设计活动教学指引

Seminar Activity Guide: Academic Integrity and Citation

Purpose and scope This guide provides a research-informed, step-by-step plan for a 90-minute seminar designed to build students’ conceptual understanding of academic integrity and their practical competence in ethical source use, including paraphrasing, quoting, and referencing. The session emphasizes explicit instruction, scaffolded practice, and criterion-referenced feedback, aligned with established standards and scholarship.

Intended learning outcomes (ILOs) By the end of the seminar, students will be able to:

1. Explain the fundamental values of academic integrity and apply them to common academic scenarios (ICAI, 2014; McCabe, Butterfield, & Treviño, 2012).
2. Differentiate appropriate paraphrasing and quotation from patchwriting and plagiarism, justifying judgments with reference to scholarly definitions (Howard, 1993; Pecorari, 2013).
3. Integrate sources into academic prose using summary, paraphrase, and quotation, with accurate in-text citations and a complete reference list in APA 7th style (APA, 2020).
4. Evaluate ambiguous integrity cases (e.g., inappropriate collaboration, self-reuse, undeclared generative tools, and contract cheating) and propose policy-aligned responses (Bretag, 2016; WPA, 2014).

Preparatory work (to assign 3–5 days in advance)

• Read: International Center for Academic Integrity (ICAI) Fundamental Values (2nd ed.).
• Read: APA Publication Manual (7th ed.), Sections 8–9 (citation mechanics, reference examples), 8.23–8.36 (paraphrasing and quotations), and 1.16 (ethics).
• Read: Pecorari (2013), Chapter 2 (“Defining Plagiarism and Patchwriting”).
• Bring: One short scholarly source (300–600 words) relevant to your discipline for use in class exercises.

Session plan (90 minutes) A. Diagnostic and orientation (10 minutes)

• Pre-quiz (individual, 5 minutes): Four multiple-choice items covering definitions (plagiarism vs. patchwriting), paraphrase quality, and basic citation.
• Mini-lecture (instructor, 5 minutes): Concise overview of integrity values (ICAI, 2014) and why source-use instruction reduces misuse (Pecorari, 2013). Frame similarity reports as aids to review, not verdicts on intent.

B. Activity 1 — The Source Integration Ladder (25 minutes) Goal: Scaffold the three core integration moves—summary, paraphrase, quotation—with citation. Materials: One short scholarly excerpt per student; paraphrase checklist (provided below). Steps:

1. Individual (7 minutes): Produce (a) one-sentence summary; (b) a 40–60-word paraphrase; (c) one integrated quotation (≤30 words), each with correct APA in-text citation.
2. Peer exchange (8 minutes): Partners use the checklist to evaluate for:
   • Fidelity of meaning (no distortion).
   • Sufficient transformation of wording/structure in paraphrase (beyond synonym swaps).
   • Appropriate quotation marks and page/paragraph numbers for quoted material.
   • Accurate in-text citation formatting.
3. Whole-class debrief (10 minutes): Instructor models improvement of a borderline paraphrase, distinguishing patchwriting (Howard, 1993) from acceptable paraphrase; connects to APA guidance on quotation and paraphrase (APA, 2020, 8.23–8.36).

Paraphrase quality checklist

• Conceptual accuracy: Ideas preserved; no novel claims added.
• Linguistic transformation: New syntax and lexis; not merely word-level substitutions.
• Attribution: In-text citation present and correctly formatted.
• Integration: Fits surrounding prose and rhetorical purpose (e.g., supporting, contrasting, synthesizing).

C. Activity 2 — Attribution Accuracy Relay (20 minutes) Goal: Build fluency and accuracy in referencing varied source types using APA 7th style. Materials: A set of 6–8 source cards (journal article with DOI, edited book chapter, web page with organization author, report with corporate author, preprint, dataset). Steps:

1. Teams of three receive two source cards each (8 minutes): Draft in-text citations and full references.
2. Rotation (6 minutes): Teams swap cards and verify another team’s entries against the APA manual, annotating any corrections with rule references (e.g., APA, 2020, 9.1–9.37).
3. Debrief (6 minutes): Instructor highlights frequent issues (e.g., group authors, DOIs as URLs, date formats, capitalization of titles).

D. Activity 3 — Integrity Case Clinic (25 minutes) Goal: Apply integrity principles to ambiguous cases; articulate reasoned judgments and preventive strategies. Materials: Four short vignettes, each with prompts:

• Case 1: “Patchwritten” lab report background section with partial citations.
• Case 2: Reuse of a student’s prior coursework without disclosure (self-plagiarism).
• Case 3: Collaborative problem set where boundary between legitimate peer discussion and collusion is unclear.
• Case 4: Use of an undeclared generative writing tool to draft an abstract; student edited for accuracy but did not disclose. Procedure:

1. Small groups select two cases (10 minutes): For each, complete a decision log including:
   • Identify: Which fundamental values are implicated (ICAI, 2014)?
   • Classify: Summary of behavior using scholarly terminology (e.g., patchwriting vs. plagiarism; undeclared assistance vs. contract cheating) with citations (Bretag, 2016; WPA, 2014).
   • Evaluate: Likely intent/risk; potential harms to fairness and trust.
   • Decide: Appropriate response aligned with institutional policy (e.g., educational intervention vs. formal misconduct process).
   • Prevent: Assessment and teaching strategies to reduce recurrence (transparent criteria; scaffolded drafts; viva/oral checks; individualized data or prompts).
2. Report-out (10 minutes): Each group presents one case; instructor normalizes developmental challenges (especially for multilingual writers), distinguishes pedagogic responses from sanctionable misconduct, and underscores disclosure expectations for tools.
3. Synthesis (5 minutes): Capture class-generated prevention strategies and link to assessment design principles (clarity, authenticity, staged deliverables).

E. Reflection and exit ticket (10 minutes)

• Individual reflective prompt: “Identify one specific revision you will apply to your current writing practice regarding source integration and one action to uphold fairness in future collaborations.” Students submit with a revised version of their Activity 1 paraphrase.

Assessment strategy

• Formative assessment during seminar:

  • Paraphrase quality rubric (used in Activity 1 peer review):
    • Accuracy of meaning (0–3)
    • Degree of linguistic transformation (0–3)
    • Correct attribution and citation (0–3)
    • Coherence and integration into argument (0–3)
  • Attribution relay accuracy rate (Activity 2): Number of error-free references after peer verification.
  • Case clinic reasoning quality (Activity 3): Completeness of decision log; explicit alignment with integrity values and policy.

• Post-seminar task (summative, due in 5 days):

  • Task A: Write a 250–300-word synthesized paragraph integrating at least two scholarly sources using summary, paraphrase, and one short quotation, with APA in-text citations and reference list.
  • Task B: Short-answer (300–400 words): Analyze one novel vignette; identify integrity issues, justify judgments with sources, and propose prevention strategies.
  • Scoring criteria (each 0–4):
    • Attribution accuracy (APA mechanics; completeness of references).
    • Source integration quality (balance of summary/paraphrase/quotation; rhetorical fit).
    • Ethical reasoning (accurate classification; alignment with integrity values; feasible prevention).
    • Writing quality (clarity, coherence, concision; discipline-appropriate tone).

Instructor notes and implementation guidance

• Framing: Emphasize that academic integrity is fundamentally about honesty, trust, fairness, respect, responsibility, and courage (ICAI, 2014). Avoid equating similarity scores with misconduct; teach students to interpret reports diagnostically when permitted.
• Inclusivity: Acknowledge that patchwriting can be a developmental stage, particularly for additional-language writers, but clarify institutional expectations and provide explicit instruction and feedback (Howard, 1993; Pecorari, 2013).
• Tool transparency: If generative tools are permitted, require explicit disclosure of tool use and prompts; assess for factual accuracy, source verifiability, and student understanding via process artifacts (search notes, drafts) or brief orals. Align with institutional policy.
• Academic skills transfer: Encourage students to maintain a personal “citation decision log” that records unusual source types and corresponding APA rules for future reference.
• Quality assurance: Calibrate grading by discussing exemplars and borderline cases at the start of marking; use double-marking for a sample to ensure consistency.

Materials and resources

• Excerpts for Activity 1 (discipline-relevant, 150–200 words each).
• Source cards for Activity 2 with full bibliographic metadata.
• Case vignettes for Activity 3, adapted to local policy language.
• Access to APA Manual (7th ed.) or the APA Style website for verification.
• Slide deck with definitions, examples, and rule references.

Evidence base and rationale

• Explicit instruction and scaffolded practice reduce unintentional plagiarism and improve citation accuracy (Pecorari, 2013; Bretag, 2016).
• Values-based framing correlates with more ethical decision-making than punitive messaging alone (ICAI, 2014; McCabe et al., 2012).
• Teaching the distinction between patchwriting and legitimate paraphrase supports developmental writers while upholding standards (Howard, 1993).

References (APA 7th) American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). American Psychological Association.

Bretag, T. (Ed.). (2016). Handbook of academic integrity. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-079-7

Council of Writing Program Administrators. (2014). Defining and avoiding plagiarism: The WPA statement on best practices. http://wpacouncil.org/positions/WPAplagiarism.pdf

Howard, R. M. (1993). A plagiarism pentimento. Journal of Teaching Writing, 11(3), 233–246.

International Center for Academic Integrity. (2014). The fundamental values of academic integrity (2nd ed.). Clemson University. https://academicintegrity.org/resources/fundamental-values

McCabe, D. L., Butterfield, K. D., & Treviño, L. K. (2012). Cheating in college: Why students do it and what educators can do about it. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Pecorari, D. (2013). Teaching to avoid plagiarism: How to promote good source use. Open University Press/McGraw-Hill.

Optional style references (for cross-disciplinary alignment)

• Modern Language Association. (2021). MLA handbook (9th ed.). MLA.
• University of Chicago. (2017). The Chicago manual of style (17th ed.). University of Chicago Press.

Appendix: Sample case vignette (for Activity 3) Case 2 — Reuse without disclosure A student submits a literature review section that substantially overlaps with a paper previously submitted in another course. The student argues that “it is my own work.” Prompts: Identify the integrity values involved; classify the behavior (e.g., self-plagiarism/duplicate submission); recommend an action consistent with policy (e.g., require disclosure and instructor approval for any re-use; redesign assessment to require new synthesis); specify how future tasks will include process checks (e.g., annotated bibliography, proposal, or oral defense).

End of guide.

管理者课：情景反馈演练活动指引

1. 活动定位与理论依据

• 教学目标定位：通过结构化演练与反思，提升管理者在关键情境中实施高质量绩效与发展性反馈的能力，具体包括信息组织、对话引导、情绪调节与改进行动落地。设计依据明确表明，反馈对绩效与学习的促进作用具有条件性，只有在关注任务与过程、明确改进路径并兼顾关系安全的前提下，反馈才更可能改善表现（Kluger & DeNisi, 1996；Hattie & Timperley, 2007；Shute, 2008）。
• 理论依据与模型：
  • 有效反馈的三问框架：目标（到哪里）、现状（在哪里）、路径（如何到达）（Hattie & Timperley, 2007）。
  • 任务性与形成性反馈原则：具体、可操作、及时、聚焦可控行为（Shute, 2008）。
  • 结构化表达法：情境—行为—影响（SBI），用于提高信息的可验证性与非人身化表达（Center for Creative Leadership, 2019）。
  • 前馈（Feedforward）：面向未来的改进建议与练习，有助于降低防御性并加速行为改变（Goldsmith, 2002）。
  • 心理安全：营造可讨论错误与不确定性的氛围，提升学习行为与对话质量（Edmondson, 1999）。
  • 体验式学习循环：经历—反思—抽象—迁移，强调高质量复盘（Fanning & Gaba, 2007；Kolb, 1984）。

2. 学习目标（可测量） 完成本次演练后，学员应能：

• 使用SBI框架在3分钟内清晰陈述一条行为性反馈，包含具体情境、可观察行为与影响（准确率≥80%由同伴评分量表判定）。
• 在反馈对话中提出至少两个开放性探询问题，并形成共同改进计划（含明确行动、资源与时间界限）。
• 针对受方的情绪或防御反应，使用去激化策略（共情、澄清、重述）将对话拉回到任务问题上。
• 将负向反馈转化为1项前馈练习，并设计一次跟进检查点（时间与指标明确）。

3. 受众与前置要求

• 受众：一线到中层管理者；适用于跨职能团队与项目负责人。
• 前置要求：完成课前阅读（2页）关于SBI与前馈；准备一个真实且已匿名化的反馈案例；承诺保密性。

4. 时长与资源配置

• 建议总时长：120分钟。
• 资源：投影/白板；情景卡与角色卡；观察者清单与评分量表；计时器；私密分组空间或线上分组讨论室。

5. 活动结构与时间安排（120分钟） 5.1 引入与安全框架（0–10分钟）

• 目的：建立心理安全与演练契约（不记录、保密、关注行为非人格）。
• 教学要点：阐释反馈的“任务—过程—自我调节”层次与演练目标（Hattie & Timperley, 2007；Edmondson, 1999）。

5.2 微型示范与工具梳理（10–20分钟）

• 教师演示：用SBI陈述一条反馈，接入两问探询（“你怎么看？”“下次想尝试什么？”），并以前馈收尾。
• 工具要点：
  • SBI：情境（可核实）—行为（可观察）—影响（对任务/团队/客户的客观影响）。
  • 前馈：给出未来两种可尝试做法，邀请对方选择并承诺（Goldsmith, 2002）。
  • 对话结构：开场设框—SBI—探询（双向意义建构）—共同计划—确认与跟进。

5.3 编组与角色分配（20–25分钟）

• 三人小组：反馈者、受方、观察者；轮换三轮。
• 分发情景卡与观察清单。

5.4 轮次A：基础情景演练（25–73分钟）

• 每轮结构（共3轮，每轮16分钟）：
  • 对话演练：12分钟（反馈者使用SBI+探询+前馈；受方按角色卡回应；观察者记录证据）。
  • 小组复盘：4分钟（观察者先陈述基于证据的观察，反馈者自评，受方补充）。
• 教师巡回观察，使用行动提示卡（如“更具体”“转向影响”“提出开放问题”）。

5.5 全体复盘与技能微练（73–90分钟）

• 全体提炼：常见偏误（泛化评价、意图归因、信息不足）。
• 微练环节（每组2分钟重复练习）：将评价性表述转写为SBI；将批评转化为前馈任务；使用“确认—重述—推进”处理情绪反应。

5.6 轮次B：挑战情景演练与迁移（90–112分钟）

• 选择高难情景（远程反馈/上行反馈/高绩低德行为/跨文化冲突）。
• 目标：在压力条件下保持结构化与对话性，形成可执行的改进行动。

5.7 个体行动计划与评估（112–120分钟）

• 形成个人“下一次反馈对话脚本”（包含开场语、SBI陈述、两问探询、前馈建议、跟进节点）。
• 快速同伴评估（使用评分量表），教师收集匿名数据用于课程改进。

6. 情景卡样例（可按行业定制）

• 情景1：跨部门延误。项目里程碑延误48小时，导致客户演示取消。对方事后未主动通报。
• 情景2：高绩低德。销售目标超额完成，但在内部群组中公开贬低支持团队。
• 情景3：远程协作。远程同事在周会中多次打断他人叙述，会议效率下降。
• 情景4：上行反馈。直线经理在评审会上当众否定团队方案，团队士气受挫。
• 情景5：发展性肯定。新人主动整理知识库显著缩短了新人上手时间，但尚缺复用标准。

7. 观察者清单（行为性指标）

• 开场：
  • 是否说明目标与时长；是否征得对话许可。
• 信息质量：
  • 情境是否具体可核实（时间、地点、任务）；
  • 行为是否客观、可观察、免于动机推断；
  • 影响是否与任务/客户/团队结果相关。
• 对话性：
  • 至少两条开放性探询（如“你如何看待…？”“背后有哪些制约？”）；
  • 是否复述与确认理解。
• 改进与承诺：
  • 是否提出前馈选项并共同选择；
  • 计划是否包含具体行动、支持资源与时间节点；
  • 是否约定跟进方式与时点。
• 情绪与关系管理：
  • 语气尊重、聚焦任务；出现防御时是否使用共情与澄清使对话回到问题。

8. 评分量表（4级行为锚定，供形成性评估）

• A. 明确性（SBI完整度）：
  • 1 不具体/混杂评价；4 情境、行为、影响具体可核实且彼此对齐。
• B. 对话性与探询：
  • 1 单向告知；4 至少两次高质量开放问题，体现倾听与复述。
• C. 改进行动：
  • 1 无明确建议或模糊；4 明确前馈练习、资源支持、时间节点与成效标准。
• D. 情绪调节与关系：
  • 1 触发防御并未处理；4 使用去激化策略，保持合作语气。
• E. 跟进与责任：
  • 1 无后续安排；4 约定检查点并明确责任与衡量方式。

9. 教学策略与引导要点

• 先做示范再做讲解：以高质量示例建立心智模型，优于先讲理论再练习（Shute, 2008）。
• 小步快练与即时反馈：短回合反复练习与同伴反馈可提升迁移（Hattie & Timperley, 2007）。
• 高质量复盘：采用“基于证据—影响—替代做法”的结构；避免泛化评价（Fanning & Gaba, 2007）。
• 心理安全护栏：禁止使用真实姓名/敏感信息；引导将评价语转为行为语（Edmondson, 1999）。

10. 差异化与情境适配

• 初任管理者：提供SBI话术模板与关键词卡，缩短准备时间。
• 资深管理者：引入复合难度（多方利益相关者、时间压力、文化差异）与上行反馈。
• 远程/混合授课：使用分组讨论室与共享文档；要求在视频开启前明确对话目标与时长。
• 跨文化与语言差异：鼓励“慢速—短句—复述确认”；避免文化特定隐喻与俚语。

11. 质量保障与学习评估

• 形成性评估：同伴评分量表+教师抽样观察；收集改进行动计划。
• 迁移性评估（课后2–4周）：学员提交一次真实反馈对话的反思报告（含情境、做法、结果与下一步），同行互评与教师点评结合。
• 课程效果测量：自评能力量表前后测；主管观察到的行为改变简表；必要时结合业务指标（如返工率、缺陷率、客户投诉）作相关性观察，避免因果夸大。

12. 伦理与风险管理

• 保密与匿名化：严格禁止提及真实姓名与可识别信息。
• 情绪支持：出现强烈情绪时暂停演练，进行短时情绪复位与个别辅导。
• 公平参与：确保每位学员至少担任一次反馈者角色。

参考文献（APA第7版）

• Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
• Fanning, R. M., & Gaba, D. M. (2007). The role of debriefing in simulation-based learning. Simulation in Healthcare, 2(2), 115–125.
• Goldsmith, M. (2002). Try feedforward instead of feedback. Leader to Leader, 25, 11–15.
• Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.
• Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284.
• Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.
• Scott, K. (2017). Radical candor: Be a kick-ass boss without losing your humanity. St. Martin’s Press.
• Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Educational Psychologist, 43(3), 153–177.
• Center for Creative Leadership. (2019). Use the SBI feedback model. Greensboro, NC: Author.