Canadian Symposium on Academic Integrity 2021

The 2nd Canadian Symposium on Academic Integrity, an event that takes place every two years, was held virtually on 22 and 23 June 2021. The Symposium was a large scale event, with over 700 people registered and the third big academic integrity conference of 2021 (following the International Center for Academic Integrity Conference and the European Conference on Academic Integrity and Plagiarism.

Although aimed at a Canadian audience, being virtual the event was attended by delegates from all around the world. I gave the keynote address looking at academic integrity communities, a theme that was also picked up elsewhere at the conference. You can read more about the conference on Twitter with the #CSAI21 hashtag.

Research into academic integrity and contract cheating in Canada has developed very quickly over a short space of time. Some people presented multiple times, being involved in a lot of interesting ongoing research projects and other collaborative activity.

I attended as much of the symposium as I could, but with five parallel sessions it was impossible to attend everything. Here are three of my take-home messages from the symposium.

File Sharing Sites Won’t Go Away

The student use of file sharing sites has to be the academic integrity story of the pandemic. It was also one of the discussions that appeared repeatedly at the conference. These were also called pay-to-pass sites in other presentations, a rather fitting expression.

Bow Valley College have done a lot of work on this area, after they found students posting their exam questions and assignments online. Bow Valley College even showcased the information they were able to get back from investigations with one of the sites, with some students surprisingly being brazen enough to register with their educational email address.

Staff at Bow Valley College received information about students using Chegg to cheat on their assignments and exams. They were alerted to this when they kept finding the same (wrong) purchased answers appearing in student work.

A little reported concern was exactly how academics feel when they discover their students using file sharing sites. Heather Martin from Bow Valley College found staff were feeling defeated, demoralised and disrespected, thinking that all their hard work creating course materials was not valued.

Ebba Kurz said that students need regular reminders that they are breaching copyright and not respecting intellectual property when they post materials on file sharing sites. Ebba recommended making a statement about this explicit as part of course materials.

Brenna Gray questioned the Canadian use of homework systems. It’s an idea I haven’t come across in the UK, but apparently some Canadian institutions require students to pay extra to take required off-the-shelf courses. They tend have to complete assessments within those courses. Unsurprisingly, the answers to such courses are readily available online for a fee.

Certainly there are undesirable practices happening in higher education which, although they don’t excuse contract cheating, do show why students may choose to not focus their own attention on certain assignments. We do need to question why such undesirable developments are happening and how we can ensure that academic integrity really is a key discussion for everyone in education.

We Can Always Learn From The Past

Although new methods that students can use to cheat come along all the time, there’s very little in the academic integrity field that is completely new and has never been studied before.

I mention that as there were quite a few talks which repeated ideas which I’ve seen at other conferences already this year, or which built upon things I remember being talked about 10 years ago. After all, a lot of Canadians are now seeing contract cheating as a brand new problem (even though, as I mentioned when I spoke at the conference, it was almost 15 years to the day when the first presentation of the research Robert Clarke and I conducted on contract cheating took place).

We can always learn from the past. Previous research studies are much more readily available than they’ve ever been before. So many studies are now accessible through Google Scholar. But at the same time, in the interest of building community, we have to find ways to support people joining the academic integrity field and give them the opportunity to share what they’re discovering (and express their feelings).

Sarah Eaton spoke about the history of contract cheating in Canada, finding newspaper adverts dating back to the 1960s and 1970s.

Nowhere was the need to remember the past made clearer than in the presentation Sarah Eaton gave about the history of contract cheating in Canada. Sarah had tracked down largely forgotten theses and news stories, including a (failed) 1972 attempt to make what we would now call contract cheating illegal.

Sarah also estimated that contract cheating services in Canada were doing $10 million (Canadian Dollars) of business per year back in the 1980s. We often underestimate the sheer scale of the contract cheating industry.

We Will Keep Hearing More And More Horrific Stories About Contract Cheating

It is rare that I’m surprised by stories of the techniques used by the contract cheating industry.

Universities are already having to deal with the problem of what happens when a disgruntled writer or company contacts them to say a student has been using their services (sometimes when an attempt to blackmail a student fails).

A new variant of that technique has emerged, falling much more into the phishing levels, where scammers are inventing contract cheating cases either in an attempt to collect student details, or to get universities to pay them money in sympathy for their loss of earnings.

We also heard of companies reporting when graduates had worked for them back to the original university. Presumably this happens when the graduate decides they no longer want to continue as a writer. At the same time, false reports were also being made, a difficult situation when these also have to be investigated.

Canadian universities sell advertising space around the campus, including in bathrooms. One delegate discussed how their university had been taking paid adverts from a contract cheating service advertising in Mandarin and the posters remained active for some time. The rise of local contract cheating services each supporting only one course was also explored.

One contract cheating provider managed to get the contact details of all students on a course and found out details of a quiz they had upcoming. It then emailed personal invitations to all students saying they could “assist” them with that quiz (for a fee).

Other contract cheating providers have started running their own conferences and have even provided academics with research funding to make themselves seem legitimate. It is disappointing that people are falling for the contract cheating industry tricks, but we need to stay alert and also think about how we support academics who get taken in by the contract cheating industry.

The Power of Academic Integrity Communities – Keynote Presentation Slides

I was delighted to be asked to deliver the keynote presentation for the 2nd Canadian Symposium on Academic Integrity. Although this was originally planned to take place in person at Thompson Rivers University, this ended up being an online presentation, with more than 700 participants registered for the conference (and over 200 watching live and joining in with the discussion).

In the keynote, I focused on academic integrity communities, of which the conference itself was one such example.

You can see the slides I used below (and also on my SlideShare account).


I gave examples of the communities that exist around academic integrity, both those supporting students and those liable to mislead them. I also showcased examples of the many communities that have developed around the world since I started working in this field in 2000, both online and offline, with one of the most pleasing developments being the full involvement of students in the communities.

At the end of the keynote, I encouraged delegates to find ways to both help more members to engage in the communities, but also to support the people who are lurking in the communities, interested in academic integrity, but not feeling that they have to actively engage.

European Conference on Academic Integrity and Plagiarism 2021

The European Conference on Academic Integrity and Plagiarism (ECAIP) is the conference formally known as Plagiarism Across Europe and Beyond. The 2021 version of the conference took place virtually. The timing, unfortunately, clashed with my having many university commitments, so I was only able to attend a small number of talks live. A lot of information about the conference is archived with the Twitter hashtag #ECAIP2021.

I was fortunate enough to be able to deliver two talks with student partners, both of which I have written about on the blog. Benjamin Dent and I looked at contract cheating on Freelancer.com. Rahul Gupta and I focused on contract cheating on Reddit. I also hosted a paper session, chaired a panel on contract cheating where we discovered that many countries are still not fully engaging with this problem and presented at a workshop aimed at helping others to publish in the academic integrity field.

It was very pleasing to see so many students involved in this conference, not only presenting and sharing research results, but also talking about innovations in their institutions and participating on panels.

My five conference reflections this time will be shorter than many, but I also encourage you to look at the three days of summaries from Debora Weber-Wulff, the first of which is linked here. These include many presentations I couldn’t get to, although with four presentations running in parallel through much of the conference, there is a lot for everyone to catch up on through the video recordings as time permits.

Reflection #1 – We Need To Ensure That All Students Understand Academic Integrity And Are Treated Equally

I’d like to start by highlighting the work of Mary Davis from Oxford Brookes University. Mary is also a member of the London and SE England Academic Integrity Network, which launched earlier this year.

Mary Davis encouraging universities to consider how inclusive their academic integrity policies are

At her own institution, Mary found that Indian, Pakistani, Black African students were disproportionally referred for academic integrity investigations, along with students with specific learning differences and those from widening participation backgrounds. There is an important question to ask about whether the correct support is in place for those students.

Mary also highlighted how stressful and difficult the process was for those students, including the example of one mature student who thought her student would view her as a criminal for being referred. More needs to be done to make sure that all students are supported to avoid academic misconduct in the first place and that any academic integrity investigations are conducted with dignity and avoid the prejudgement of guilt.

The issue of students not always understanding academic integrity, or only looking at this from a partial viewpoint, remains a problematic one. This issue is amplified when issues of inclusivity are considered. Here is a tweet from Mike Reddy which sums up the situation.

Reflection #2 – We Need To Make Technology Work For Us

So often, academic integrity is looked at as an issue of technology. The idea is that, with the right software, we can solve the problem. As I’ve said many times, technology is a tool, it can be useful, but technology is only one part of a wider solution.

The issue of proctoring software was hotly debated, including in a presentation by Phillip Dawson where he gave 10 suggestions for improving practice.

Phillip Dawson recommended that remote proctored exams should only be used as a last resort.

The word “blockchain” appeared so many times during the conference, to the extent I even joked about it (although I’m not sure everyone realised I wasn’t being serious). The problem is that blockchain (or decentralisation) is a trend, it’s discussed a lot, but it’s not clear what problem it is a solution for. Even if it was a solution, quite frankly many people just don’t understand the technology. Explaining how the technology used to support academic integrity works is going to become very important.

Reflection #3 – The Effects Of Covid-19 On Academic Integrity Will Be Felt Over The Longer Term

Several people highlighted their own data, including studies in progress, which suggested an increase in student cheating during Covid-19. This was echoed in my own work with Rahul Gupta. Some people had numbers from their own institutions, with Ann Rogerson noting a big increase in collusion at the University of Wollongong.

Ann Rogerson discussed how students had developed new cheating networks as a result of Covid-19.

Ann Rogerson talked about how students are now sharing answers during exams taken remotely through channels that couldn’t easily be tracked and archived, including using Snapchat messages that delete after a few seconds and by routing communication through the messaging systems inside popular online games.

A concerning development that Ann identified was the way that cheating networks evolved once lockdown was lifted and students were able to get together in person. Ann found examples of students gathering together in the same location, able to collude and to talk together during remote unproctored exams. There was no need for the further apps and technology in that case. A conversation has to be asked in situations like this regarding how such situations can be avoided when (and if) in-person study resumes.

Reflection #4 – We Need To Do More To Address Degree Mills

The problem of students buying not only individual assignments, but also a whole qualification, is an underexplored one in the literature. Jamie J. Carmichael and Sarah Eaton have been working on this area

One finding Jamie and Sarah highlighted, based on analysing website text, was the over-appearance of the words “Chinese” and “Malaysia“, suggesting a market that diploma mills were aiming their services towards.

Jamie and Sarah found that you can buy not only the finished degree certificates, but also the accompanying transcripts. In some cases, providers claim to have access to computer systems to put fake grades into an official system. But in a link with the research we’ve seen into blackmail and contract cheating, if you don’t keep paying up and buying more and more qualifications, you run the risk of the company exposing your identity.

Sarah Eaton and Jamie J. Carmichael highlighting the issue of diploma mills

Reflection #5 – Students Are At Risk Of Continual Exploitation And We Need To Act

The dangers posed by the contract cheating industry have come up many times in my own research, not just because students can be getting qualifications that they don’t deserve, but also because students themselves are being cheated and taken advantage of.

Rahul and I highlighted several Reddit scams, including how students were being contacted by fake services after asking for help, who were out to extort students.

I unfortunately didn’t get to catch Felicity Prentice’s presentation on contract cheating, but I did see Zeenath Khan’s tweet, which highlighted students complaining about receiving poor quality or plagiarised work. Now, the hope is that students will never be in a situation where they do purchase answers, but this happens and we have to think about how we support them when they are taken advantage of by essay mills and contract cheating providers.

Robin Crockett shared how contract cheating providers were sharing the details of their customers to other prospects, often in the form of so-called testimonials. These customers are then identifiable. When student partners share such testimonials with staff at their university, these purchases are no longer risk free.

Robin also discussed how misleading the whole contract cheating industry. Here is just one example from his talk, an essay mill claiming to be based in the UK, but which is actually operating out of India (the same country which my own research with Benjamin Dent was found generating most of the requests for work on Freelancer.com).

This essay mill, identified by Robin Crockett, has a UK domain and displays a Union Jack, but is based internationally.

To close, the issue of legislation came up several times at the conference. I was asked about in my own presentation. But the issue of where contract cheating providers (and their workers) are actually based does mean that, although we should certainly be pursuing the legal options, enforcement may end up being rather difficult.

As always, we have to continue addressing contract cheating through as wide a range of methods as possible.

International Center For Academic Integrity Conference 2021

The International Center For Academic Integrity Conference 2021 took place virtually for the first time. As such, more than 1,000 attendees joined the event, with a variety of parallel sessions on offer. You can check my previous blog posts for my reports about the physical ICAI conference 2020 and ICAI conference 2019.

I gave a practitioner presentation on academic integrity teaching, co-presented at a workshop on publishing academic integrity research (abbreviated video version available here) and attended lots of interesting and topical sessions. This blog post is based solely on the sessions I was able to attend live. There are lots more sessions I’d still like to dip into. A good point about the conference being virtual is that the other presentations are all archived for attendees in video format.

The discussion at this conference was also excellent. Some comments are archived on Twitter with the hashtag #ICAI2021, but a lot of discussion also took place on Whova (the app used to run the conference) and in the text chat on Zoom. One thing that stood out for me is that there were such a lot of new attendees grappling with contract cheating and use of file sharing sites for the first time. We need to find more ways to get actionable information about academic integrity out to that audience.

This isn’t the first report about the conference. The wonderful Debora Weber-Wulff was on the ball as usual and had her thoughts up within seconds of the final conference presentation concluding. As circumstances have it, Debora and I attended many of the same sessions. Then, just as I was finishing writing this post, I saw that the equally wonderful Sarah Eaton had posted her own thoughts about the conference collaborations she was involved with.

As is traditional, I wanted to collect together some of my main thoughts, post conference and reflect on the findings. I also wanted to look at the academic integrity challenges and opportunities we should be addressing as we most forward. I’ve identified five main themes, somewhat interconnected, which really stood out to me.

 

#1 – Academic File Sharing Sites Pose A Risk To Academic Integrity

The single most dominant theme discussed at the conference was the way students have been misusing sites like Chegg to get answers to exams and coursework questions produced for them. This isn’t a new behaviour and indeed it could be considered as a variant to contract cheating, but it seemed like many delegates had not seen discussions of contract cheating before. Much of the increase was blamed on the move to online exams in light of Covid-19 and my own research with Codrin Cotarlan has seen an increase of 196.25% in homework requests post the move online, but the real situation is always more complex.

Most of the conference discussion focused on Chegg, but this is not the only site that allows students to share university owned files online and discuss answers. Other sites operating in the same space, like Course Hero, were also covered. The impression given in the online discussions is that delegates saw Chegg as the most visible site of this type, but Chegg did also offer mechanisms to help academic integrity investigations, even if students were finding ways to circumvent these.

One of the biggest concerns educators tend to have about Chegg is how quickly answers can be returned during an examination, with one delegate expressing their frustration with questions being visible within 10 minutes of the start of their exam. Tricia Bertram Gallant and Marilyn Derby analysed the time in took to receive answers more thoroughly in relation to requests for UC Davis courses.

Tricia and Marilyn shared examples where they showed that hundreds of UC Davis students had used Chegg to cheat, including 32% of students on a statistics module. In a separate example, Kelly Ahuna and Loretta Frankovitch from University at Buffalo said that they had investigated over 100 academic integrity violations on Chegg since remote teaching began, each of which could involve multiple students. Those investigations had provided them with enough information to identify about 70 students in total. The concerns about Chegg were echoed by others at the conference, with several hundred cases known about at one university. An example of a 17 page takedown notice being necessary to address the requirements for a file sharing site to take action was given.

Example of the type of information supplied by Chegg for an academic integrity violation. This example, courtesy of University at Buffalo, shows two students posting multiple questions for the same exam.

There was general consensus that it was good that some students using file sharing could be identified, but delegates also noted how easy it was for students to hide their identify if they chose to to do. Examples were given of how students could access Chegg through Discord bots, discussion that they could use fake email accounts and VPNs and examples were shown where the questions were posted through accounts where the student claimed to be at a different university. I’ve also observed a lively trade online of buying, selling and leasing out Chegg accounts, sometimes legitimate, sometimes stolen, often at a heavy discount, but all making direct identification really difficult.

An associated question asked what the penalties should be for students accessing file sharing sites. Here universities approaches differed. Some universities did not allow students to post questions on third party sites at all, others did not allow them to look up answers. There was also a question raised about what happens in a student looks up an answer after an exam finished. In many cases, posting university owned materials online was said to be a breach of copyright and intellectual property. One amusing story was told about a student trying to negotiate the penalty they were awarded for using Chegg. The student had posted three questions, but in their defence said they had only used one of the answers.

Zachary Dixon warned that many university courses are compromised based on the volume of their intellectual property found on file sharing sites

Does the appearance of questions and answers on file sharing sites pose a real risk? Zachary Dixon said that this does and indicated that universities need to be more aware of how common unauthorised file sharing is. Zachary proposed a “compromise metric“, which measures how much of the content of any given course is available online. The compromise metric also considers how valuable those items are, with quizzes, tests and exams being rated as more valuable than homework style questions. Zachary found some highly compromised courses within his own university, but a wider study across other universities would be useful to see how far this problem generalises.

There is no easy solution to file sharing sites, but it is important for the educational community to know that these sites exist, that students use them and they are marketing heavily to students. One delegate stated that Chegg offered $1200 to their Maths club if they could come in and give a pitch. That story may be anecdotal, but it seems to illustrate the value file sharing sites see in acquiring customers and getting access to more academic content through them.

 

#2 – The Methods Available To Detect Academic Dishonesty Are Improving

Although detection is not in itself the saviour of academic integrity, it is one tool that the community should have in its toolbox to help with integrity. The conference saw the discussion of several methods that may help here.

The need to automatically crawl and monitor file sharing sites for university owned content was discussed, with several tools developed for use at individual institutions, with the possibility for wider rollout in the future. These tools would not only provide an alert about academic integrity breaches, but also occupy time for the file sharing sites, requiring them to deal with takedown requests and to release information about the users accessing these materials.

Sometimes, just having copies of the answers given by file sharing sites can be enough. It is then just a method of matching those answers to student submissions. The suggestion was made for universities to simply pay for the answers, but Sarah Eaton does not think we should be financially fuelling that industry. I would be inclined to agree with Sarah here.

The approach of seeding wrong answers online to exam questions was muted. Such answers makes it possible to track students who access these. One of the proctoring companies was said to offer a service where they would rank wrong answers in the first pages of Google results. Other delegates talked about doing this manually, or having answers prepared to post on file sharing and contract cheating sites that allow user submitted content as soon as exam questions appear there. The wider question does have to be asked if such behaviour qualifies as entrapment. My view is that we should be ourselves leading with academic integrity, but I can see why some people would want to fight fire with fire.

We’ve begun to see some interesting work looking at contract cheating detection (as I have previously outlined in this blog post). Olumide Popoola has developed an alternative stylometric approach for identifying contract cheating, which shows a lot of promise. Olumide has also identified methods of differentiating paid for essays from those written by students. More information is outlined here in Olumide’s blog post.

Olumide collected together a corpus of over 1,000 business essays. Some of these were the free samples provided by essay mills. Others were real work submitted my students. Olumide then used stylometric techniques to identify differences between the contracted cheated essays and the student essays.

The results Olumide found match up well with other checklists of how to identify work produced through a contract cheating provider, which is positive to see. One of Olumide’s hints is to look for the use of extra words in student essays. These unnecessary additions are designed to just push the word count of essays up to meet minimum requirements (and to ensure that writers for contract cheating firms get paid quicker).

Olumide hopes to develop this work to produce a standalone tool, which will be very useful for the community. He also wants to check how well the results collected from business essays expand to other fields.

 

#3 – We Haven’t Got Remote Examinations Right… Yet…

This is the online proctoring system used to preserve academic integrity at the University of New England

With Covid-19 interventions being such a dominant theme, the conference hosted plenty of discussion about remote examinations and the steps institutions are taking to uphold academic integrity, particularly with students able to outsource the questions to file sharing sites like Chegg.

The issue of online proctoring raised its head, with the need to balance security and privacy.

Jennifer Lawrence and Kylie Day from the University of New England shared the perspective of a university that had developed exams to be online from well before the pandemic. They noted the extra opportunities provided to students when they could take exams remotely, making education accessible to students who could not easily attend a university setting in person.

Jennifer and Kylie shared an example of what remote examination at their institution looks like, from both the test taker and invigilator point of view. The invigilators work in an office environment, each monitoring around six students. The students work in their home (or other preferred) environment and are monitored through their cameras.

Yes, the situation could be considered invasive, but Jennifer and Kylie’s view is that students are also being closely monitored in an exam hall. And these students knew what they were signing up for.

The situation is less clear-cut when changes made at other universities as a result of the pandemic are considered. In this case, not all the students knew they would be monitored at home when they signed up their course. Those students may not even have access to a private environment. There are also issues when artificial intelligence based monitoring solutions are used, especially when these solutions may include elements of bias.

How important should we take assessment security? Jennifer and Kylie discussed the in-person example where students need to be searched before exams to check for hidden earpieces (something we found to be a known problem in research around South East Europe). I largely agree with Jennifer and Kylie here, but I would have to question how thoroughly students are searched before taking exams in many institutions. Another possible comparison would be with professional exams. With these, not only are candidates searched on entry, but they also take the exams in a closely monitored environment, with cameras recording all the way through. In some ways, the remote alternative does not sound anywhere invasive as the situation students will face post graduation.

The debate will continue, but perhaps exams are just not the best assessment method to use in a post Covid-19 world. We do need to be considering alternatives.

 

#4 – We Need To Rethink How We Teach And Assess Maths

Students now have access to tools like Mathway to quickly solve their maths problems

There wasn’t an official presentation on this topic, but the same issue was raised several times in discussions by different delegates.

The landscape for maths support and help has changed substantially over the past five years. It is now simple for students to download apps, take a photo of a maths question and get back a worked solution.

This problem of maths solvers isn’t brand new. I remember warning about WolframAlpha, which offers a similar service through a web interface, ten years or so ago. But what has changed is how well known apps and mobile friendly websites like Photomath and Mathway are and how readily these appear to be being used in examination situations.

Now, some people will dismiss this as just a problem for students on Mathematics degrees, but the consequences are much wider reaching. So many courses have a maths component, particularly in the early years of study. Other courses require maths proficiency throughout. As Alexander Amigud and I showed when we analysed the demand for contract cheating services, students from across many disciplines offer to pay for answers to maths problems. One interesting study would be to see how far those paid for maths answers are unique and how far service sellers simply resort to using maths apps for themselves.

The number of students cheating using maths apps is hard to quantify, but one delegate said 45% of their students used cheating maths apps for an online proctored trigonometry exam. They were able to position their phones outside of the view of the monitoring cameras.

A positive note is that detection of the use of these apps is possible in some situations. The apps do not always solve problems in the same way a human would, or follow the formats taught in class. And if many students hand in identical answers and working, as generated by the apps, that is suspicious. But apps improve all the time and academic integrity breaches can be hard to prove. Mathematics is definitely an area where a rethink of teaching and assessment strategies is needed.

 

#5 – Partnering With Students Offers Us A Way To Move The Academic Integrity Community Forward

Cath Ellis encouraged universities, quality bodies and individuals to share information and develop strategic partnerships around academic integrity

A very positive theme emerging from the conference was ways for student academic partnerships in academic integrity to develop.

Staff-student partnerships is a theme I’m passionate about. I’m working on a book chapter discussing partnership opportunities in more detail. My recent paper with Codrin Cotarlan came about as an Imperial College London StudentShapers partnership.

Two delegates shared examples of useful software they’d had produced by students.

Debora Weber-Wulff showcased a text comparison tool, which highlights similar text from two documents in a side-by-side colour coded way. Very useful when trying to demonstrate to students that just changing a few words here and there is still plagiarism, or when documenting a case for an academic misconduct hearing.

Zachary Dixon’s CourseVillain tool, designed to monitor and request the take down of unacceptable posts on Course Hero, also came about from hiring a Computer Science student for a summer programming project. Zachary encouraged other universities to look into ways to pair with Computer Science students as well.

Cath Ellis and Kane Murdoch spoke enthusiastically about the need to build academic integrity communities. In my own presentation I talked about finding different ways to engage students as our partners. In my talk I said how I considered students as being well-suited to conduct academic integrity research. Several students co-presented at the conference and took part in panels. In spite of the emerging challenges to academic integrity we’ve seen, the student movement shows that the overall future of society is still in safe hands.

Developing An Academic Integrity Research Module For Undergraduate Students

One of the projects I’ve been working on for the past year has been developing a module on academic integrity research for undergraduate students. The module ran for the first time in Autumn term 2020 and I talked about the module at the International Center for Academic Integrity Conference 2021.

You can see the slides I used below (and also on my SlideShare account).


For me, the module is really exciting as I understand it to be the first module of its type aimed at undergraduate students anywhere in the world. It was great to get students together from different disciplines and held them develop into academic integrity partners and researchers.

I presented this for the ICAI conference and the official recording is available for conference attendees. But I also made a separate video presentation of the same slides, which I’ve made available on YouTube here.

Do feel free to follow up with me if you’re interested in developing a similar type of module for use within your own university.

Page 1 of 512345»