Game on: a playful approach to ethics education in STEM
CITATION DOWNLOADS PDF VIEWER
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/IR00000498/00001
 Material Information
Title: Game on: a playful approach to ethics education in STEM
Physical Description: Conference Presentation
Creator: DeVane, Ben
Leonard, Michelle
Buhler, Amy
Johnson, Margeaux
Information Fluency ( Conference )
Publication Date: 2011
 Notes
Acquisition: Collected for University of Florida's Institutional Repository by the UFIR Self-Submittal tool. Submitted by Margeaux Johnson.
Publication Status: Published
 Record Information
Source Institution: University of Florida Institutional Repository
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the submitter.
System ID: IR00000498:00001

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:

IFConference_GAP.ppt

IFConference_GAP.ppt ( PDF )


Full Text

PAGE 1

Game On: A playful approach to ethics education in STEMPresented by: Ben DeVane, Michelle Leonard, Amy Buhler, & MargeauxJohnson

PAGE 2

GAP: Gaming Against PlagiarismThe game will be an online, self-directed, interactive game that will provide a role-adapting environment in which Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) graduate students will learn to recognize and avoid plagiarism.

PAGE 3

furthermore, the game willEmploy strategies intended to influence students ethical behavior;Explore the impact of peer behavior, institutional norms, and differing cultural practices on plagiarism; Heighten awareness on the falsification & fabrication of data;Meet the requirements of the America COMPETES Act, Section 7009.

PAGE 4

andBe collaboratively designed, tested, and evaluated through a multi-disciplinary iterative development process by recognized experts in graduate science education, gaming, academic integrity, and educational digital media production.Have an open source approach that will allow each institution to integrate its own code of conduct, relevant policies, and branding while maintaining a common focus on what constitutes responsible conduct of research.

PAGE 5

Why plagiarism?In 2005, a broader 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)

PAGE 6

Case in point @ UF

PAGE 7

Is it really plagiarism?In some Asian cultures, students are taught to memorize and copy well-respected authors and leaders in their societies to show intelligence and good judgment in writing (Thompson & Williams 1995).What is defined as plagiarism by American standards is not defined as such by many Asian or European standards, in which taking ideas and words from different books and writers to build an answer seems to be an accepted academic practice (Pennycook1996).In India, for example, undergraduates are not expected to cite sources and it is only at the graduate level where such activity is expected, but not necessary(Handaand Power 2005).

PAGE 8

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 (Lenhartet 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.

PAGE 9

.game onDevelop a culturally-sensitive tool reflective of the future ethical considerations faced by U.S. global researchers publishing in a multi-cultural research environment;Incorporate game design strengths identified at the NSF co-sponsored National Summit on Educational Games: higher order skills, practical skills, practice for high performance situations, and developing expertise;Assure scalability and robustness of design to permit future content enhancements to cover additional aspects of responsible research conduct, such as the falsification and fabrication of data.

PAGE 10

where to begin?Graduate students in all STEM departments were sent a survey on the perceptions of plagiarism. ~4500 STEM graduates were sent the survey ~855 grads reviewed the survey ~650 grads answered each question ~146 responses to each open ended question

PAGE 11

participants

PAGE 12

Survey: Perceptions in Plagiarism @ UF

PAGE 13

Survey: Perceptions in Plagiarism @ UF

PAGE 14

Survey: Perceptions in Plagiarism @ UF Not Plagiarism TrivialModerateSerious Response Count 30 102 280 223 635 34 122 269 209 634 7 12 82 532 633 6 16 126 485 633 4 2 35 592 633 10 26 190 408 634 8 38 179 408 633 5 1 9 620 635 7 20 147 460 634 4 1 25 604 634 6 3 25 600 634 91 129 218 195 633 11 25 112 484 632 30 89 261 251 631 637 Turning in work done by someone else In a course requiring computer work, copying another Turning in a paper written and previously submitted by Answer Options Copying and pasting directly from several different Incorporating anothers research data as your own Copying material, almost word for word, from any Working on an assignment with others (via e-answered questionParaphrasing or copying a few sentences from a Please mark how serious you think each type of behavior is. Turning in the same paper for another class Incorporating anothers course lab data as your own Quoting another author in your own work without citing Working on an assignment with others (in person) Accidentally or purposely adding/deleting/changing Paraphrasing or copying a few sentences from a

PAGE 15

Survey: Perceptions in Plagiarism @ UF How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements?Answer Options Disagree Strongly DisagreeNot SureAgree Agree Strongly Response Count Plagiarism is a seri ous problem at UF. 84334915681637 Investigation of susp ected incidents of plagiarism is fair and impartial at UF. 122340714644632 Faculty members are vigilant in discovering and reporting suspected cases of academic dishonesty, specifically plagiarism. 1810524222939633 Faculty members change assignments on a regular basis. 2415424317834633 The amount of course work I'm expected to complete is reasonable for my year level and program. 63949416122632 The degree of difficulty in my assignments is appropriate for my year level and program. 61953422131631 The types of assessment used in my courses are effective at helping me learn course concepts. 44064409114631answered question 637

PAGE 16

Survey: Perceptions in Plagiarism @ UF

PAGE 17

Open ended comments: personal experiencesIn my country, college students plagiariseusually because tutors do not supply them with enough materials and tools to handle their assignments alone. No one want to steal someone el se' property if he has a better choice, though I disagree strongly against it myself.In my PhD program, I took a stats class. A foreign student asked me to help her with an assignment that was due the n ext day. She asked me to look at my finished assignment. I thought that she woul d just look it over to get a general idea of what needed to be done or comp are the answers that she got in order to improve her own assignment (I've done th is before). Afterwards, when I saw her assignment, I saw that she had pretty much copied my assignment. I didn't complain because I didn't want to create a conflict with a colleague, but I disagreed with what she had done and I kept my distance from this student afterwards.Take home exams and projects often turn into group efforts in graduate school. It is appalling. Particularly at the graduate level when your work should truly be for your own development.

PAGE 18

Open ended comments: other commentsIt is not punished seriously enough at this level and students do not take it seriously. It seems as though instructors are burdened by it and can not protect themselves from it. Students do not seem to have problems using other students' work.In research, students should have a choice to raise their concern against supervisors officially on which investig ation can be carried out. This happens a lot in research wherein the Professor uses data from investigation carried out by student to write proposals without giving full credit to the student. This is a clear example of Plagiarism.Most teachers discuss plagiarism, but I don't think that most of them check to make sure its not going on.The process for prosecuting plagiarism at UF is quite cumbersome and weighted in favor of the student. In f act, many faculty would rather ignore or deal with plagiarism at the course-level ra ther than refer the plagiarism to UF's student conduct court.

PAGE 19

5 phases of GAPPhase 1: Content Phase 2: Design Phase 3: Usability Phase 4: Implementation Phase 5: Evaluation

PAGE 21

Phase 1: Content

PAGE 22

Content SourcesPublished literatureCollective past experienceBaseline survey of graduate students regarding perceptions of plagiarism

PAGE 23

Phase 1: Content 6 Major Learning Objectives 1.Identify major types of contemporary plagiarism 2.List the basic rules to avoid plagiarism 3.Demonstrate ability to apply the rules in increasingly complex scenarios. 4.Explain falsification & fabrication of data. 5.Explain the potential consequences of plagiarism academically and professionally. 6.Recognize and acknowledge differences in cultural approaches to plagiarism.

PAGE 24

Phase 1: Content Level OneIdentify major types of plagiarism List basic rules to avoid plagiarism Identify data falsification and fabrication Level TwoExplain the potential consequences of plagiarism both academically & professionally Level ThreeApply the rules to increasingly complex scenarios Recognize and acknowledge differences in cultural approaches to plagiarism

PAGE 25

Phase 1: ContentMaster content document that includes definitions and real-life examples Dr. Rogers research group is studying the effect of adding colloidal silica to epoxy materials to create new nanocompositematerials. She sees a paper that has already been published detailing the addition of fumed silica to epoxy. Most of the background of the experiment and methods are identical to her work, so she in corporates those sections from the previous paper into her own publication without attribution. She uses data from her own experiments.

PAGE 26

Phase 1: ContentShort sorting scenarios:I combined the findings of these 8 sources into one paragraph. I dont have to cite them, because I created the compilation. (patchwriting)I submitted the same paper to more than one class. Its OK that I copied my own work without citing it because its still my idea. (self plagiarism) I quoted something but changed one word to strengthen its support of my argument. (misquoting)

PAGE 27

Phase 2: DesignWhy Games?

PAGE 28

Design

PAGE 29

DesignVideo games are powerful tools for learning.

PAGE 30

Design1. Active, Critical Learning Principle 2. Design Principle 3. Semiotic Principle 4. Semiotic Domains Principle 5. MetalevelThinking about Semiotic Domains Principle 6. Psychosocial Moratorium Principle 7. Committed Learning Principle 8. Identity Principle 9. Self-Knowledge Principle 19. Amplification of Input Principle 11. Achievement Principle 12. Practice Principle 13. Ongoing Principle 14. "Regime of Competence" principle 15. Probing Principle 16. Multiple Routes principle 17. Situated Meaning Principle 18. Text Principle 19. IntertextualPrinciple 20. Multimodal Principle 21. Material Intelligence Principle 22. Intuitive Knowledge Principle 23. Subset Principle 24. Incremental Principle 25. Concentrated Sample Principle 26. Bottom-up Basic Skills Principle 27. Explicit In formation OnDemand and Just In-Time Principle 28. Discovery Principle 29. Transfer Principle 30. Cultural Models about the World Principle 31. Cultural Models about Learning Principle 32. Cultural Models about Semiotic Domains Principle 33. Distributed Principle 34. Dispersed Principle 35. Affinity Group Principle 36. Insider Principle (Gee, 2003)

PAGE 32

DesignMajor paradigms in Serious Game Design Gamification Holistic Systemic Learning

PAGE 33

Design

PAGE 34

Design

PAGE 35

Content meets Design Level OneIdentify major types of plagiarism List basic rules to avoid plagiarism Identify data falsification and fabrication Level TwoExplain the potential consequences of plagiarism both academically & professionally Level ThreeApply the rules to increasingly complex scenarios Recognize and acknowledge differences in cultural approaches to plagiarism

PAGE 36

Content Meets Design Level 1 Identify & List Level 2 Explain consequences Level 3 Apply & Recognize(Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)

PAGE 37

DesignContent learning objectives are one major component of our overall design task.

PAGE 38

DesignAnother major component of the overall design task is to make games that our audience wants to play.

PAGE 39

DesignFocus Groups for Design Research

PAGE 40

DesignFocus Groups partnered with the I graduate student groups

PAGE 41

DesignFocus Group Method1.diverse attitudes toward video games 2.very diverse preferences for game genres3.Preference for a meta-game environment

PAGE 42

DesignMajor Design Task Components 1.Meet content learning objectives 2.Make learning games that reach a wide audience

PAGE 43

DesignOverall Design Structure A series of short, modular mini-games linked together with an interactive fiction narrative.

PAGE 44

Design Overall Design Metaphor

PAGE 45

Meta-Game Story

PAGE 46

Meta-Game Story

PAGE 47

Meta-Game Story

PAGE 48

Meta-Game Story

PAGE 49

Meta-Game StoryWho stands between the university and utter chaos?

PAGE 50

Meta-Game Story

PAGE 51

Meta-Game Story

PAGE 52

Design Game 1 Design Metaphor

PAGE 53

Design Game 1 Design Metaphor

PAGE 54

DesignGame 1 -Plagiarism ProblemsBoard game race against NPC opponentPlagiarism quiz scenarios hidden throughout the boardPlayer is allowed to plagiarize, falsify or fabricate their positions on the game board.The amount a player engages in research misconduct increases their chance of getting caught.

PAGE 55

Design Game 1 Post-game Narrative If the player cheats during the game, they will be expelled from school after the game in a narrative cutsceneset in a mock tribunal room. At the last minute however, the University Librarys AntiPlagiarism Corps intervenes and asks the tribunal to stay the players expulsion if they help in the fight against plagiarism.

PAGE 56

Design Game 2 Design Metaphor

PAGE 57

Design Game 2 Design Metaphor

PAGE 58

Design Game 3 Design Metaphor

PAGE 59

Development

PAGE 60

Development

PAGE 61

Development

PAGE 62

Development

PAGE 63

Development

PAGE 64

Development

PAGE 65

Phase 3&5: EvaluationFormative Evaluation: Usability Testing Learner assessments of modules Design assessmentsSummative Evaluation: Overall project evaluation Assessment of learning in game Evaluation of objectives

PAGE 66

Usability Testing15 Day Cycle WEEK 1 WEEK 2 WEEK 3

PAGE 67

Usability: Week 1Schedule ParticipantsDevelop Testing ProtocolsReview prototype designDevelop learning assessments, if applicable

PAGE 68

Usability: Week 2Conduct user tests with 3-5 STEM students

PAGE 70

Usability: Week 3Prepare usability reportCommunicate successes/ shortfalls to GAP teamUsability report informs further developmentDesign team documents changes in future iterations of the game

PAGE 71

Phase 4: ImplementationSix NSF-funded universities and one large state university have agreed to participate in beta testing of the GAP game. The game and learning assessments will be delivered to these institutions for testing during Spring 2012. University of Houston Loyola Marymount Oakland University Rowan University Purdue University Virginia Commonwealth University University of Central Florida

PAGE 72

Phase 5: EvaluationFormative Evaluation: Usability Testing Learner assessments of modules Design assessmentsSummative Evaluation: Overall project evaluation Assessment of learning in game Evaluation of objectives

PAGE 73

ReferencesGreat Content graphic: http://www.seibunkyo.org/ This presentation is based on the recently award National Science Foundation IIS EESE Grant 1033002


University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2011 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated May 24, 2011 - Version 3.0.0 - mvs