Presentation on theme: "Intellectual Property Part B: Gaming Against Plagiarism - GAP (Appendix 1)"— Presentation transcript:
Intellectual Property Part B: Gaming Against Plagiarism - GAP (Appendix 1)
What’s the problem? In 2005, a survey of 63,700 undergraduate students and 9,250 graduate students revealed that 62% of undergraduates 59% of graduate students had engaged in “cut and paste” plagiarism from either print or electronic sources at least once in the last three years. (McCabe 2005)
Why gaming? Gaming is universal among college-aged students. Recent research on teenagers (future college students) shows that not only is game playing universal, but that game playing facilitates social discussions and “can incorporate many aspects of civic and political life” (Lenhart et al., 2008). Similar real life scenarios were used by Lloyd and van de Poel (2008) to create a collaborative design game with engineering students “to give students ‘practical’ experience of ethical decision-making in the process of design.
The Grant Project - GAP The University of Florida Libraries, campus partners for Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR), received a 2-year $298,000 National Science Foundation (NSF) grant to: Create an online, self-directed, interactive game Provide a role-adapting environment in which Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) graduate students will learn to recognize, understand and avoid research misconduct (FFP).
Game goals: Culturally-sensitive tool U.S. & international researchers multi-cultural research environment Game design strengths higher order skills practical skills practice for high performance situations developing expertise Scalability and Robustness open source addition of future modules
Mini-game 1 is titled: Cheats and Geeks. Students race to become published authors. Along the way, they are tested with mini- quizzes about key content areas. They are also given the opportunity to cheat in ways that mimic actual misconduct (e.g. fabrication). There are a number of pedagogical and design strategies built into this mini-game, including the opportunity to explore the consequences of one's actions. Well-designed games promote higher order thinking skills by giving opportunities to perform and to explore multiple paths.
Cheats and Geeks introduces players to the basic concepts of plagiarism, data falsification, and data fabrication as they race an opponent to be the first to present their findings at a science convention. Throughout the game pop quizzes test students’ understanding of research misconduct. Controversially, players have the option to cheat in their race to get ahead – but not without consequences in the end.
Frenetic Filing is the title of Mini-game 2. In this game, players are asked to take papers to a reviewer. The reviewer describes the paper and asks the player to correctly file it. For instance, the reviewer might describe the file as "using fragments from several uncited sources." Players must decide whether there is a misconduct and, if so, how to label the misconduct (e.g. patch-writing). The game draws on an older arcade style motif where players must apply their knowledge more quickly as the game progresses. It also provides opportunities for players to get feedback on wrong choices.
Murky Misconduct, which is the final mini- game, is the most sophisticated and complex of the games. It has a noir detective feel. Students play the role of a plagiarism investigator on campus as they collect facts, compare evidence, and build cases against suspected research misconduct perpetrators. Eventually, players solve the case and accuse the violators – in a lab, a library or office setting.
The objective of the Murky Misconduct game is for players to collect clues to support their new role as the campus plagiarism detective. Players have the opportunity to put the knowledge they have gained into practice as they try to solve a whodunit. This higher order skill of application of knowledge is an important opportunity for players as it brings the knowledge and skills into practice.
References: Lenhart, A., Kahne, J., Middaugh, E., Macgill, A., Evans, C., & Vitak, J. (2008). Teens, video games and civics. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2008/Teens-Video- Games-and-Civics.aspx www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2008/Teens-Video- Games-and-Civics.aspx Lloyd, P., & van de Poel, I. (2008). Designing games to teach ethics. Science & Engineering Ethics, 14(3), 433- 447. doi:10.1007/s11948-008-9077-2 McCabe, D. L. (2005). Cheating among college and university students: A North American perspective.International Journal for Educational Integrity, 1(1), 2/16/2010. Retrieved from www.ojs.unisa.edu.au/index.php/IJEI/article/view/14 www.ojs.unisa.edu.au/index.php/IJEI/article/view/14
Material adapted from a presentation developed by: Michelle Foss Leonard Science & Technology Librarian Marston Science Library, University of Florida firstname.lastname@example.org