These selected case studies were written by course participants for their final reflective task.
Last semester I taught a literary theory class. One task for students was to write an essay on a poem. I gave the prompt and further guide questions. The following meeting I collected the assignments and I was so impressed with their work. Then came another task which was accomplished inside the classroom. When I read the short essays written in class, I found out they were starkly different from the assignments I read earlier. true, there were consistent students who's sounded consistent enough but over fifty percent of them were different. It was as if the two essays supposedly coming from one writer were written by completely different persons. I consulted with colleagues and I learned they were AI-generated. This experience got me thinking: should I penalize students for using AI? It was tempting, really but then I thought to myself: have I explicitly told them not to? It would be unfair. I had to weight things carefully. On the one hand, I wanted to develop in students the ability to think for themselves and articulate such thoughts coherently and honestly. On the other hand, I was also aware of the help students can get from generative AI. So, my final task, still writing, was done inside the classroom. It was an application of the critical lenses we learned through the semester and apply them on a reading/critique of a short story. I gave the short story one week before the activity. I also told students that they could read about the story and may even consult critical essays about it. That should they wish to use the ideas from these readings, they may do so provided there is proper acknowledgment, they could bring these sources (printed) in class along with the copy of the text. The writing though, the synthesizing and weaving ideas must be done in class.
I often wonder if that was the best solution. Could I have handled it better? Maybe if I had more time and knowledge about generative AI. Given my lack of deeper knowledge about it and the fears I had about the consequences of gen AI to my students, I did what I thought was a just response. To be honest, it felt like students were not transparent with the essays to begin with and this provoked fears. What happens to students' concepts of right and wrong when they use such technology continuously? What vices might be developed? How will the course achieve its objectives now?
For the most part, I worried on the consequences of continued use of gen AI in academic work. There were no aggrieved persons or anyone harmed with my students' use of generative AI. At least in the interpersonal level, I see no harm done. the insidious effect though may be personal. In their continued use, how might their attitudes to hard work reconfigure because of AI use? What about academic integrity? What about the virtue of honesty? Was I providing a space for virtues cultivation or vices? The experience was a wake up call for me. It is important to set regulations regarding use of generative AI at the beginning of the class. My failure was that I did not set a framework for AI. yet students were using AI. It is myopic in thinking to restrict the use of it altogether. There is also the need to look into nonconventional modes of assessment to balance conventional ones. As a literature and research teacher, I have always been partial to writing. I am sure there are equally meaningful assessments that may complement traditional writing. I just need to learn more.
The case involves a student accused by her teacher of plagiarism based on her paper's Turnitin similarity score. The assignment was a reflection paper on one's faith during a challenging time. This was the requirement for a course on Faith, a general education course in a private, Catholic university. The professor requested a Turnitin similarity score for all papers submitted through Canvas LMS. Turnitin detected the paper as similar to another paper submitted within the Canvas environment (42%). It also detected the paper as 100% AI-generated. The professor immediately filed a disciplinary case against the student, using the Turnitin scores as evidence of plagiarism and AI use. I was part of the discipline board that heard the case. When the student attended the hearing, she denied the plagiarism charge. She explained that her work was similar to a previous reflection paper that she submitted when she was in senior high school. The senior high school paper, which was submitted via Canvas, also focused on a difficult time in her life, the death of her grandfather. She used the same experience as a reflection point on her college paper. The discipline board consulted the EdTech Director of the university about the case. He explained how Turnitin computes the similarity score, that it may use previously submitted work within Canvas to compute it, and that Turnitin is not infallible, especially when the text being analyzed is less than 500 words.
The discipline case happened because the professor expected his students to write an original paper, and he relied solely on Turnitin to detect the paper's originality. Given that the assessment task was very similar to another task previously accomplished by the student (i.e., a personal reflection on a challenging time in the student's life), it was inevitable that the student's answer would be quite similar. The teacher's eagerness to trust the Turnitin score made him quickly judge the student as dishonest. It seemed obvious to the discipline board that the professor was unaware of Turnitin's disclaimer that short texts (i.e., less than 500 words) are highly likely to generate a 100% AI-generated score. Had the professor been more circumspect in using Turnitin, he would have been curious rather than judgmental about the student's reflection paper.
I was disappointed with the professor more than with the student whose honesty was being questioned. As an educator, I was frustrated with how the professor handled the situation. It should not have been raised to a disciplinary case that caused anxiety and stress to the student. The situation should have been resolved within the classroom without involving the Discipline Office. It could have even been avoided if the professor had been more familiar with the technology and how it works or if he had designed a more plagiarism-proof or AI-proof assessment. The professor could have made the instructions more explicit, and clear guidelines on self-plagiarism would have helped the student write a paper that did not lift from previous outputs. Eventually, the discipline board dismissed the charges, ruling that the two papers were the student's personal reflection on a significant phase in her life, and the similarities were minimal. Furthermore, the papers included her own thoughts and feelings about the loss of her grandfather, so they could not have been AI-generated.
Using Turnitin to detect plagiarism and AI-use is an efficient way for educators to check students' work when used appropriately. It becomes problematic, though, when educators do not understand how it works and put too much confidence in the ratings generated by Turnitin. Like any tool, it is up to the users to understand how a tool works so that they will optimize its utility. When professors are not thinking more deeply about the technology they use in their classroom, they tend to take the results at face value, without interrogating the process of generating those results. In the case of Turnitin, despite their disclaimer about how they generate their similarity and AI-generated scores, some professors do not bother to read the fine print. They might think that Turnitin is 100% reliable because it is embedded in the university LMS, and therefore, its usage is legitimate. It is important for educators to understand how educational technology works so that they can make appropriate decisions regarding the results generated by the technology, which affect learners and the learning process.
One limitation of the over-reliance on educational technology is the lack of human connection. Referring to the case, the professor trusted Turnitin more than his student. Instead of being curious and trying to understand the circumstances that led to his student's high Turnitin similarity and AI-generated scores, he believed the technology and judged the student as dishonest. He believed the worst of his students because the technology said so. This danger is real when we substitute technology for human connection and relationships. Another ethical issue that comes up is the kind of character traits and virtues that are emphasized when we use educational technology. On the part of the teacher, there is a tendency to mistrust students, especially when we see a lot of papers being given high similarity or AI-generated scores. It becomes easy to generalize that all students are dishonest and want to get away with copied work. Students, on the other hand, can game the system if they understand how the technology works. When students focus too much on getting an acceptable similarity or AI-generated score instead of demonstrating their competencies in the assigned task, they could lose the opportunity to think more deeply and critically about the task. This defeats the purpose of the assessment, and there is a loss of opportunity for teachers and students. In the case of the professor, he lost the opportunity to learn about how the student's faith was strengthened because of the challenges she faced. He also lost the opportunity to connect with the student on a more personal level by sharing his own experiences of grief and resilience.
My experience with the case made me realize the need to have more dialogues with our students regarding the use of generative AI and other educational technology. As educators, it behooves us to know and understand the tools we use to facilitate teaching and learning. In one of our modules, the metaphor used to describe AI is that it is a bulldozer and not a hammer, and therefore, it requires more training and practice to use AI properly in our classrooms. We also need to engage our students in conversations about the ethical use of AI. We cannot presume that they understand how it works or that they know how to use it ethically. The ethical issues must be surfaced and discussed critically in our classrooms so that we can, as a community, approach AI use with prudence, justice, and accountability. Since the impact of AI use cannot be fully determined at this point, we should be more careful when we use the technology. While we cannot fully predict how it will shape our thinking, well-being, emotions, and human connections, our critical conversations and collective discernment can help us craft a more human-centered (rather than technology-centered) approach to AI use. Ultimately, we should not sacrifice the human person for efficiency and optimization. AI should help improve our lives and make us more, and not less, human.
This narration is about a research project where researchers intended to create a digital record of an Indigenous People's (IP) traditional knowledge and cultural expressions. The technology used was video cameras, recorders, computers, hard drives, and memory sticks. The study aimed to preserve this IP's indigenous knowledge of medicinal herbs, cloth weaving, poetry, dances, and rituals. This preservation is not just for posterity but also to help the IP assert their copyright against misappropriations and make it available to them to commercialize some of their native products. The proposed project went through a research ethics clearance process. The researchers had to ask permission to conduct the study from the government office in charge of protecting the safety and rights of the IPs. They next had to get access to the tribe and get permission from its leaders and their cultural bearers. This was done through intermediaries who had access to the tribe members. When this was granted, the researchers' visit was scheduled. On the first visit, the researchers had to get informed consent from the leaders and the members who would be part of the interviews. These were the weavers, medicine people, dancers, and poets. An interpreter translated the content of the informed consent to the participants. Their consent was recorded on video, and those who could write signed the informed consent forms, the content of which was written in both English and the transliteration of the IP's native language. On the researchers' next visit, they brought their equipment--video cameras, microphones, computer laptops, and storage units. The participants from the tribe were interviewed through interpreters. They performed their dances and rituals. These were all recorded. The study lasted several months, with the researchers returning to the IP to make the recordings several times a month.
Before finishing the project, the researchers had to undergo another research ethics clearance. They narrated their experience with the IP during the study. They said most Indigenous community members were grateful to them for doing the project. Interviews revealed that they lamented the theft of traditional knowledge of medicinal herbs by outsiders who come to befriend them, get them to share their know-how, harvest their plants, process them in a laboratory, and sell them without any benefit to the community. Their products, like mats, fabric, and jewelry, were also copied and sold as "authentic." They want to take back what is theirs and have the opportunity to gain some economic benefit from them in the future.
A few community members, however, expressed disapproval of the project. They claimed that such commercialization of their native products would only create problems. They deeply distrusted outsiders, the government, and document signing. They did not like appointing an "original creator" as they said such ideas were foreign to them. Their creations do not belong to one person. Many people, including their ancestors, should be credited for their products and knowledge. Revealing their cultural practices to outsiders, they believe, was the start of the demise of their tribe. The researchers then explained how the collected data were stored, how the storage units were kept safe, and how they were cloud-backed. They assured the research ethics committee that the participants were anonymized in the paper they were writing to document the project. The video recordings of their dances and rituals, however, show the faces of the dancers and enactors. However, they showed proof of informed consent and stated that the videos were only for presentation at conferences, not for commercialization or open viewing. They reported that they promised to give the IP copies of the recordings, translate their paper, and gain their approval before disseminating them in scholarly conferences.
While the research ethics protocols were followed, fixing the normally intangible forms of knowledge and cultural expressions on video and audio recordings still poses certain risks to the members of the IP and the IP community itself. While this project was meant to help the community preserve their culture and gain economic benefit through copyrights, there were sacrifices to be made. First, while heard, the sentiments of the few who disapproved of fixing their culture in digital forms failed to influence the general decisions. Second, once those intangibles were fixed, there was no telling what could happen to digital copies in the future, especially because copyright and patent laws are still unsatisfactory when protecting special intellectual property like indigenous knowledge and expressions. Once exposed, especially in digital forms, it is tough to retrieve them, making them more prone to misrepresentations and misappropriations. While the participants in the research paper were anonymized, the raw data were not. Exposure to less-than-benevolent contexts could open the IP community to further exploitation. Third, while the researchers gain professional and economic benefits from the study, it is unclear how these can be converted as benefits for the IP community unless they decide to commercialize their products. This project will require significant funding and further exposure to exploitation.
Consequentialism makes the harms and benefits in this situation most clear. However, these evaluations are always done with a view of the IPs' inherent value and their respective communities. They are also generally marginalized, and they need the most protection. Intellectual property issues are very tricky. The laws need improvement when it comes to special cases like traditional knowledge and cultural expressions. Digital technologies could greatly help these communities, but not without the risks involved. They depend on outsiders to process things for them; they do not have the means to access existing technology, and those who do cannot be relied upon to maintain or repair them should anything go wrong. It is, therefore, hoped that all good intentions will not be riddled with dangers such as the ones discussed above.
Describe the situation:
The use of technology in this context involves the implementation and utilization of a digital portal for online learning. It facilitates instruction, research, extension, and community service by providing access to various educational resources and platforms.
My experience with the digital portal has been deeply enriching. It has been instrumental in enhancing teaching practices, expanding access to resources, and promoting collaborative learning. By integrating technology into the learning environment, we have created a more dynamic and interactive educational experience for students and faculty alike.
The situation primarily unfolded during the rollout of the digital portal at my university, with various training sessions and workshops conducted to familiarize faculty, staff, and students with the platform. These sessions took place both in-person at the university and online.
Upon launching the digital portal, faculty members and students were introduced to the portal's functionalities, including access to Open Online Courses, teaching resources, and educational platforms. Training sessions were organized to provide hands-on experience with the tools available, fostering a community of learning and collaboration.
The primary goal behind implementing the digital portal was to enhance the educational experience by leveraging technology. The intention was to provide a centralized platform that would allow for more flexible learning opportunities, encourage collaboration among faculty and students, and promote the sharing of resources across disciplines.
The successful introduction of the digital portal was made possible through a series of strategic planning and collaboration efforts. The administration recognized the need for a comprehensive learning management system that could adapt to the evolving educational landscape. Faculty and staff were engaged in training sessions to ensure they could effectively utilize the platform, while feedback mechanisms were established to improve its functionality based on user experiences.
Various stakeholders were involved in the development and implementation of the digital portal, including university administrators, faculty members, instructional designers, and IT support staff. Students also played a crucial role by providing feedback on their experiences and suggesting improvements.
My experience with the digital portal has been overwhelmingly positive. I have actively participated in training sessions, contributing to the content development for the Open Online Courses. Engaging with faculty and students during these sessions has been rewarding, as it has allowed me to witness firsthand the positive impact of technology on teaching and learning. I've seen students become more engaged and motivated to learn, utilizing the resources available through the digital portal to enhance their academic performance. Other faculty members have shared their experiences, highlighting the benefits of easy access to teaching resources and the ability to collaborate on projects with colleagues from different departments. Students have expressed appreciation for the flexibility and variety of learning opportunities that the digital portal provides. Their stories emphasize the importance of technology in facilitating a more inclusive and accessible learning environment. These shared experiences contribute to a collective understanding of the portal's impact on the academic community, reinforcing the idea that technology can transform education for the better.
Evaluate the ethical impact of the situation:
Consequentialism: The use of the digital portal generally brings about significant benefits while minimizing harm. Benefits include: Increased Accessibility: The platform allows diverse learners to access educational resources regardless of their physical location or time constraints. Enhanced Collaboration: Faculty and students can collaborate more effectively, leading to enriched learning experiences. Improved Engagement: By providing engaging and varied resources, students are more likely to participate actively in their learning. Evaluating Harms and Benefits: While the benefits are clear, potential harms must also be considered, such as: Digital Divide: Students without reliable internet access or devices may be left behind, exacerbating existing inequalities. Over-Reliance on Technology: There is a risk that both faculty and students may become overly dependent on digital tools, potentially hindering traditional learning skills and interpersonal interactions. Overall, the benefits of increased accessibility, collaboration, and engagement outweigh the harms, especially when efforts are made to address the digital divide.
Rights and Rules: Respect for Rights: The platform respects the right to education by providing equal access to resources and opportunities. Consent: Participation in training and use of the platform is voluntary, ensuring that individuals are not treated merely as means to an end. Transparency: There is no significant element of deception; users are informed about the resources and tools available to them. Duties Involved: Responsibilities lie with university administration, faculty, and IT staff to ensure that all users are adequately trained and supported in their use of the platform. Additionally, there is a duty to address the digital divide and provide resources for those lacking access.
Virtue Theory: The situation encourages the development of several positive character traits. Empathy: Understanding and addressing the diverse needs of students fosters a supportive educational environment. Responsibility: Faculty members are called to be responsible for their students' learning experiences, ensuring they can navigate and utilize the technology effectively. Innovation: The integration of technology encourages creative problem-solving and adaptation to new teaching methods. Conversely, vices such as complacency towards those who struggle with technology or negligence in addressing accessibility issues should be avoided.
Justice: Evaluating justice in this situation involves: Voices Heard: Students' feedback is actively sought and considered, promoting a sense of ownership in the learning process. Work Distribution: Faculty and IT staff play significant roles in creating and maintaining the platform, while students are involved in its use and feedback. Leadership: University administration leads the initiative, emphasizing the importance of technology in modern education. Benefits and Exclusions: While the majority benefit from enhanced resources and opportunities, those with limited access to technology or training may feel excluded. Addressing this disparity is crucial to ensuring that the platform serves all members of the academic community equitably.
In conclusion, the ethical implications of using the digital portal reveal a predominantly positive impact, with significant benefits in accessibility, collaboration, and engagement. However, it is essential to remain vigilant about the potential harms, particularly concerning equity in access and the responsibilities of all stakeholders involved. By actively addressing these concerns, the initiative can continue to promote a just and inclusive educational environment.
Reflect on the situation:
When reflecting on the situation of implementing the digital portal, several points of agreement and disagreement arise from the different ethical lenses:
Consequentialism and Justice: Both perspectives align in emphasizing the benefits of increased accessibility and enhanced learning experiences. They agree that the use of technology should prioritize the needs of all students, especially those facing barriers to access. However, justice highlights the importance of actively addressing inequalities that might arise from the digital divide, a nuance that consequentialism may not fully address without additional focus.
Rights and Rules vs. Consequentialism: While rights and rules emphasize the necessity of informed consent and respect for individual autonomy, consequentialism focuses on the outcomes. There might be tension when evaluating whether all potential users have genuinely consented to participate fully or if they are merely complying due to perceived pressure from institutional expectations.
Virtue Theory and Consequentialism: Virtue theory complements consequentialism by reinforcing the importance of character traits such as empathy and responsibility in fostering a positive educational environment. The emphasis on cultivating virtuous behaviors is crucial for ensuring that technology serves its intended purpose without compromising ethical standards.
The ethical features that resonate most in this situation include: Equity and Access: Ensuring that all students have equal access to technology and resources is paramount. This principle is foundational for promoting a just and inclusive learning environment. Responsibility and Accountability: The duties of faculty, staff, and administration in supporting all students through training and resources are essential. Accountability ensures that everyone involved remains committed to the ethical use of technology. Empathy and Support: Encouraging an empathetic approach fosters a collaborative environment where both students and faculty feel supported in navigating the challenges of integrating technology into learning.
In response to the ethical evaluation of the situation, several actions can be undertaken: Promote Digital Inclusivity: Advocate for initiatives that provide students with the necessary tools and resources to access the digital portal effectively. This might include offering loaner devices, subsidizing internet costs, or providing dedicated support for students with limited technological experience. Enhance Training Programs: Develop and implement comprehensive training sessions for both faculty and students that emphasize the importance of ethical technology use, ensuring that everyone understands their rights, responsibilities, and the potential impacts of their actions within the platform. Foster a Feedback Loop: Create mechanisms for continuous feedback from users of the digital portal to identify areas for improvement. This could involve regular surveys, focus groups, or open forums where users can express their experiences and suggestions. Encourage Collaborative Development: Involve students and faculty in the development and curation of content on the platform. This collaboration can lead to a richer learning experience and ensure that diverse perspectives are represented. Emphasize the Importance of Ethics: Foster discussions about ethical practices in technology use, encouraging reflection on individual and collective responsibilities to promote a supportive and equitable learning environment.
Overall, the implementation of the digital portal presents a significant opportunity for enhancing the educational experience at my university. By addressing the ethical implications and focusing on equity, responsibility, and empathy, we can maximize the benefits of this technological initiative while minimizing potential harms. Taking proactive steps to promote inclusivity and ethical practices will ensure that all members of the academic community can thrive in this evolving educational landscape.
Enquiry: chtl@hkbu.edu.hk
Copyright © Hong Kong Baptist University. All rights reserved.