1 / 10

Factors integral to the case: categorising qualitative factors to determine AI outcomes.

Factors integral to the case: categorising qualitative factors to determine AI outcomes. Tracey Bretag and Margaret Green University of South Australia. 4 th International Plagiarism Conference, Newcastle, June 21-23, 2010. context/aim. Many University policies allow ‘factors’ Should they?

tamera
Download Presentation

Factors integral to the case: categorising qualitative factors to determine AI outcomes.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Factors integral to the case: categorising qualitative factors to determine AI outcomes. Tracey Bretag and Margaret Green University of South Australia 4th International Plagiarism Conference, Newcastle, June 21-23, 2010

  2. context/aim • Many University policies allow ‘factors’ • Should they? • Do these factors influence outcomes? • Is so, then how? • How could we use this information?

  3. UniSA ‘factors’ (UniSA 2008) a) the extent of the misconduct b) the student’s intention and/or motivation c) contextual factors such as: i. stage/level of program ii. number of previous offences iii. student’s learning background d) convention of discipline e) the impact of a particular outcome on a student’s progression f) information provided to the student about academic integrity as part of their course g) where applicable, information about the student held on the academic misconduct database [previous offences]

  4. UniSA database https://my.unisa.edu.au/staff/aidb/ 110030006

  5. method Round 1: Collaboratively clustered in “types” Round 2: Separately allocated each breach into a cluster (some disagreement) Round 3: Collaboratively allocated each breach into a cluster Round 4: Cluster grouping finalised

  6. results/discussion

  7. Personal circumstance outside of UniSA policy 1.8% fell outside policy therefore minimal impact, but does allow for fairness (Bretag & Green 2009)

  8. relating to UniSA policy

  9. factors ‘outside’ UniSA policy Total of 33% Totally not covered by policy 21.4%

  10. further discussion/research • Why is AI education not working? • What impact does an AI breach have on a student? • How could the codes be further refined? • How could we use this information? • Are there areas for collaboration?

More Related