Understanding constructive use of authoritative sources.
I teach Art History online with a wide range of learners, through NetNZ. My learners are diverse. They come from a range of schools (special character, area school, urban, rural etc), deciles (there is a wide range), locations and are guided by a range of different values. With such diversity, there is a huge range of learning and life experiences.
What we do in our class is framed around community and knowledge building (2017). We are guided by knowledge building principles such as idea diversity, community construction of knowledge, community ownership of ideas, and constructive use of authoritative sources. This is a mindset shift for students whose experience of learning has been individual and internal.
The concept of communal knowledge can be confusing for students and needs to handled very carefully. The idea is that once an idea has been shared with the community, it can be developed and improved by the entire community. The skill is developing a mindset of asking explanation driven questions and critical thinking. A Knowledge Building Community should enhance depth, originality and idea advancement (Lai and Pullar, 2014) when it is functioning really well.
However not all students understand academic etiquette, therefore we need to directly address the constructive use of authoritative sources, intellectual property and general good academic practice.
An ethical dilemma I have previously encountered was a student who didn't have a good handle on this and had plagiarised a section of a text word for word in a part of their assignment, without acknowledgement that they had done so. This presented a problem. How to best support the student, whilst maintaining professional integrity. Hall's ethical problem solving mode (2001) offers guidance for navigating ethical problems. He asks teachers to consider what their professional obligations (above personal values) are and to consider what we owe students and the wider community when weighing up contentious issues. So what would be lost if plagiarism and theft of intellectual property were not addressed and what are the possible impacts for students when addressing plagiarism.
There is clear and supportive guidance to navigate this issue. At a national level the Education Council Code of Practice is underpinned by the value of Pono. "showing integrity by acting in ways that are fair, honest, ethical and just." Further to this intellectual dishonesty is in disharmony with the principles of knowledge building (Scardamalia, 2002), which ask for "respect and understanding of authoritative sources, combined with a critical stance toward them. " To respect the knowledge building process, students need to acknowledge sources and develop a critical position. To wholesale present a sources' ideas as ones own is profoundly lacking in respect.
There is clear and supportive guidance to navigate this issue. At a national level the Education Council Code of Practice is underpinned by the value of Pono. "showing integrity by acting in ways that are fair, honest, ethical and just." Further to this intellectual dishonesty is in disharmony with the principles of knowledge building (Scardamalia, 2002), which ask for "respect and understanding of authoritative sources, combined with a critical stance toward them. " To respect the knowledge building process, students need to acknowledge sources and develop a critical position. To wholesale present a sources' ideas as ones own is profoundly lacking in respect.
It was not an option to ignore the intellectual dishonesty. This would have lacked integrity and a disservice to my students and to the art history community.
The ethical and just action was to address the plagiarism. The dilemma then became how to address it. As I saw it there were a range of options. Option a would be to inform the student and their eDean that I was failing them outright for plagiarism with no reassessment opportunities. Option b would be to inform the student that they did not achieve due to plagiarism and that they would need to address and rewrite the plagiarised section of their assignment before it could be resubmitted. Option c would be to do as I would in option b, but to also examine as a class how constructive and respectful use of sources can enhance our critical understanding of an idea. I was guided here by institutional policy. NetNZ requires that we assess work according to NZQA requirements and that receiver (home) schools assist with ensuring authenticity of work "this may include helping investigate any situation where authenticity of student work is brought into question" (NetNZ ,2017).This led me to examine NZQA's conditions of assessment for level 3 art history. "Authenticity of student evidence needs to be assured regardless of the method of collecting evidence ... Any texts used must be acknowledged or referenced ...Where manageable, one further assessment opportunity may be made available for all students " (NZQA, conditions of assessement, n.d.)
The ethical and just action was to address the plagiarism. The dilemma then became how to address it. As I saw it there were a range of options. Option a would be to inform the student and their eDean that I was failing them outright for plagiarism with no reassessment opportunities. Option b would be to inform the student that they did not achieve due to plagiarism and that they would need to address and rewrite the plagiarised section of their assignment before it could be resubmitted. Option c would be to do as I would in option b, but to also examine as a class how constructive and respectful use of sources can enhance our critical understanding of an idea. I was guided here by institutional policy. NetNZ requires that we assess work according to NZQA requirements and that receiver (home) schools assist with ensuring authenticity of work "this may include helping investigate any situation where authenticity of student work is brought into question" (NetNZ ,2017).This led me to examine NZQA's conditions of assessment for level 3 art history. "Authenticity of student evidence needs to be assured regardless of the method of collecting evidence ... Any texts used must be acknowledged or referenced ...Where manageable, one further assessment opportunity may be made available for all students " (NZQA, conditions of assessement, n.d.)
This provided clarity for the situation. I absolutely needed to highlight to the student and the receiving school that plagiarism had occurred. I was not obligated to offer a reassessment opportunity. However failing the student with no further assessment opportunities was an avenue that I was reluctant to pursue as an eTeacher as I only saw my students once a week (and even then online). If I were to deny them an opportunity to rectify the situation there would be a high risk of the student disengaging entirely from the course. The course of action I took was option b, to offer the student a chance to resubmit work that was their own and to remark the work. If I were to be in this situation again I would proceed with option c to address gaps in understanding how to critically engage with authoritative sources. This situation was a learning experience for me. It became really apparent that knowledge building principles need to be embedded and well understood within our classroom practice. This wasn't just going to 'happen'. "If a KBC is to be effectively set up in a class then a good understanding of the knowledge building principles is essential." (Lai, 2014) Orientating students towards Knowledge Building principles and academic best practice has become a part of our course.
Reference List:
Hall, A. (2001). What ought I to do, all things considered? An approach to the exploration of ethical problems by teachers. Paper presented at the IIPE Conference, Brisbane. Retrieved from http://www.educationalleaders.govt.nz/Culture/Developing-leaders/What-Ought-I-to-Do-All-Things-Considered-An-Approach-to-the-Exploration-of-Ethical-Problems-by-Teachers
Knowledge Building Gallery. (n.d.). Introduction. Retrieved from http://thelearningexchange.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/KB-Gallery-0-Introduction-Accessible.pdf
NZQA. (2016). NCEA level 3 art history, Conditions of assessment. Retrieved from NZQA website: https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=ncea.tki.org.nz/content/download/3380/10837/file/arthist_CoA_L3_jan16.doc
Reference List:
Hall, A. (2001). What ought I to do, all things considered? An approach to the exploration of ethical problems by teachers. Paper presented at the IIPE Conference, Brisbane. Retrieved from http://www.educationalleaders.govt.nz/Culture/Developing-leaders/What-Ought-I-to-Do-All-Things-Considered-An-Approach-to-the-Exploration-of-Ethical-Problems-by-Teachers
Knowledge Building Gallery. (n.d.). Introduction. Retrieved from http://thelearningexchange.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/KB-Gallery-0-Introduction-Accessible.pdf
Lai, Kwok-Wing, & Pullar, Ken. (2014). Designing knowledge building communities in secondary schools.
NetNZ. (2017). NetNZ Memorandum of Understanding. Retrieved October 27, 2017, from https://docs.google.com/document/d/16TJsi60eavaipoJ-dB_FD2hKbxlbjQaKTehuZdeZ0MY/edit
Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67–98). Chicago: Open Court.
