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

Why Mode 2?

Thomas Gradgrind, sir. A man of realities 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)

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.

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

Mode 1 vs. Mode 2 MODE 1 MODE 2 Problems are set and solved within the context of subject, field, or discipline Problems are set and solved in the context of application Disciplinary Transdisciplinary Homogeneity Heterogeneity Hierarchical and preserves form Heterarchical and is transient (Nowotny et al, 2003)

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

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)

The challenges of Mode 2 Assessment

Challenges of Mode 2 Assessment What is academic integrity? CESM: Transdisciplinarity vs. Multi-disciplinarity Testing theoretical understanding through workplace-alligned assessment 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)

Authenticity Controls

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)

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

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.

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.

References Brown, S., 2005. Assessment for learning. Learning and teaching in higher education, (1), pp.81-89. CHE. Cele, N., 2010. The notion of academic standards and integrity and programme design in higher education. Faggiolani, C., 2014. Research evaluation and Mode 2 science. Lettera Matematica, 1(4), pp.191-197. Gibbons, M. ed., 1994. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage. Gibbons, M., 1997. What Kind of University?: Research and Teaching in the 21st Century. Melbourne: Victoria University of Technology. Hessels, L.K. and Lente, H.V., 2010. The mixed blessing of Mode 2 knowledge production. Science, Technology & Innovation Studies, 6(1), pp.65-69. Jansen, J.D., 2002. Mode 2 knowledge and institutional life: Taking Gibbons on a walk through a South African university. Higher Education, 43(4), pp.507-521. Kraak, A., 2000. Changing modes: A brief overview of the mode 2 knowledge debate and its impact on South African policy formulation. Human science research. Pretoria, pp.9-19. Kuutti, K., 2007. Design research, disciplines, and new production of knowledge. International association of societies of design research. Emerging trends in design research. Hong Kong, pp.12-15. Musson, D., 2009. The production of Mode 2 knowledge in higher education in South Africa (Doctoral dissertation). Nowotny, H., Scott, P. and Gibbons, M., 2003. Introduction: Mode 2 Revisited: The New Production of Knowledge. Nowotny, H., Scott, P. and Gibbons, M., 2006. Re-thinking science: mode 2 in societal context. Knowledge creation, diffusion, and use in innovation networks and knowledge clusters. A comparative systems approach across the United States, Europe and Asia, pp.39-51. Scott, J., 2000. Authentic assessment tools. JW Schell, B. McAlister, J. Scott, & M. Hoepfl. Using authentic assessment in vocational education. Information Series, (381), pp.40-55. Sousa, S.B., 2011. The transformation of knowledge production and the academic community. Educação, Sociedade & Culturas, (32). Zegwaard, K., Coll, R.K. and Hodges, D., 2003. Assessment of workplace learning: A framework. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 4(1), pp.9-18.

Dr Mario Landman Mario@davinci.ac.za