Tag Archives: plagiarism

AI and academic integrity

I’ve been using AI to add images to my blog since June of 2022 when I discovered AI generated art: DALL•E. I don’t credit it, I just use it, and find it much easier to generate than to find royalty free alternatives. I haven’t yet used AI as a writing or editing tool on my blog. While I’m sure it would make my writing better, I am writing to write, and I usually do so early in the morning and have limited time.

I already have to limit the time I spend creating an image, if I also had to use AI to edit and revise my work I’d probably only have 15-20 minutes to write… and I write to write, not to use an AI to write or edit for me. That said, I’m not disparaging anyone who uses AI to edit, I think it’s useful and will sometimes use it on emails, I simply don’t want that to be how I spend my (limited) writing time.

I really like the way Chris Kennedy both uses AI and also credits it on his blog. For example, in his recent post, ‘Could AI Reduce Student Technology Use?’ Chris ends with a disclosure: “For this post, I used several AI tools (Chat GPT, Claude, Magic School) as feedback helpers to refine my thinking and assist in the editing process.”

Related side note, I commented on that post,

The magic sauce lies in this part of your post:
“AI won’t automatically shift the focus to human connection—we have to intentionally design learning environments that prioritize it. This involves rethinking instruction, supporting teachers, and ensuring that we use AI as a tool to enhance, not replace, the human elements of education.”

A simple example: I think about the time my teachers spend making students think about formatting their PowerPoint slides, think about colour pallets, theme, aesthetics, and of course messaging… and wonder what they lose in presentation preparation when AI just pumps out a slide or even whole presentation for them? 

“Enhance but not replace,” this is the key, and yet this post really strikes a chord with me because the focus is not just the learning but the human connection, and I think if that is the focus it doesn’t matter if the use of technology is more, less, or the same, what matters is that the activities we do enrich how we engage with each other in the learning.

Take the time to read Chris’ post. He is really thinking deeply about how to use AI effectively in classrooms.

However I’m thinking about the reality that it is a lot harder today to know when a student is using AI to avoid thinking and working. Actually, it’s not just about work avoidance, it’s also about chasing marks. Admittance to university has gotten significantly more challenging, and students care a lot about getting an extra 2-5% in their courses because that difference could mean getting into their choice university or not. So incentives are high… and our ability to detect AI use is getting a lot harder.

Yes, there are AI detectors that we can use, but I could write a complex sentence in three different ways, put it into an AI detector, and one version could say ‘Not AI’, one could say 50% chance that it was written by AI and the third version might say 80% chance of AI… all written by me. 20 years ago, I’d read a complex sentence written in my Grade 8 English class and think, ‘That’s not this kid’s work’. So, I’d put the sentence in quotes in the Google search bar and out would pop the source. When AI is generating the text, the detection is not nearly as simple.

Case in point: ‘The Backlash Against AI Accusations’, and shared in that post, ‘She lost her scholarship over an AI allegation — and it impacted her mental health’. And while I can remember the craze about making assignments ‘Google proof’ by asking questions that can’t easily be answered with Google searches, it is getting significantly harder to create an ‘AI proof’ assessment… and I’d argue that this is getting even harder on a daily basis with AI advances.

Essentially, it’s becoming a simple set of questions that students need to be facing: Do you want to learn this? Do you want to formulate your ideas and improve your thinking? Or do you just want AI to do it for you? The challenge is, if a kid doesn’t care, or if they care more about their mark than their learning, it’s going to be hard to prove they used AI even if you believe they did.

Are there ways to catch students? Yes. But for every example I can think of, I can also think about ways to avoid detection. Here is one example: Microsoft Word documents have version tracking. As a teacher I can look at versions and see large swaths of cut-and-paste sections of writing to ‘prove’ the student is cheating. However, a student could say, “I wrote that part on my phone and sent it to myself to add to the essay”. Or a savvy student could use AI but type the work in rather than pasting it in. All this to say that if a kid really wants to use AI, in many cases they can get away with it.

So what’s the best way to battle this? I’m not sure? What I do know is that taking the policing and detecting approach is a losing battle. Here are my ‘simple to say’ but ‘not so simple to execute’ ideas:

  1. The final product matters less than the process. Have ideation, drafts, and discussions count towards the final grade.
  2. Foster collaboration, have components of the work depend on other student input. Examples include interviews, or reflections of work presented in class, where context matters.
  3. Inject appropriate use of AI into an assignment, so that students learn to use it appropriately and effectively.

Will this prevent inappropriate AI use. No, but it will make the effort to use AI almost as hard as just doing the work. In the end, if a kid wants to use it, it will be harder and harder to detect, so the best strategy is to create assignments that are engaging and fun to do, which also meet the learning objectives that are required… Again, easier said than done.

What are you outsourcing?

Alec Couros recently came to Coquitlam and gave a presentation on “The Promise and Challenges of Generative AI”. In this presentation he had a quote, “Outsource tasks, but not your thinking.

I just googled it and found this LinkedIn post by Aodan Enright. (Worth reading but not directly connected to the use of AI.)

It’s incredible what is possible with AI… and it’s just getting better. People are starting businesses, writing books, creating new recipes, and in the case of students, writing essays and doing homework. I just saw a TikTok of a student who goes to their lecture and records it, runs it through AI to take out all the salient points, then has the AI tool create cue cards and test questions to help them study for upcoming tests. That’s pretty clever.

What’s also clever, but perhaps now wise, is having an AI tool write an essay for you, then running the essay through a paraphraser that breaks the AI structure of the essay so that it isn’t detectable by AI detectors. If you have the AI use the vocabulary of a high school student, and throw in a couple run-on sentences, then you’ve got an essay which not only AI detectors but teachers too would be hard pressed to accuse you of cheating. However, what have you learned?

This a worthy point to think about, and to discuss with students: How do you use AI to make your tasks easier, but not do the thinking for you? 

Because if you are using AI to do your thinking, you are essentially learning how to make yourself redundant in a world of ever-smarter AI. Don’t outsource your thinking… Keep your thinking cap on!

“More Free” #OpenEdMooc Week 2

Part 1 – The commons

Understanding Free Cultural Works

Creative Commons provides a range of licenses, each of which grants different rights to use the materials licensed under them. All of these licenses offer more permissions than “all rights reserved.”

To help show more clearly what the different CC licenses let people do, CC marks the most permissive of its licenses as “Approved for Free Cultural Works.” When you apply these licenses to material you create, it meets the Freedom Defined definition of a “Free Cultural Work.” Free cultural works are the ones that can be most readily used, shared, and remixed by others, and go furthest toward creating a commons of freely reusable materials.

What does “Approved for Free Cultural Works” mean?

CC uses the definition of free cultural works at Freedom Defined to categorize the CC licenses. (Freedom Defined is an open organization of free culture advocates and researchers; the definition was developed by its community as a parallel to efforts such as the Free Software Definition, to have a standard for defining Free Culture.) Using that definition, material licensed under CC BY or BY-SA is a free cultural work. (So is anything in the worldwide public domain marked with CC0or the Public Domain Mark.) CC’s other licenses– BY-NCBY-NDBY-NC-SA, and BY-NC-ND–only allow more limited uses, and material under these licenses is not considered a free cultural work.

https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/freeworks 

Part 2 – Stephen Downes

However

According to Stephen Downes: (On the topic of CC-BY-NC and CC-BY-NC-SA licenses)

FREE AND NOT FREE 

  • licenses that allow commercial use are less freet han those that do not, because they allow commercial entities to charge fees for access, to lock them behind digital locks, and to append conditions that prohibit their reuse
  • works licensed with a Non-commercial clause are fully and equally open educational resources, and are in many cases the only OERs actually accessible to people (because the content allowing commercial use tends to have costs associated with it)
  • the supposition that works that cost money can be ‘free’ is a trick of language, a fallacy that fools contributors into sharing for commercial use content they intended to make available to the world without charge the lobby very loudly making the case for commercial-friendly licenses and recommending that NC content be shunned consists almost entirely of commercial publishers and related interests seeking to make money off (no-longer) ‘free’ content.

“…people may attach licenses allowing commercial use to their work if they wish. I have no objection to this. But such people should cease and desist their ongoing campaign to have works that are non-commercial in intent, and free in distribution, classified as ‘not free’. Content that cannot be enclosed within a paywall, and cannot be distributed with commercial encumbrances attached, is just as free – indeed, more free– than so-called ‘free’ commercial content.”

http://halfanhour.blogspot.ca/2012/11/free-and-not-free.html

Part 3 – My Reflection

Is BY-NC-SA ‘more free’ than the commons page above suggests?

Before going into this, I want to first state that I believe “No Derivatives” is very closed. If you can’t build on previous work, the work is being locked down.

With respect to By-NC-SA, I predominately use this for things that I share. That said, my default for family photos tends to be full Copyright when I can (on sites such as Flickr). But for educational work that I create, I use By-NC-SA specifically because I think this makes my work ‘More Free”.

Continuing on a personal note, I have gone after a few people that have shared my work in inappropriate ways. For a while, my ‘Pair-a-Dimes’ blog was ranked very high on Google, I’m not sure what I was doing right, but since then Google has gotten wiser, and my ranking has plummeted. Before that happened, my Statement Educational Philosophy was on the first page for many searches, and often one of the first 3 hits. As a result, it is pretty well read, and unfortunately, fairly well plagiarized too. A search of just the first sentence in quotes will give you a listing of some appropriately and some appropriated copies of that sentence. Other sentences in quotes will find more of the same.

In most cases, I roll my eyes and try to take it as flattery, but in 3 specific instances I have gone after people:

  1. A student teacher that took my work then added fake references to make it seem like it was a research paper she had written, when every word of the work was mine.
  2. A professor that had all his copyrighted work linked to his page where he shared my philosophy as his own.
  3. A “Buy Essays” site that was offering a heavily copied version of my work for sale.

I have also (inadvertently) found my work behind paywalls or in moodle courses that I don’t have access too, but I have not gone after these uses, although they are the very reason that I think BY-NC-SA is more free than other licences. In the case of a Moodle course, it is likely that the students in the course had to pay to get into the course, and rather than linking to my work, it is copied and the Share-Alike aspect is not respected, and since I can’t see the work, I’m not even sure if it is attributed to me?

So that is a look at my personal experience with work being copied. I’m honoured by some of the ways things I’ve written have been quoted, and shared, but I also want that sharing to be as ‘Open’ as I have been, and I think that making work Non-Commercial does that. It keeps the work in the open, and not where others can profit in the process of withholding what should be free.

In fact, I absolutely love it when someone takes one of my ideas and runs with it… expands on it, and yes, even disagrees with it. When conversations like this happen out in the open, we all benefit.

So when Seth Godin shares, “Why I want you to steal my ideas“, I totally understand what he means:

“Ideas can’t be stolen, because ideas don’t get smaller when they’re shared, they get bigger…

There is, of course, a difference between stealing and passing off. When you pretend that those taken words are your words, you’re no longer taking an idea — you’re taking an implementation. When you pretend that you are the originator, the original source, and you’re not, you’ve corrupted your work by claiming authorship, when you are merely contributing synthesis. This hurts your reputation as well as the person you stole from, because our society values authorship and origination.

The amazing thing about giving credit, though, is you never run out. Like ideas, the more credit is shared, the more it can be worth, to the giver and to the recipient.”

If a work can not be used in a way that closes it off for commercial reasons, without consent, then isn’t that ‘more free’ that a work that is only attributed, but then used and re-used on walled websites or in courses or programs or presentations that cost money?

Originally, I had intended to redo this image, rather than write a blog post. However, I’m not sure that I would know how to order this with BY-NC-SA being ‘more free’?

And yes, it was Stephen Downes and not me that came up with the idea of this being ‘more free’.

And yes, I want any good ideas that I might have to be ‘stolen’ in the way Seth Godin wants his to be as well. 

I’ve benefited from open sharing and learning and I want others to be able to do the same.