New article: Strengthening the research agenda of educational integrity in Canada

July 25, 2018

There’s been lots of research done about plagiarism, cheating and other topics related to academic integrity, but how much of it has actually been done in — or about — Canada? That’s the question my co-author, Rachael Ileh Edino, and I asked when we set out on a journey to review the published research literature about these topics, casting a specific lens on the Canadian context.

The results have been published by the International Journal for Educational Integrity.

Article screen shot.jpeg

Abstract

We present findings of a literature review on the topic of educational integrity in the Canadian context. Our search revealed 56 sources, published between 1992 and 2017. A historical overview showed a rise in the number of scholarly publications in recent years, but with an overall limited number of research contributions. We identified three major themes in the literature: (a) empirical research; (b) prevention and professional development; and (c) other (scholarly essay). Our analysis showed little evidence of sustained research programs in Canada over time or national funding to support integrity-related inquiry. We also found that graduate students who completed their theses on topics related to educational integrity often have not published further work in the field later in their careers. We provide five concrete recommendations to elevate and accelerate the research agenda on educational integrity in Canada on a national level. We conclude with a call to action for increased research to better understand the particular characteristics of educational integrity in Canada.

Check out the entire article: Strengthening the research agenda of educational integrity in Canada: a review of the research literature and call to action.

______________________________________________________

Share or Tweet this: New article: Strengthening the research agenda of educational integrity in Canada https://wp.me/pNAh3-2kC

This blog has had over 2 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 is a faculty member in the Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, Canada.

Opinions are my own and do not represent those of the Werklund School of Education or the University of Calgary.

 

Advertisements

Using video posts to promote engagement in online graduate learning

July 16, 2018

The first time I engaged with a group via e-learning was in 2005. I have been teaching graduate courses online since 2011. We often follow a standard learning design of having students read material and then write an online discussion post summarizing and/or reflecting on their readings. They repeat this format in just about every course they take. Students have anecdotally reported that they find this process tiresome, static and not very productive in terms of learning.

As a course instructor, I also find it somewhat unproductive. Don’t get me wrong. I firmly believe that written tasks have their place. At the same time, I also believe that we can provide students with challenging and engaging ways of learning that go beyond the traditional text post on a discussion board.

With that in mind, I have been playing around with using video to make online learning more engaging for my students. Since the course I am teaching right now is as Master’s level course called Language Learning and Technology, we are learning about how to incorporate technology into learning meaningful ways. I figured that if continue to engage through traditional text-posts, we are not really learning how to incorporate technology in new ways! So, I  have challenged the students to do video posts about their course readings, instead of their usual weekly write ups. Students are creating and sharing videos of 3 minutes or less that classmates and I can read and respond to. Students post their videos within our learning management system (D2L) that is associated with the course.

To lead by example, I have also been posting weekly videos welcoming students to each week of the course. In this week’s video post, I offer my own reflections on a recent article that I read, showing them how they can do their own reflections on a reading in their video posts.

Reflections on what I have learned from an instructional perspective

I realized after I posted my video that I could have conducted a more in-depth reflection in my post. This was good learning for me, because I had a lot more thoughts swirling around in my head about the reading I did, but I didn’t express them all in the video. In a written post, I would have taken the time to write, edit, revise and then maybe edit and revise some more. In the video post, I shared my reflections, but didn’t fuss over whether it was perfect. I will be mindful of this when I engage in my assessment of students’ learning using this format.

You can see that I start off with the date, and mentioning the weather for today in Calgary, where I live. I wanted to show students that I was not recycling material and that what I was creating for them was new and fresh.

I think showing that the material is new not only enhances learning and promotes principles of academic integrity, it shows we are not being lazy as instructors. I think that traditional text posts can be problematic in terms of academic integrity because students may be tempted, from time to time, to have someone else write posts on their behalf. This is a form of contract cheating (where a third party completes work on behalf of a student). Curtis and Clare (2017) reported that about 3.5% of students admitted to contract cheating. Even though that percentage is small, it is still important for instructors to offer students ways of demonstrating learning in ways that go beyond traditional writing tasks. It is important for instructors to changes the circumstances that might make it easier or more tempting for students to have someone else complete work on their behalf.

I mention this only because I research and write about topics related to academic integrity, so it’s always on my mind. By and large, I think our students are committed to their learning and act with integrity as professionals and as learners.

My intention with these activities is to offer students an opportunity to engage in ways other than text that is authentic and interesting. The process of reflecting on readings is different when we engage verbally than in writing. We are still using text-based elements of the course such as replies to weekly posts, but so far, video seems to providing a fun-yet-rigorous way for students to showcase their learning.

References:

Curtis, G. J., & Clare, J. (2017). How prevalent is contract cheating and to what extent are students repeat offenders? Journal of Academic Ethics, 15(2), 115-124. doi:10.1007/s10805-017-9278-x

Kumar Basak, S., Wotto, M., & Bélanger, P. (2018). E-learning, M-learning and D-learning: Conceptual definition and comparative analysis. E-Learning and Digital Media, 15(4), 191-216. doi:10.1177/204275301878518

______________________________________________________

Share or Tweet this: Using video posts to promote engagement in online graduate learning

This blog has had over 2 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 is a faculty member in the Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, Canada.

Opinions are my own and do not represent those of the Werklund School of Education or the University of Calgary.


Living Reading List for Language Learning and Technology

July 3, 2018

U of C logo - 2015I am trying something a little different with my course readings for the Master of Education summer course I am teaching, Language Learning and Technology, a living reading list.

We are required to list the course readings in our syllabus. This helps keep everyone organized and allows students to be fully prepared for their course. The problem is that many of our students are eager change agents who often bring in additional resources that everyone finds useful. So in addition to including a basic set of readings in the course outline, I will update this post throughout the course as a living list of readings, with contributions of gems we find along the way to promote co-creation of knowledge with and along side these very capable graduate students.

Official course materials (as posted in the syllabus)

This page contains a list of all your course readings. One of the readings is no longer freely available on the Internet, but I have posted it below as a .pdf, under Fair Dealing, as approved by the University of Calgary Copyright office.

Required text

Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. (2010). (Sixth ed.). Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association.

Week 3 Readings

Benson, S. K. & Ward, C. L. (2013). Teaching with technology: Using TPACK to understand teaching expertise in online higher education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48 (2), 153-172. doi:10.2190/EC.48.2.c

Harris, J. B., & Hofer, M. J. (2011). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in action: A descriptive study of secondary teachers’; curriculum-based, technology-related instructional planning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(3), 211-229. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ918905.pdf

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Too cool for school? No way! Using the TPACK framework: You can have your hot tools and teach with them, too. Learning & Leading with Technology, 36(7), 14-18. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ839143.pdf

Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Kereluik, K. (2009). Looking back to the future of educational technology. TechTrends, 53(5), 48-53.

Romrell, D., Kidder, L., & Wood, E. (2014). The SAMR Model as a Framework for Evaluating mLearning. Online Learning: Official Journal Of The Online Learning Consortium, 18(2). Retrieved from https://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj/article/view/435

van Olphen, M. (2008). World language teacher education and educational technology: A look into CK, PCK, and TPACK. Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA).

Week 4 Readings

Gaebel, M. (2013). MOOCs: Massive open online courses. European University Association Occasional Papers, 2-17. Retrieved from http://www.eua.be/news/13-02-25/Massive_Open_Online_Courses_MOOCs_EUA_to_look_at_development_of_MOOCs_and_trends_in_innovative_learning.aspx

Ham, J.J., & Schnabel, M.A. (2011). Web 2.0 virtual design studio: social networking as facilitator of design education. Architectural Science Review(54)2, 108-116. Doi: 10.1080/00038628.2011.582369.

Marshall, S. (2014.)  Exploring the ethical implications of MOOCs. Distance Education(35)2, 250-262. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2014.917706.

U.S. Department of State Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. (n.d.). MOOC for English-Teaching Professionals. Retrieved from http://www.americanenglish.state.gov/mooc-english-teaching-professionals

Week 5 Readings

Cornillie, F., Thorne, S. L., & Desmet, P. (eds.) (2012). Digital games for language learning: Challenges and opportunities. ReCALL Journal, 24(3).doi:10.1017/S0958344012000134

deHaan, J., Kuwada, K., & Ree, W. M. (2010). The effect of interactivity with a music video game on second language vocabulary recall. Language, Learning & Technology, 14(2), 74+. Retrieved from http://www.lltjournal.org/item/2689

Mifsud, C. L., Vella, R., & Camilleri, L. (2013). Attitudes towards and effects of the use of video games in classroom learning with specific reference to literacy attainment. Research In Education, 90(90), 32+.

Reinders, H. & Wattana, S. (2014).  Can I say something? The effects of digital game play on willingness to communicate.  Language Learning and Technology, 18(2). Retrieved from http://www.lltjournal.org/item/2858

Additional Resources

This part of the list contains the additional resources that the students and I collaboratively added throughout the course:

Alharbi, H., & Jacobsen, M. (2017). Tracking the Design and Development of a Six Module miniMOOC for Quality Graduate Supervision Paper presented at the AECT Annual Conference. Retrieved from https://members.aect.org/pdf/Proceedings/proceedings17/2017/17_04.pdf

Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2011). Understanding cognitive presence in an online and blended community of inquiry: Assessing outcomes and processes for deep approaches to learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(2), 233-250.

Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teacher presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1-17.

Barber, M., Donnelly K., & Rizvi S. (2013). An avalanche is coming. Higher education and the revolution ahead. Retrieved from Institute for Public Policy website: http://www.ippr.org/publications/an-avalanche-is-coming-higher-education-andthe-revolution-ahead

Bralić, A., & Divjak, B. (2018). Integrating MOOCs in traditionally taught courses: Achieving learning outcomes with blended learning. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), 1-16.

Cagiltay, N. E., Ozcelik, E., & Ozcelik, N. S. (2015). The effect of competition on learning in games. Computers & Education, 87(1), 35-41.

Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational Strategies in the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Common Sense Education. (2016, July, 12). How to apply the SAMR model with Ruben Puentedura. .  Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQTx2UQQvbU

Common Sense Media. (2018). Digital Citizenship. Retrieved July 18, 2018, from https://www.commonsense.org/education/digital-citizenship

Duenas, M. (2004). The whats, whys, hows and whos of content-based instruction in second/foreign language education. International Journal of English Studies, 4(1), 73-96.

Eaton, S. E. (2011). The Need For Increased Integration of Technology and Digital Skills in the Literacy Field in Canada  Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED526087.pdf

Eaton, S. E. (2012). Why some teachers will never love technology (and that’s O.K.).  Retrieved from https://drsaraheaton.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/why-some-teachers-will-never-love-technology-and-thats-o-k/

Gaebel, M. (2013). MOOCs: Massive open online courses. European University Association Occasional Papers, 2-17. Retrieved from http://www.eua.be/news/13-02-25/Massive_Open_Online_Courses_MOOCs_EUA_to_look_at_development_of_MOOCs_and_trends_in_innovative_learning.aspx

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1). doi:10.1080/08923640109527071

Garrison, D. R., & Akyol, Z. (2013). Toward the development of a metacognition construct for communities of inquiry. The Internet and Higher Education, 17, 84-89.

Golonka, E.M., Bowles, A. R., Frank, V.M., Richardson, D.L., & Freynik, S. (2014). Technologies for Foreign Language Learning: A Review of Technology Types and Their Effectiveness. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(1), 70-105.

Hai-Jew, S. (2010). An instructional design approach to updating an online course curriculum. Educause Review Online. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/instructional-design-approach-updating-online-course-curriculum

Hoban, G. & Neilson, W. (2014).  Creating a narrated stop-motion animation to explain science: The affordances of “Slowmation” for generating discussion.  Teaching and Teacher Education42(1), 68-78. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.04.007

Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hutchison, A., Beschorner, B., & Schmidt-Crawford, D. (2012). Exploring the use of the iPad for literacy learning. The Reading Teacher, 66(1), 15.

Jacobs, G., & Farrell, T. (2003). Understanding and implementing the CLT (Communicative Language Teaching) paradigm. RELC Journal, 34(1), 5-30.

Keat, Jane B., Strickland, Martha J., & Marinak, Barbara A. (2009). Child Voice: How Immigrant Children Enlightened Their Teachers with a Camera. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37(1).

Korda, R J, Clements, M S, & Dixon, J. (2011). Socioeconomic inequalities in the diffusion of health technology: Uptake of coronary procedures as an exampleSocial Science & Medicine 72(2). 222-22. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.11.002

Kumar Basak, S., Wotto, M., & Bélanger, P. (2018). E-learning, M-learning and D-learning: Conceptual definition and comparative analysis. E-Learning and Digital Media, 15(4), 191-216. doi:10.1177/2042753018785180

Liu, E. Z. (2011). Avoiding internet addiction when integrating digital games into Teaching. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 39(10), 1325-1335. doi:10.2224/sbp.2011.39.10.1325

Martin, A. R. (2015). Is MOOC madness here to stay? an institutional legitimacy study of employers (Order No. 3714173).

Mifsud, C. L., Vella, R., & Camilleri, L. (2013). Attitudes towards and effects of the use of video games in classroom learning with specific reference to literacy attainment. Research In Education, 90(90), 32+. Retrieved from  http://journals.sagepub.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/doi/abs/10.7227/RIE.90.1.3

Museelwhite, C., Martson, H. R. and Freeman, S. (2016). From needy and dependent to  independent homo ludens: Exploring digital gaming and older people. Games and Aging.   11 (1), 3-6. DOI: 10.1177/1555412015605220

Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: How the new personalized web is changing what we read and how we think. New York: Penguin Books.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants (part 1). On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816

Rogers, E. (1997). Diffusion of human factors design: Resistances and how to overcome them. Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society…annual meeting, 1(1). Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/doi/pdf/10.1177/107118139704100101

Stoller, F. (2008). Content-based instruction (N. V. Deusen-Scholl & N. H. Hornberger, Eds.). In Encyclopedia of language and education (Vol. 4, Second and foreign language education, pp. 59-70). New York: Springer.

Turow, J. (2013). The daily you: How the new advertising industry is defining your identity and your worth. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Wu, I. X. Y. ; Kee, J. C. Y. ; Threapleton, D. E. ; Ma, R. C. W. ; Lam, V. C. K. ; Lee, E. K. P., Wong, S. Y. S. & Chung, V. C. H.(2018). Effectiveness of smartphone technologies on glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes: systematic review with meta-analysis of  17 trials. Obesity Reviews. 19(6), p.825-838.

 

______________________________________________________

Share or Tweet this: Living Reading List for Language Learning and Technology https://wp.me/pNAh3-2jW

This blog has had over 2 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 is a faculty member in the Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, Canada.

Opinions are my own and do not represent those of the Werklund School of Education or the University of Calgary.


New article: Self-Plagiarism Research in the Social Sciences: A Scoping Review

July 3, 2018

Self-Plagiarism article

The issue about self-plagiarism among graduate students has been a hot topic among colleagues for some time. About a year and a half ago, my co-author and I embarked a journey to find out what the research said about it. We opted to conduct a scoping review, with a focus on social sciences broadly.

Our results were recently published in Interchange. The abstract below gives you some highlights and if you’re interested in more, the citation that follows has a link to view the entire article online.

Abstract

Self-plagiarism is a contentious issue in higher education, research and scholarly publishing contexts. The practice is problematic because it disrupts scientific publishing by over-emphasizing results, increasing journal publication costs, and artificially inflating journal impact, among other consequences. We hypothesized that there was a dearth of empirical studies on the topic of self-plagiarism, with an over-abundance of editorial and commentary articles based on anecdotal evidence. The research question was: What typologies of evidence characterize the literature on self-plagiarism in scholarly and research journals? We conducted a scoping review, using the search terms “self-plagiarism” and “self-plagiarism” (hyphenated), consulting five social sciences research databases, supplemented by a manual search for articles, resulting in over 5900 results. After removing duplicates and excluding non-scholarly sources, we arrived at a data set of 133 sources, with publication dates ranging from 1968 to 2017. With an interrater reliability of over 93% between two researchers, our typological analysis revealed 47 sources (34.3%) were editorials; 41 (29.9%) were conceptual research (including teaching cases); 16 (11.7%) were editorial responses; 12 (8.6%) were secondary research; and only 8 sources (5.8%) were primary research. There is little guidance in the available literature to graduate students or their professors about how to disentangle the complexities of self-plagiarism. With primary and secondary research combined accounting for 14.4% of overall contributions to the data set, and primary research constituting only 6% of overall contributions, we conclude with a call for more empirical evidence on the topic to support contributions to the scholarly dialogue.

You can read a full copy of the article online here: https://rdcu.be/YR5u

Here’s the full citation for the Online First version: Eaton, S. E., & Crossman, K. (2018). Self-plagiarism research literature in the social sciences: A scoping review. Interchange: A Quarterly Review of Education, 1-27. Retrieved from https://rdcu.be/YR5u doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s1078

______________________________________________________

Share or Tweet this: New article: Self-Plagiarism Research in the Social Sciences: A Scoping Review https://wp.me/pNAh3-2jC

This blog has had over 2 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 is a faculty member in the Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, Canada.

Opinions are my own and do not represent those of the Werklund School of Education or the University of Calgary.


%d bloggers like this: