The Scholarship of Technology Enhanced Cheating

Phillip Dawson
{"title":"The Scholarship of Technology Enhanced Cheating","authors":"Phillip Dawson","doi":"10.24135/pjtel.v4i1.150","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Scholarship of Technology Enhanced Learning, and the Scholarship of Learning and Teaching more broadly, tends to focus on positive stories of things that work (Dawson & Dawson, 2018). We have an interest in learning and want to share strategies we have found to be successful. A similar parallel can be drawn with the field of academic integrity, in that it too is a field with a focus on a positive thing: students’ capabilities and actions that demonstrate they can and do act in the way we want them to. \nDelving into the negative is unpleasant. It can require an adversarial mindset (Dawson, 2021), similar to the type used in cybersecurity (Craigen et al., 2014). Scholars of cheating can be portrayed by the media as undercover sleuths (e.g. Cook, 2018). On the flipside, those who question the technologies used to detect or deter cheating can face legal action by vendors. In my own work I have had to step very carefully, having been warned that studies where I try to empirically check if anti-cheating technologies work may not be legal without the support of their vendors. Cheating and anti-cheating scholarship is a charged, risky place to be. \nThis presentation explores cheating and technology. Drawing on a recent synthesis of research from cybersecurity, artificial intelligence and game studies (Dawson, 2021), it discusses what the current state of cheating is, and where it is likely to be in the near future – as well as the types of scholarship that we need to address the problem of technology-enhanced cheating. \nReferences \nCook, H. (2018, 13 November 2018). Academics go undercover to spot the telltale signs of a cheater. The Age. https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/academics-go-undercover-to-spot-the-telltale-signs-of-a-cheater-20181113-p50fng.html \nCraigen, D., Diakun-Thibault, N., & Purse, R. (2014). Defining cybersecurity. Technology Innovation Management Review, 4(10), 13-21. \nDawson, P. (2021). Defending assessment security in a digital world: preventing e-cheating and supporting academic integrity in higher education. Routledge. \nDawson, P., & Dawson, S. L. (2018). Sharing successes and hiding failures: ‘reporting bias’ in learning and teaching research. Studies in Higher Education, 43(8), 1405-1416. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1258052","PeriodicalId":384031,"journal":{"name":"Pacific Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pacific Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24135/pjtel.v4i1.150","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Scholarship of Technology Enhanced Learning, and the Scholarship of Learning and Teaching more broadly, tends to focus on positive stories of things that work (Dawson & Dawson, 2018). We have an interest in learning and want to share strategies we have found to be successful. A similar parallel can be drawn with the field of academic integrity, in that it too is a field with a focus on a positive thing: students’ capabilities and actions that demonstrate they can and do act in the way we want them to. Delving into the negative is unpleasant. It can require an adversarial mindset (Dawson, 2021), similar to the type used in cybersecurity (Craigen et al., 2014). Scholars of cheating can be portrayed by the media as undercover sleuths (e.g. Cook, 2018). On the flipside, those who question the technologies used to detect or deter cheating can face legal action by vendors. In my own work I have had to step very carefully, having been warned that studies where I try to empirically check if anti-cheating technologies work may not be legal without the support of their vendors. Cheating and anti-cheating scholarship is a charged, risky place to be. This presentation explores cheating and technology. Drawing on a recent synthesis of research from cybersecurity, artificial intelligence and game studies (Dawson, 2021), it discusses what the current state of cheating is, and where it is likely to be in the near future – as well as the types of scholarship that we need to address the problem of technology-enhanced cheating. References Cook, H. (2018, 13 November 2018). Academics go undercover to spot the telltale signs of a cheater. The Age. https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/academics-go-undercover-to-spot-the-telltale-signs-of-a-cheater-20181113-p50fng.html Craigen, D., Diakun-Thibault, N., & Purse, R. (2014). Defining cybersecurity. Technology Innovation Management Review, 4(10), 13-21. Dawson, P. (2021). Defending assessment security in a digital world: preventing e-cheating and supporting academic integrity in higher education. Routledge. Dawson, P., & Dawson, S. L. (2018). Sharing successes and hiding failures: ‘reporting bias’ in learning and teaching research. Studies in Higher Education, 43(8), 1405-1416. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1258052
科技奖学金助长了作弊
技术促进学习的学术研究,以及更广泛的学习与教学的学术研究,倾向于关注有效事物的积极故事(Dawson & Dawson, 2018)。我们对学习很感兴趣,想要分享我们发现的成功策略。学术诚信也是一个类似的领域,因为它也是一个关注积极事物的领域:学生的能力和行动表明他们能够并且确实按照我们希望的方式行事。钻研消极的东西是不愉快的。它可能需要一种对抗的心态(Dawson, 2021),类似于网络安全中使用的类型(Craigen et al., 2014)。研究作弊的学者可以被媒体描绘成卧底侦探(例如Cook, 2018)。另一方面,那些质疑用于检测或阻止作弊的技术的人可能会面临供应商的法律诉讼。在我自己的工作中,我必须非常小心,因为有人警告我,如果没有供应商的支持,我试图通过经验检验反作弊技术是否有效的研究可能是不合法的。作弊和反作弊奖学金是一个充满风险的地方。这个演讲探讨了欺骗和技术。根据最近对网络安全、人工智能和游戏研究的综合研究(Dawson, 2021),它讨论了作弊的现状,以及在不久的将来可能出现的情况,以及我们需要解决技术增强作弊问题的奖学金类型。Cook, H.(2018,2018年11月13日)。学者们卧底去发现作弊者的蛛丝马迹。的年龄。https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/academics-go-undercover-to-spot-the-telltale-signs-of-a-cheater-20181113-p50fng.html Craigen, D., Diakun-Thibault, N., & Purse, R.(2014)。定义网络安全。科技创新管理,4(10),13-21。道森,P.(2021)。在数字世界中捍卫评估安全:防止电子作弊和支持高等教育的学术诚信。劳特利奇。道森,P.,和道森,S. L.(2018)。分享成功和隐藏失败:学习和教学研究中的“报告偏见”。高等教育研究,43(8),1405-1416。https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1258052
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信