L’intelligence artificielle est-elle une menace pour l’intégrité académique ? – 2023-05-18

L’intelligence artificielle est-elle une menace pour l’intégrité académique ?

Journées de la pédagogie universitaire 2023, Université du Québec à Montréal

Martine Peters, Université du Québec en Outaouais

Références extraites des diapositives

Diapositive 5 : Intelligence artificielle

• Marr, B. (2019, November 11). 13 Mind-Blowing Things Artificial Intelligence Can Already Do Today. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2019/11/11/13-mind-blowing-things-artificial-intelligence-can-already-do-today/?sh=2cbcddac6502

Diapositives 6-7-8 : Intelligence artificielle

• Nirina. (2023, 25 janvier). OpenAI : tout savoir sur l’entreprise IA d’Elon Musk. Lebigdata.fr. https://www.lebigdata.fr/tout-sur-openai
• Montti, R. (2022, December 26). What is ChatGPT And How Can You Use It? Search Engine Journal. https://www.searchenginejournal.com/what-is-chatgpt/473664/#close
• Turrettini, E. (2023, 08 février). ChatGPT atteint 100 millions d’utilisateurs deux mois après son lancement. Bilan.ch : Opinions. https://www.bilan.ch/story/chatgpt-atteint-100-millions-dutilisateurs-deux-mois-apres-son-lancement-288693665294  
• Nguyen, L. D. (2023, 16 janvier). ChatGPT : non, ce n’est pas la fin du métier de « rédac ». Grenier aux nouvelles. Petit monde. Grandes idées. https://www.grenier.qc.ca/nouvelles/32158/chatgpt-non-ce-nest-pas-la-fin-du-metier-de-redac

Diapositives 29-30: Plagiat ou pas?

• Bailey, J. (2023). Is Plagiarism a Feature of Artificial Intelligence? Plagiarism Today. https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2023/03/23/is-plagiarism-a-feature-of-ai/
• Shashwat (2023). Is ChatGPT Plagiarism? No. Here’s Why We Think So. Nerds Chalk. https://nerdschalk.com/is-chatgpt-plagiarism/

Diapositive  31: L’ère de la rédaction préhistorique!

• Peters, M. (2021). Demande de subvention de partenariat soumise au CRSH.

Diapositives 33 : Nouvelle façon d’écrire ❤️     

• Eaton, S.E. (2023). 6 Tenets of Postplagiarism: Writing in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. Learning, Teaching and Leadership.

Diapositive 34: Lecture pour vos étudiants

• Hew, N. (2023). How to use ChatGPT in your assignments without getting accused of plagiarism. Study International. https://www.studyinternational.com/news/chatgpt-and-plagiarism/

Diapositive 36 : Parlons-en de la détection ❤️

• Clay, G. (2023). The Depth of the AI Plagiarism Problem. AutomatED: Teaching Better with Tech. https://automated.beehiiv.com/p/depth-ai-plagiarism-problem

Diapositive 40: AI² immunisation ❤️

• Clay, G. (2023). Conceptualizing Solutions to the AI Plagiarism Problem. AutomatED: Teaching Better with Tech. https://automated.beehiiv.com/p/conceptualizing-solutions-ai-plagiarism-problem

Diapositive 41 : Redéfinir l’évaluation

• Lodge, Howard and Broadbent (2023). Assessment redesigne for generative AI: A taxonomy of options and their viability. LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/assessment-redesign-generative-ai-taxonomy-options-viability-lodge/?fbclid=IwAR2IGAAocNIMWoj9AIyBWQLiEIaJP12-9UQCaLQrH7wGp6ugTcfvUGCuE7Y

Diapositive 44 : Taxonomie de Bloom

• Anderson, L.W., Krathwohl, D.R., Airasian, P.W., Cruikshank, K.A., Mayer, R.E., Pintrich, P.R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M.C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Complete edition). New York: Longman.
• Profinnovant (s.d.). Taxonomie de Bloom révisée : verbes d’action. Section pédagogie. https://www.profinnovant.com/taxonomie-de-bloom-revisee-verbes-daction/

Diapositives 45-46 : Originalité versus créativité ❤️

• Johnson-Eilola, J. et Selber, S. A. (2007). Plagiarism, originality, assemblage. Computers and Composition, 24(4), 375-403. 

Diapositives 48-49-50 : Délestage cognitif

• Risko EF, Gilbert SJ. (2016). Cognitive offloading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 20(9):676–688. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.002.
• Dawson, P. (2020). Cognitive Offloading and Assessment. In: Bearman, M., Dawson, P., Ajjawi, R., Tai, J., Boud, D. (eds) Re-imagining University Assessment in a Digital World. The Enabling Power of Assessment, vol 7. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41956-1_4 ❤️

Diapositive  51: L’évaluation authentique

• Frey, B. B., Schmitt, V. L., & Allen, J. P. (2012). Defining authentic classroom assessment. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 17(2). 
• Kashani-Vahid, L., Afrooz, G., Shokoohi-Yekta, M., Kharrazi, K., & Ghobari, B. (2017). Can a creative interpersonal problem solving program improve creative thinking in gifted elementary students? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 24, 175-185. 
• Wadaani, M. R. (2015). Teaching for Creativity as Human Development toward Self-Actualization: The Essence of Authentic Learning and Optimal Growth for All Students.Creative Education, 6,669-679. 
• Wiggins, G. (2011). A true test: toward more authentic and equitable assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(7), 81–93.   

Diapositive 52: Caractéristique d’une évaluation authentique

Spiller, D. (2014). Assessment matters: Academic Integrity. The University of Waikato. https://www.waikato.ac.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/352869/Assessment-Matters_-Group-Work-Assessment.pdf

Fahim, S. (n.d.). Assessments – Prevention Strategies to Combat Plagiarism [PowerPoint presentation]. The British University in Egypt. https://www.bue.edu.eg/powerpoints-academic-honesty/

Diapositive 53: Des évaluations à l’épreuve de ChatGPT

• Saffari, H. (2023). Des évaluations à l’épreuve de ChatGPT. Université du Québec en Outaouais. Communication personnelle.

Diapositive 54 : Des consignes claires

• Cullen, C. (2020). Syllabi Designed with Integrity In Mind.  Sur le site web https://www.academicintegrity.org/integrity/syllabi-designed-with-integrity-in-mind/
• Harris, Robert (2015).  Antiplagiarism Strategies for Research Papers. Virtual Salt. http://www.virtualsalt.com/antiplag.htm  ❤️
• Smith, C. D., Worsfold, K., Davies, L., Fisher, R. et McPhail, R. (2013). Assessment literacy and student learning: the case for explicitly developing students ‘assessment literacy’. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(1), 44-60. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2011.598636

Diapositive 55: Rules for Tools ❤️

• Spannagel, C. (2023). Rules for Tools. Pädagogische Hochschule Heidelberg. https://csp.uber.space/phhd/rulesfortools.pdf 

Diapositive 56 : Critères d’évaluation

• Davies, D., Jindal-Snape, D., Collier, C., Digby, R., Hay, P., & Howe, A. (2013). Creative learning environments in education–a systematic literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8, 80–91. 
• De Bruijn-Smolders, M., Timmers, C. F., Gawke, J. C. L., Schoonman, W., & Born, M. P. (2016). Effective self-regulatory processes in higher education: research findings and future directions. a systematic review. Studies in Higher Education, 41(1), 139–158.
• Shin et al. (2012)
  White M, Kern ML. Positive education: Learning and teaching for wellbeing and academic mastery. International Journal of Wellbeing. 2018;8(1):1-17. DOI: 10.5502/ijw.v8i1.588