2023-08-17 Cégep de Terrebonne

L’intelligence artificielle : enjeux d’intégrité dans l’évaluation au cégep? Références de la présentation faite au Cégep de Lanaudière à Terrebonne

16 août 2023

Martine Peters, Université du Québec en Outaouais

martine.peters@uqo.ca


Diapositives 10-11: Plagiat ou pas?

Diapositive 12: Plagiat involontaire ou pas???

  • Abbasi, P., Yoosefi-Lebni, J., Jalali, A., Ziapour, A., & Nouri, P. (2020). Causes of the plagiarism: A grounded theory study. Nursing Ethics, 28, 282 – 296.
  • Dee, T., & Jacob, B. (2010). Rational Ignorance in Education: A Field Experiment in Student Plagiarism. Journal of Human Resources, 47, 397 – 434.
  • Memon, A., & Mavrinac, M. (2020). Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Plagiarism as Reported by Participants Completing the AuthorAID MOOC on Research Writing. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26, 1067-1088.
  • Romanowski, M. H. (2021). « Preservice Teachers’ Perception of Plagiarism: A Case from a College of Education. » Journal of Academic Ethics 20(3): 289-309.
  • Smith, M., Ghazali, N., & Minhad, S. (2007). Attitudes towards plagiarism among undergraduate accounting students: Malaysian evidence. Asian Review of Accounting, 15, 122-146.

Diapositive 13: L’ère de la rédaction préhistorique!

Diapositive 15 : Prompt ChatGPT pour enseignants

Diapositive 16 :  Intelligence artificielle Consensus

Consensus (2023). https://consensus.app/search/

Diapositive 17 : Optic AI or Not

Optic AI or Not (2023). https://aiornot.optic.xyz

Diapositive 18 : Quillbot 

Diapositive  19 : Chat with any PDF

Diapositive 20 : Pour se protéger contre les allégations de plagiat

Dias, T. (2023). These Word & Google Docs Settings May Protect You From ChatGPT Plagiarism Allegations. Slash Gear, 21 mai, 2023. https://www.slashgear.com/1290480/microsoft-word-google-docs-setting-chatgpt-plagiarism/  

Diapositives 21 : Nouvelle façon d’écrire ❤️     

Diapositive 22: Lecture pour vos étudiants

Diapositive 23: Comment se servir intelligemment de ChatGPT

Diapositive 26 : Parlons-en de la détection ❤️

Diapositive 29 : Redéfinir l’évaluation

Diapositive 30-31: Modèle d’évaluation

Diapositive 32 et 35 : 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 33-34 : Originalité versus créativité ❤️

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

Diapositives 36-37-38 : Délestage cognitif

  • Risko EF, Gilbert SJ. (2016). Cognitive offloading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 20(9):676–688. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.002.
  • 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 39: 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 40: Caractéristique d’une évaluation authentique

Diapositive 41 : Des consignes claires

  • Cullen, C. (2020). Syllabi Designed with Integrity In Mind.  Sur le site web https://www.academicintegrity.org/integrity/syllabi-designed-with-integrity-in-mind/
  • 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 42: Rules for Tools ❤️

Diapositive 43 : 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