial intelligence (AI) systems. When generic (but power-laden) maps are incorporated into both student and staff ‘perceived’ spaces through AI, we surface the aspects of feedback that risk being lost. Second, we draw on autoethnographic understandings of our own lived experience of performing radically reflexive feedback within a Master’s in Education programme. A radically reflexive form of feedback may not follow a pre-defined map, but it does offer a vehicle to restore individual student and staff voices and critical self-navigation of both physical and virtual learning spaces. This needs to be preserved in the ongoing shaping of the contemporary ‘postdigital’ university

Understanding Lecturers' Perceptions of Workplace Fear: An Interpretive Study in the Cypriot Higher Education Context

This chapter explores how Cypriot lecturers perceive and experience fear while being at work. Drawing on the lens of interpretive inquiry, data were collected through interviews with 19 lecturers. Analysis focused on experiences of workplace fear offering rich insights into characteristics of fear, eliciting events, and coping ways. Findings help to unveil the specific events that lead to fear in the Cypriot universities, and the ways lecturers manage their fearful experiences. The study contributes to the study of discrete emotions, by empirically examining fear’s own storyline through the workers’ own perspectives, within a specific context

ICAR: endoscopic skull‐base surgery

n/

The Dynamic Gait Index in Evaluating Patients with Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus for Cerebrospinal Fluid Diversion

BACKGROUND: Diagnosing normal pressure hydrocephalus (NPH) remains challenging. Most clinical tests currently used to evaluate suspected NPH patients for shunt surgery are invasive, require inpatient admission, and are not without complications. An objective, noninvasive, and low-cost alternative would be ideal. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of prospectively collected dynamic gait index (DGI) scores, obtained at baseline and on every day of a 3- to 5-day lumbar cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage trial on patients with suspected NPH at our institution. RESULTS: Between 2003 and 2014, 170 patients were suspected to have primary NPH (166, 97.6%) or secondary NPH (4, 2.4%). Using responsiveness to lumbar CSF drainage and subsequent shunting as the reference standard, we found that a baseline DGI ≥ 7 was found to have significant ability in selecting patients for permanent CSF diverting shunt surgery: sensitivity of 84.2% (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 75.6%-90.2%), specificity of 80.6% (95% CI 70.0%-88.0%), and diagnostic odds ratio of 22.1 (95% CI 9.9-49.3). CONCLUSIONS: A baseline DGI ≥ 7 appears to provide an objective, low-cost, noninvasive measure to select patients with suspected NPH for a positive response to CSF diversion with high sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio

Crosslinker-Induced Effects on the Gelation Pathway of a Low Molecular Weight Hydrogel

Supramolecular & Biomaterials Chemistr

Plagiarism or not? investigation of Turnitin®‐detected similarity hits in biology laboratory reports

In undergraduate biology laboratory courses, laboratory reports can be a useful tool for teaching scientific writing, integration of source material, and information literacy; however, these teaching objectives are at times undermined by students' plagiarism. Laboratory instructors often use similarity-matching software to detect plagiarism in laboratory reports, yet similarity hits detected with such software remain poorly characterized. In the upper division molecular biology laboratory course described here, Turnitin® routinely detected dozens of similarity hits in laboratory reports. To determine whether this abundance of similarity hits was indicative of widespread plagiarism, we analyzed similarity hits detected in 255 laboratory reports written by 135 students. Only a small minority of Turnitin® similarity matches were problematic, but over half of the laboratory reports contained at least one problem with incorporation of scientific sources (e.g., laboratory manual and scientific articles). We identified four common types of such writing problems: patchwriting, technical parroting, copying, and falsification of sources. In 18% of the laboratory reports, we detected an alarmingly superficial use of primary literature. Most of the source incorporation problems did not rise to the level of plagiarism. As a result of this study, we recommend changes in scientific writing instruction and a transition to laboratories providing more authentic research experiences. © 2019 International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 47(4):370-379, 2019