User:Batriesyaarizan/sandbox

PGT436E

Scenario: Case 4
In preparation for the school's annual science fair, students in Mrs. Johnson's biology class are tasked with designing and conducting their own experiments. Each student is required to work independently and submit a unique project proposal outlining their research question, methodology, and expected outcomes. However, during the science fair, Mrs. Johnson notices striking similarities between the projects of two students, Sarah and David. Both projects investigate the effects of different fertilizers on plant growth using identical experimental setups and procedures. Mrs. Johnson suspects that one student may have copied the other's project or that they collaborated inappropriately.

Case Analysis of Scenario
There are noticeable similarities between Sarah and David’s science fair projects, raising doubts about their approach. The most alarming possibility is plagiarism, in which one student completely replicates the other’s work. One of them may view the other’s proposal and steal it without getting permission or giving credit due to struggle in coming up with a novel idea. This would be an obvious attempt to cheat, undermining the project’s originality.

On the other hand, inappropriate collaboration could be the problem. Sarah and David may share their research ideas, leading to a comparable research topic and identical experimental setups. However, they should have created and carried out independent experiments with distinct methodologies in terms of the particular fertilisers utilised, data collection techniques, or analysis. Alternatively, it is possible that they work together to develop the research topic and methodology, but they neglect to acknowledge this collaboration in their proposals. Although working together can be beneficial, failing to mention it gives the misleading appearance that every work is done independently.

Restricted project options or resource availability may also be the factors. Mrs. Johnson may have provided a limited pool of project ideas, guiding both students towards the similar topic of fertiliser and plant growth. If there is a lack of material availability in the class, it is possible that both students are compelled to grow the same kind of plant and use the same fertilisers, resulting in a comparable setting. All in all, this case presents a need to emphasise the significance of academic honesty and scientific inquiry.

Ethical issues in Scenario
The situation involving Sarah and David in Mrs. Johnson's biology class highlights several kinds of ethical issues related to originality and academic honesty of both students. The primary ethical issues addressed in this case are plagiarism, a lack of originality, and students' inappropriate collaboration in maintaining academic honesty.

Firstly, one of the most significant ethical issues in this situation is plagiarism. Plagiarism is defined as taking someone else's words, thoughts, ideas, or phrases without proper credit and claiming them as one's own. In this case, plagiarism refers to one student copied another's work without consent or acknowledgment. Moreover, plagiarism is considered unethical and inhibits learning. It is also considered stealing since it makes use of other people's work. This unethical behaviour impacts the academic community by affecting the integrity of educational evaluations, in addition to having a negative impact on the individual who is involved in it.

Furthermore, inappropriate collaboration is also a significant ethical issue in this case. Inappropriate collaboration is any type of collaboration that is done without any particular permission. Collaboration without any particular permission is against academic regulations whenever an assignment states that work must be done independently. McCabe, Butterfield and Trevino states that academic integrity guidelines have specified exactly when and under what circumstances collaboration is allowed. Breaking these guidelines can result in a lack of reliability between students and teachers, as well as inequities in assessments that disadvantage those who follow the policies.

In conclusion, the Sarah and David case brings to light a number of significant ethical issues related to academic honesty, such as plagiarism and inappropriate collaboration. As such, this problem needs to be addressed from all angles

1. Individual Consultation
To address the situation where Sarah and David's science fair projects are strikingly similar, Mrs. Johnson should arrange separate meetings with Sarah and David to discuss their projects. Mrs. Johnson should make sure that the conversation takes place in a private and comfortable setting to encourage openness and honesty. This could also help to create an environment where the student feels safe to speak freely. In these meetings, Mrs. Johnson could ask each student to explain their thought process, research question, methodology, and any unique aspects of their project. This will help determine if one student might have copied from the other or if there was unauthorised collaboration.

2. Document Analysis and Evidence Review
Apart from that, Mrs. Johnson could review the original project proposals submitted by Sarah and David to search for identical wording, similar phrasing, or identical methodologies. At the same time, Mrs. Johnson could also look for unique elements in the proposals that differentiate their writing styles. While checking their proposals, Mrs. Johnson could ask for any drafts or notes they made to record their projects’ progress and compare these documents for similarities and development. This can help to determine whether the similarities are unintended or indicative of copying.

3. Regular Check-ins
In addressing the issue of potential plagiarism between Sarah and David's science fair projects, implementing regular check-ins throughout the project's development stages can be an effective strategy. Mrs. Johnson could set up a plan for periodic reviews of each student's progress, where students submit updates on their experimental design, data collection, and analysis. These regular check-ins not only allow the teacher to monitor each student’s individual progress but also provide opportunities to give feedback and address any concerns early on. By documenting these interactions and maintaining a timeline of each student's work, Mrs. Johnson can better track the originality of their ideas and methods, thereby reducing the risk of students copying each other's work. Regular check-ins would also encourage students to stay on track and develop their projects incrementally, rather than rushing at the last minute and potentially resorting to unethical practices like plagiarism.

4. Plagiarism Detection Tools
The integrity of the pupils' work can be further ensured by incorporating plagiarism detection tools such as Turnitin, Grammarly and Scribbr. These tools are capable of analysing the content of project proposals and reports, comparing them for similarities and potential instances of copied material. By running each submission through a plagiarism detection system, Mrs. Johnson can objectively assess whether Sarah and David’s projects are too similar to be coincidental. These tools not only help identify direct copying but also detect paraphrasing without attributed sources, thereby promoting a culture of academic integrity and originality. Combined with regular check-ins, the use of plagiarism detection tools creates a comprehensive approach to maintaining academic integrity by guaranteeing that each student's work is original and upholding the standards of the science fair.

5. Verbal Warnings
If there is indeed unauthorised collaboration or plagiarism, verbal warnings should be given to both of them. Considering this as their first attempt, they should be given an educational consequence. Examples of educational consequences are classroom services or writing reflection papers on the importance of academic integrity. Then, they are required to redo their projects independently. Guidance can be given to them so that they can work independently. However, if they are caught doing the same thing again, disciplinary actions should be taken.

6. Clarifying Guidelines
Meanwhile, Mrs. Johnson can also use this opportunity to clarify the guidelines to the rest of the class. Communicate with the students regarding the importance of academic integrity but at the same time maintain the confidentiality of the issue. This way, Mrs. Johnson can ensure that all students clearly understand the expectations for independent works. Also, she can emphasise that no unauthorised collaborations or plagiarism is allowed in this project. She should also clarify the differences between collusion with acceptable collaborations among students. Again, Mrs. Johnson must emphasise that no academic dishonesty will be tolerated. Finally, Mrs. Johnson should encourage and support any original work submitted. Recognise their efforts and provide constructive feedback to those who completed the project independently.