Transcript No Slide Title

simulation::plagiarism
Professor Paul Maharg
Glasgow Graduate School of Law
my argument…
1. Plagiarism is not just about students being selfish, or
narcissistic behaviour, or academic cheating or a syndrome or
lack of integrity or anything else
2. We create fertile conditions for it to flourish by our teaching &
assessment designs:
1. lack of apprenticeship models
2. insufficient situated learning & assessment
3. poor academic literacy support within disciplines
3. We need to re-design the ecology of learning, eg:
1. trading zones, for students > students, staff > staff,
students > staff
2. teach rhetorical models via games, sims, debriefs, PBL, etc.
3. transactional learning
4. One attempt to change practice: SIMPLE
Grasping the Nettle, Oxford, May 2008
2
1. trading zone…?
 See Peter Galison’s groundbreaking study of the material
culture of modern experimental micro-physics –
Galison, P. (1997) Image and Logic: A Material Culture of
Microphysics (Chicago, University of Chicago Press).
 A place where theorists, writers, experimenters,
instrument designers, policy-makers, politicians and
others meet, share knowledge and do collaborative
research
 Parties traded content and method; they imposed
constraints on each other; traditions coordinated but
without homogenising; they communicated in pidgins and
creoles to express and absorb each other’s essential
concepts.
Grasping the Nettle, Oxford, May 2008
3
2. rhetorical models…?
 See the early work of Flower & Hayes, Scardamalia &
Bereiter; New Literacies movement; London Group;
James Gee.
 In Law, see the work of James Stratman, Dorothy
Deegan, Leah Christensen on the effect of professional
identity on student reading & writing strategies.
 Each discipline needs to
 invent methods to embed these approaches in its
teaching, learning & assessment
 assess student performance based on the learning of
rhetorical models.
Grasping the Nettle, Oxford, May 2008
4
Baudrillard on academic discourse: the rhetoric
of despair…
‘Many university students are unable to cope with the technical and
scholastic demands made on their use of language as students. They
cannot define the terms which they hear in lectures or which they
themselves use. They are remarkably tolerant of words lifted from the
language of ideas but applied inappropriately or irrelevantly, and they
accept sloppiness and incorrectness with resigned indifference. The lexis
and syntax of examination scripts and essays written during the year
offer a still more unchallengeable test of linguistic misunderstanding.
Constrained to write in a badly understood and poorly mastered
language, many students are condemned to using a rhetoric of despair
whose logic lies in the reassurance that it offers. Through a kind of
incantatory or sacrificial rite, they try to call up and reinstate the tropes,
schemas or words which to them distinguish professorial language.
Irrationally and irrelevantly, with an obstinacy that we might too easily
mistake for servility, they seek to reproduce this discourse in a way which
recalls the simplifications, corruptions and logical re-workings that
linguists encounter in “creolized” languages.’
Bourdieu, P., Passeron, J.-C. and de Saint Martin, M. (1994) Academic Discourse: Linguistic Misunderstanding and
Professorial Power, trans. R. Teese (Cambridge, Polity Press), p.4
Grasping the Nettle, Oxford, May 2008
5
rhetorical models & Web 2.0…?
 If Web 2.0 apps enhance social learning, collaboration,
what effect will this have on the practice of plagiarism?
 It may have a beneficial effect, if Web 2.0 is used to
transform academic teaching practices…
 Or may become yet one more example of e-plagiarism
 See Gerry McKiernan’s blog:
http://scholarship20.blogspot.com/
& 2008 Horizon Report
http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2008-Horizon-Report.pdf
Grasping the Nettle, Oxford, May 2008
6
Grasping the Nettle, Oxford, May 2008
7
3. transactional learning
A specific form of PBL. At least seven distinguishing
elements –
active learning
through performance in authentic transactions
involving reflection in & on learning,
deep collaborative learning, and
holistic or process learning,
with relevant professional assessment
that includes ethical standards
– which can have a significant effect on plagiarism when
used in simulations of professional practice.
Grasping the Nettle, Oxford, May 2008
8
why simulations?
 Are close to the world of practice, but safe from the (possible)




realities of malpractice and negligent representation.
Enable students to practise legal transactions, discuss the
transactions with other tutors, students, and use a variety of
instruments or tools, online or textual, to help them understand the
nature and consequences of their actions
Facilitate a wide variety of assessment, from high-stakes
assignments with automatic fail points, to coursework that can double
as a learning zone and an assessment assignment
Encourage collaborative learning. The guilds and groups of
hunters in multi-player online games can be replicated for very
different purposes in legal education.
Students begin to see the potential for the C in ICT; and that
technology is not merely a matter of word-processed essays &
quizzes, but a form of learning that changes quite fundamentally what
and how they learn.
Grasping the Nettle, Oxford, May 2008
9
general aim of the SIMPLE platform
 Enable staff and students to manage the educational and
organizational issues that arise from the implementation of this
environment, in particular those of:
 personalized learning in a professional environment
 social presence and collaborative learning
 use of simulation spaces in programmes of study, and the relation
between simulation spaces and other learning spaces on a
programme, including paper-based and online resources, face-toface classes, and administration
 use of rich media in online simulations – video, graphics, text,
comms., etc.
 authenticity in the design of simulation tasks, and effective
assessment of professional learning
 Two year project is funded jointly (£200K) by JISC & UK Centre for
Legal Education, and ends July 2008
Grasping the Nettle, Oxford, May 2008
10
what will the SIMPLE project do?
 Provide academic staff in UK HE & FE with software tools





to design and build simulations and collate all of the
resources required.
Develop teaching, learning and assessment templates,
including curriculum guidelines
Provide tools to create a map and directory for a virtual
town
Enable communication between students and simulated
characters/staff.
Offer monitoring and mentoring functions
Evaluate student and staff experiences in using the
simulation environment
Grasping the Nettle, Oxford, May 2008
11
large-scale implementation in disciplines
Discipline
Degree programme
Institution
Architecture
BSc (Hons) / March, year 3
Strathclyde
Social Work
MA (Hons), year 2/3
Strathclyde
Law
LLB
Glamorgan
Law
LLB
Glasgow & Stirling
Warwick
Law
LLB
Law
LLB
West of England
Law
Diploma in Legal Practice,
p/g
Strathclyde
Grasping the Nettle, Oxford, May 2008
12
client scenarios
Discipline
Institution
Scenario
Architecture
Strathclyde
Running a Company Board
Social Work
Strathclyde
Elder care / CPO
Law
Glamorgan
Tort – PI
Law
Glasgow
CJS – Victim / Offender
Law
Warwick
University disciplinary hearing
Law
Stirling
Fox hunting
Law
West of England
Divorce
Law
Strathclyde
PI, Civil action, Private Client,
Conveyancing, Practice Man.
Grasping the Nettle, Oxford, May 2008
13
process model…
 Development - Partners exploring transformation process
 Idea -> initial scenario -> computer simulation
 Refined complex and powerful process for modeling
 Implemented process as software tool
 Enables academic member to build simulation blueprint
and collate all of the resources required
 Process and tool allow for highly structured, closed
boundary simulations as well as loosely-structured, openfield simulations
 Provides potential for simulation import / export
 Tool itself has development potential
Grasping the Nettle, Oxford, May 2008
14
SIMPLE: evidence-based alternative
We need:
 Clear research evidence sim environments will enable
successful alternative approaches to knowledge,
collaboration, professionalism, ethics... at reasonable
cost.
 Career-long assessment environments
 To address our successes and concerns directly those to
those with financial & decision-making powers, eg:
 institutional management
 regulatory bodies
 policy-makers
Grasping the Nettle, Oxford, May 2008
15
future of SIMPLE: community of
practice
Aims –
 Be collaborative: staff, students, different institutions,
different professions
 Be international – in our increasingly globalized
jurisdictions we need to enable our students to work with
others
 Liaise with institutions & students in developing countries
 Integrate with other forms of simulation, eg standardized
clients
 SIMPLE will be a Foundation, in every sense…
Grasping the Nettle, Oxford, May 2008
16
what does SIMPLE look like?
https://simple.strath.ac.uk
Grasping the Nettle, Oxford, May 2008
17
personal injury negotiation project
Administration:
 272 students, 68 firms, 8 anonymous information
sources
 68 document sets, 34 transactions
 students have 12 weeks to achieve settlement
 introductory & feedback lectures
 discussion forums
 FAQs & transaction guideline flowcharts
 voluntary face-to-face surgeries with a PI solicitor
Grasping the Nettle, Oxford, May 2008
18
PI project: assessment criteria
We require from each student firm a body of evidence
consisting of:
 fact-finding – from information sources in the virtual
community)
 professional legal research – using WestLaw +
paperworld sources
 formation of negotiation strategy – extending range of
Foundation Course learning
 performance of strategy – correspondence + optional
f2f meeting, recorded
Grasping the Nettle, Oxford, May 2008
19
Grasping the Nettle, Oxford, May 2008
20
Grasping the Nettle, Oxford, May 2008
21
Grasping the Nettle, Oxford, May 2008
22
statistics
Total correspondence 2000/2001 sent by all firms
80
75
70
65
60
55
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
Grasping the Nettle, Oxford, May 2008
45
43
41
39
37
35
33
31
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
9
7
5
3
0
1
Number
50
23
statistics
Settlement amounts
18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
Grasping the Nettle, Oxford, May 2008
45&46
43&44
41&42
39&40
37&38
35&36
33&34
31&32
29&30
27&28
25&26
23&24
21&22
19&20
17&18
15&16
13&14
11&12
9&10
7&8
5&6
3&4
0
1&2
2000
24
statistics
900 Correspondence
timelines
871
800
700
600
500
406
400
346
310
300
200
169
134
100
0
1
2
3
197
198
155
95
78
49
43
13
29
2
260
224
168
31
4
30
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Week Number
Grasping the Nettle, Oxford, May 2008
25
PI project:
(some of) what students learned












extended team working
real legal fact-finding
real legal research
process thinking in the project
setting out negotiation strategies in the context of (un)known
information
writing to specific audiences
handling project alongside other work commitments
structuring the argument of a case from start to finish
keeping cool in face-to-face negotiations
more effective delegation
keeping files
taking notes on the process...
Grasping the Nettle, Oxford, May 2008
26
PI project: what students would have done
differently…
‘In tackling this project I think that our group made two main
mistakes. The first mistake we made was in approaching the task as
law students as opposed to Lawyers. By this I mean we tried to find
the answer and work our way back. Immediately we were thinking
about claims and quantum and blame. I don't think we actually
initiated a claim until a week before the final settlement. I think the
phrase "like a bull in a china shop" would aptly describe the way we
approached the problem. […] Our group knew what area of law and
tests to apply yet we ended up often being ahead of ourselves and
having to back-pedal
The second mistake we made was estimating how long it would take
to gather information. We started our project quite late on and began
to run out of time towards the end. None of us appreciated the
length of time it would take to gather information and on top of this
we would often have to write two or three letters to the same person
as the initial letter would not ask the right question.’
Grasping the Nettle, Oxford, May 2008
27
PI project: what students would have done
differently…
‘At the beginning we thought we perhaps lost sight of the fact that
we had a client whom we had a duty to advise and inform. On
reflection we should have issued terms of engagement and advised
the client better in monetary terms what the likely outcome was
going to be.’
‘[…] unlike other group projects I was involved in at undergraduate
level I feel that I derived genuine benefit from this exercise in several
ways:
1. reinforcing letter-writing, negotiation, time-management and IT
skills
2. conducting legal research into issues of quantum
3.
working effectively in a group as a group - not delegating tasks
at the first meeting and then putting together pieces of work at
the second meeting.’
Grasping the Nettle, Oxford, May 2008
28
transactional learning:
Private Client project
General outline:
 Students wind up the estate of a deceased client who dies
intestate, via 4 assignments. Students drafted:
 Initial Writ
 Estate Valuation Correspondence
 Forms C1, IHT 200 & supplements
 a will
 Resources:
 no lectures, no exams: instead, tutorials and coursework
 50 scenarios
 virtual collection of the client’s estate
 online assessment & submission of assignments
 FAQ
 online tutor assessment
 on average, six outcomes per assessment
Grasping the Nettle, Oxford, May 2008
29
Grasping the Nettle, Oxford, May 2008
30
summary of the SIMPLE effect on
plagiarism…
 Students co-opted to community-police plagiarism
 Students carry out authentic client-based work, not
artificial, assessment-led tasks
 ICT is used to create multiple versions of tasks via
document variables
 Students take responsibility for their transactional
learning, their files, their clients, their firm, ie
assessment:
 encourages ownership, not submission
 enhances collaboration, not plagiarism
 Staff take responsibility for designing transactional
learning
And tools to stop free-loading, copying, etc?
Grasping the Nettle, Oxford, May 2008
31
Grasping the Nettle, Oxford, May 2008
32
Grasping the Nettle, Oxford, May 2008
33
Grasping the Nettle, Oxford, May 2008
34
Grasping the Nettle, Oxford, May 2008
35
Grasping the Nettle, Oxford, May 2008
36
Grasping the Nettle, Oxford, May 2008
37
Grasping the Nettle, Oxford, May 2008
38
Grasping the Nettle, Oxford, May 2008
39
Grasping the Nettle, Oxford, May 2008
40
Grasping the Nettle, Oxford, May 2008
41
Grasping the Nettle, Oxford, May 2008
42
a final example: legal writing
Writing as a social activity software, which emphasises:
 networks of meaning
 Distributed learning across the internet and other forms
of knowledge representation
 Collaborative learning at all levels
Grasping the Nettle, Oxford, May 2008
43
intermediate online education, 2006+
Still focused on:
1. Organisations, ie LMSs, silos of knowledge
2. Products, ie handbooks, CDs, closely-guarded downloads
3. Content, ie modules, lock-step instruction
4. Snapshot assessment of taught substantive content
Grasping the Nettle, Oxford, May 2008
44
social learning > 2010+
Focus shifts to:
1. Organisation has weak boundaries, strong presence
through resource-based, integrated learning networks,
with open access, eg MIT & OU open courseware
2. Focus not on static content but on web-based,
aggregated content
3. E-learning as understanding & conversation, just-in-time
learning
4. Assessment of situated learning
Grasping the Nettle, Oxford, May 2008
45
ALIAS...
ALIAS –
Ardcalloch
Legal
Information
& Advice
Service
Grasping the Nettle, Oxford, May 2008
46
... now being developed as a professional
collaborative writing environment
 Simulation of professional writing contexts
 Creation of wikis within ALIAS – Ardcalloch Legal
Information and Advice Service
 Students will:
 see each other’s drafts (collaborative learning)
 amend firm’s drafts (collaborative working)
 Be responsible for individual articles (ownership…)
 Staff will:
 see student drafts (observe collab. learning + working)
 comment on drafts (feedback on individual work)
 Staff will include professional legal writers as well as
GGSL staff
Grasping the Nettle, Oxford, May 2008
47
contact details
Email:
[email protected]
Blog:
http://zeugma.typepad.com
Book:
www.transforming.org.uk
These slides at:
www.slideshare.net/paulmaharg
Address:
Glasgow Graduate School of Law
Lord Hope Building
University of Strathclyde
141 St James’ Road
Glasgow G4 0LU
Grasping the Nettle, Oxford, May 2008
48