Enhancing Academic Integrity in Mode 2 Learning Environments: A Reflective South African Perspective

1. Promoting academic integrity in a Mode 2 learning environment: A critically reflective review of a South African application.

2. Why Mode 2?

3. Thomas Gradgrind, sir.  A man of realities.  A man of facts and calculations.  A man who proceeds upon the principle that two and two are four, and nothing over, and who is not to be talked into allowing for anything over …  With a rule and a pair of scales, and the multiplication table always in his pocket, sir, ready to weigh and measure any parcel of human nature, and tell you exactly what it comes to.  It is a mere question of figures, a case of simple arithmetic. Now, what I want is, Facts.  Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts.  Facts alone are wanted in life.  Plant nothing else, and root out everything else.  You can only form the minds of reasoning animals upon Facts: nothing else will ever be of any service to them.  Charles Dickens, “Hard Times” (1884)

4. Why Mode 2? • We don’t talk about Mode 2 anymore, but it’s the prevalent discourse (Sousa, 2011). • Citations of The New Production of Knowledge (Gibbons, et al., 1994) on Scopus has increased five fold between 1997 and 2010 (Hessels and Lente, 2010). • Crosspollination, convergence, melding, intersecting and repositioning of research disciplines (Faggiolani, 2014). • Organic response to the profound changes in contemporary science systems (Hessels and Lente, 2010). • The rise of information technology and the empowerment of the individual researcher.

5. Why Mode 2? • Real-world application: Context-focused, problem-driven • Contextually transient: Inherently adverse to plagiarism • Novel ways of quality control

6. Mode 1 vs. Mode 2 (Nowotnyet al, 2003)

7. Mode 1 vs. Mode 2 “Architectural Mapping” and “Compliance” (Cele, 2010)

9. Mode 2: Challenges “This explosion of choices may make it more difficult to aggregate them into, or shape them within a framework of planned programmes with clear and stable goals” (Nowotny et al, 2003)

10. The challenges of Mode 2 Assessment

11. Challenges of Mode 2 Assessment • What is academic integrity? • CESM: Transdisciplinarity vs. Multi-disciplinarity • Testing theoretical understanding through workplace-allignedassessment • The ‘problem’ is unique and transient; the theory is fixed • Mismatch between industry needs and academic needs • Assessment of work-place relevant learning is based on competencies and standards: “To itemize out the skills of students in a way that divorces them from the infinitely variable context in which they work, is to miss the essence of what it is to be a learner” (Zegwaard et al, 2003)

12. Authenticity Controls

13. Authenticity Controls • Don’t get rid of theory • Mode 2 Assessment requires the student to: • Connect theory, concepts and principles to solve problems (integrated and structured knowledge) • Reflect on thinking and practices (metacognition – feeling and attitudes) • Feedback beyond scoring (Relationship building) (Scott, 2000)

14. Authenticity Controls: Tools • Assessment Tools • Visual Representation / Graphic Organizers / Concept Mapping • Performance Products (Measurement of Process and Product Quality) • Live Performance

15. Performance Products and Live Performances • End-products of learning aligned to work-place relevant / real world contexts • Used to develop and construct usable knowledge • Requires students to retrieve and organize theoretical learning for assimilation during the development of end-products • Requires exemplary models to develop criteria and standards for assessing performance • Benefits from a holistic approach to rubric-design where the product of performance is considered in totality.

16. Visual Representation / Graphic Organizers / Concept Mapping • Requires students to sequence, compare, contrast, classify, and establish relations and associations within a context unique to them. • Helps to translate the abstractness of context into a visible an concrete representation. • Rubric used to describe criteria to assess content and relationships • Benefits from an analytical approach to rubric design where the focus is on specific aspects of the product – used to evaluate specific components.

17. References

18. Dr Mario Landman Mario@davinci.ac.za