2023-03-22 Édouard Montpetit

Comment fermer la porte au plagiat avec des consignes et des critères d’évaluation qui favorisent l’intégrité académique?

Références pour l’atelier du 22 mars, 2023

Martine Peters, Université du Québec en Outaouais

Références extraites des diapositives:

Diapositive 3 : Pour avoir toute l’information

Diapositive 4 : Site web du PUPP

  • Partenariat universitaire sur la prévention du plagiat. (2022). Page consultée : 2023-02-14. https://pupp.uqo.ca/

Diapositive 6 : La pandémie

  • Fortier, M. (2020, 26 août). Le confinement a profité aux cégépiens tricheurs. Le Devoir.

Diapositive 17 : Ce que nous savons

Diapositive 19 : Définition du plagiat

  • Walker, J. (2010). Measuring plagiarism: researching what students do, not what they say they do. Studies in Higher Education, 35(1), 41-59.
  • Kakkonen, T., & Mozgovoy, M. (2010). Hermetic and Web plagiarism detection systems for student essays – an evaluation of the state of the art. Journal Educational Computing Research, 42(2), 135-159.

Diapositive 20 : Les dictionnaires

Diapositive 21 : Définition de l’intégrité académique

  • Fishman, T. (2016). Academic integrity as an educational concept, concern, and movement in US institutions of higher learning. Handbook of academic integrity, 7-21.

Diapositive 22 : Pourquoi enseigner comment faire des travaux avec intégrité?

  • Baruchson-Arbib, S., & Yaari, E. (2004). Printed versus internet plagiarism: a study of students’ perception. International Journal of Information Ethics, 1(1), 1-6.
  • McGowan, S., & Lightbody, M. (2008). Enhancing Students’ Understanding of Plagiarism within a Discipline Context. Accounting Education: an international journal, 17(3), 273-290.
  • Mittermeyer, D., & Quirion, D. (2003). Étude sur les connaissances en recherche documentaire des étudiants entrant au 1er cycle dans les universités québécoises. Conférence des recteurs et des principaux des universités du Québec.

Diapositive 24 : Pourquoi enseigner comment faire des travaux avec intégrité?

  • Giezendanner, F. D. (2007). Le plagiat dans les systèmes éducatifs. Retrieved from Genève: https://edu.ge.ch/sem/documentation/documents/plagiat.pdf
  • Hollandsworth, R., Dowdy, L., & Donovan, J. (2011). Digital Citizenship in K-12: It Takes a Village. TechTrends, 55(4), 37-47.

Diapositive 25 : Sept profils de l’enseignant

  • Peters, M., Boies, T., & Morin, S. (2019). Teaching Academic Integrity in Quebec Universities: Roles Professors Adopt. Frontiers in Education, 4(99).

Diapositive 26 : Le passeur d’intégrité

  • Zakhartchouk, J.-M. (1999). L’enseignant, un passeur culturel. Paris: ESF éditeur.

Diapositive 30 : Premier postulat

  • Serviss, T. (2016). Creating Faculty Development Programming to Prevent Plagiarism: Three Approaches. In (pp. 551-567): Springer Singapore.

Diapositive 31 : Discuter de l’intégrité ❤

Diapositive 32: Dix principes de l’intégrité académique pour le formateur ❤

  • McCabe, D. L., & Pavela, G. (2004). Ten (Updated) Principles of Academic Integrity: How Faculty Can Foster Student Honesty. Change (May/June), 10-15.

Diapositive 38: Intelligence humaine vs artificielle selon Chomsky

Diapositive 39 : Taxonomie de Bloom

  • Anderson, L.W., Krathwohl, D.R., Airasian, P.W., Cruikshank, K.A., Mayer, R.E., Pintrich, P.R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M.C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Complete edition). New York: Longman.
  • Profinnovant (s.d.). Taxonomie de Bloom révisée : verbes d’action. Section pédagogie. https://www.profinnovant.com/taxonomie-de-bloom-revisee-verbes-daction/

Diapositives 40-41 : Troisième postulat

  • Johnson-Eilola, J. et Selber, S. A. (2007). Plagiarism, originality, assemblage. Computers and Composition, 24(4), 375-403.

Diapositive 42 : Originalité vs créativité

  • Acar, S., Burnett, C. et Cabra, J. F. (2017). Ingredients of Creativity: Originality and More. Creativity Research Journal, 29(2), 133-144. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2017.1302776
  • Sternberg, R. J. et Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. Handbook of creativity, 1, 3-15. 

Diapositive 43 : Créativité et originalité en éducation

  • Anderson, L.W., Krathwohl, D.R., Airasian, P.W., Cruikshank, K.A., Mayer, R.E., Pintrich, P.R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M.C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Complete edition). New York: Longman.

Diapositive 46 : Évaluation

  • Macdonald, R., et Carroll, J. (2006). Plagiarism—a complex issue requiring a holistic institutional approach. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(2), 233-245.

Diapositive 48 : Le déchargement cognitif

  • Risko EF, Gilbert SJ. (2016). Cognitive offloading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 20(9):676–688. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.002.

Diapositives 49-50 : Le déchargement cognitif

  • Dawson, P. (2020). Cognitive Offloading and Assessment. In: Bearman, M., Dawson, P., Ajjawi, R., Tai, J., Boud, D. (eds) Re-imagining University Assessment in a Digital World. The Enabling Power of Assessment, vol 7. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41956-1_4

Diapositive 52: Pourquoi l’évaluation authentique?

Diapositive 53: L’évaluation authentique

  • Frey, B. B., Schmitt, V. L., & Allen, J. P. (2012). Defining authentic classroom assessment. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 17(2). 
  • Kashani-Vahid, L., Afrooz, G., Shokoohi-Yekta, M., Kharrazi, K., & Ghobari, B. (2017). Can a creative interpersonal problem solving program improve creative thinking in gifted elementary students? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 24, 175-185. 
  • Wadaani, M. R. (2015). Teaching for Creativity as Human Development toward Self-Actualization: The Essence of Authentic Learning and Optimal Growth for All Students.Creative Education, 6,669-679. 
  • Wiggins, G. (2011). A true test: toward more authentic and equitable assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(7), 81–93.  

Diapositive 54 : Caractéristiques d’une activité authentique intègre

Diapositive 55 : Caractéristiques d’une activité authentique intègre

  • Eid, M. I. M., & Al-Jabri, I. M. (2016). Social networking, knowledge sharing, and student learning: the case of university students. Computers & Education, 99, 14–27. 
  • Fan, M. et Cai, W. (2020). How does a creative learning environment foster student creativity? An examination on multiple explanatory mechanisms. Current Psychology, 1-10.
  • Yeh, Y.-chu, Yeh, Y.-ling, & Chen, Y.-H. (2012). From knowledge sharing to knowledge creation: a blended knowledge-management model for improving university students’ creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7(3), 245–257. 

Diapositive 57: Type d’évaluation authentique

  • Fahim, S. (n.d.). Assessments – Prevention Strategies to Combat Plagiarism [PowerPoint presentation]. The British University in Egypt. https://www.bue.edu.eg/powerpoints-academic-honesty/
  • Culwin, F., et Lancaster, T. (2001). Plagiarism, prevention, deterrence and detection. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?
  • Gibelman, M., Gelman, S. R., et Fast, J. (1999). The downside of cyberspace: Cheating made easy. Journal of Social Work Education, 35(3), 367-376.
  • Sotiriadou, P. Logan, D., Daly, A. et Guest, R. (2020). The role of authentic assessment to preserve academic integrity and promote skill development and employability. Studies in Higher Education. Vol. 45, no. 11, 2132-2148.

Diapositive 59: Consignes

  • Harris, Robert (2015). Antiplagiarism Strategies for Research Papers. Virtual Salt. http://www.virtualsalt.com/antiplag.htm
  • Smith, C. D., Worsfold, K., Davies, L., Fisher, R. et McPhail, R. (2013). Assessment literacy and student learning: the case for explicitly developing students ‘assessment literacy’. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(1), 44-60. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2011.598636

Diapositive 60: Consignes

Diapositive 61: Consignes à l’épreuve de l’IA

Diapositive 63 : Critères d’évaluation

  • Davies, D., Jindal-Snape, D., Collier, C., Digby, R., Hay, P., & Howe, A. (2013). Creative learning environments in education–a systematic literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8, 80–91. 
  • De Bruijn-Smolders, M., Timmers, C. F., Gawke, J. C. L., Schoonman, W., & Born, M. P. (2016). Effective self-regulatory processes in higher education: research findings and future directions. a systematic review. Studies in Higher Education, 41(1), 139–158.
  • Shin et al. (2012)
    White M, Kern ML. Positive education: Learning and teaching for wellbeing and academic mastery. International Journal of Wellbeing. 2018;8(1):1-17. DOI: 10.5502/ijw.v8i1.588

Diapositive 66 : Valeurs de l’intégrité académique