Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 3

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Originality
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Czy sztuczna inteligencja zmienia sposób myślenia o plagiacie w kontekście rzetelności akademickiej?

100%
Porwoł M.
Eunomia – Rozwój Zrównoważony – Sustainable Development
|
2023
|
issue 1(104)
57-69
EN
Since the dissemination of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools, i.e., ChatGPT, GPT-4, HeyPi, or DALL-E, one of the controversial educational projects’ topics has become the issue of plagiarism regarding the possibility of producing content, such as written documents, mathematical solutions, or even a programming code. For this reason, the US company Turnitin has launched a tool called Orginality to detect artificial intelligence (AI) activity in text generation. In other words, this tool aims to help educators/ teachers identify written works that are likely to have been composed by AI. In recent times, one can also note the overwhelming abundance of algorithms and innovative modifications to AI tools that can thwart the process of detecting the author’s integrity. Thus, this article aims to outline: (a) the importance of contextual thinking when confronted with GenSI tools, and (2) of how long and whether we are (in fact) sufficient with current solutions in identifying academic integrity?
PL
Od czasu upowszechnienia narzędzi generatywnej sztucznej inteligencji (GenSI), t.j. ChatGPT, GPT-4, HeyPi, czy DALL-E, jednym z dyskusyjnych tematów projektów edukacyjnych stała się kwestia plagiatu dot. możliwości wyprodukowania treści np. wypowiedzi pisemnych, rozwiązań matematycznych, czy też kodu programistycznego. Z tego względu amerykańska firma Turnitin uruchomiła narzędzie o nazwie Orginality do wykrywania aktywności sztucznej inteligencji (SI) w generowaniu tekstów. Innymi słowy, owo narzędzie ma na celu pomóc edukatorom/dydaktykom zidentyfikować prace pisemne, które prawdopodobnie zostały skomponowane przez SI. W ostatnim czasie można także odnotować przemożne bogactwo algorytmów i innowacyjnych modyfikacji narzędzi SI, które mogą jednak uniemożliwić proces wykrywania rzetelności autora. Zatem, niniejszy artykuł ma na celu nakreślić: (a) znaczenie myślenia kontekstowego w konfrontacji z narzędziami GenSI oraz (b) jak długo i czy (w istocie) wystarczą nam aktualne rozwiązania w rozpoznaniu rzetelności akademickiej?
2

Comparison of Competing Theories about Ideation and Creativity

71%
O’Neal I. C., Paek S. H., Runco M. A.
Creativity. Theories – Research - Applications
|
2015
|
vol. 2
|
issue 2
145-164
EN
A measure of ideational behaviour, often used to estimate the potential for creative thinking, was administered to 796 children and their parents and teachers. Correlations among groups were explored. The data provided an opportunity to (a) compare four theories of creativity (a one-factor theory, 2 two-factor theories, and a three-factor theory) and (b) determine empirically how the measure of ideation should be scored (based on its empirical structure). Results of confirmatory factor analyses indicated that one of the twofactor theories (Process and Product) best fit the data and was useful for comparisons of the children and their parents and teachers. Practical implications of the differences between parents and teachers are explored. Any effort to fulfil creative potentials, for example, would probably be the most likely to succeed if children, parents, and teachers agreed, and just as probable are difficulties if the three groups disagreed or considered different things when judging creative potential. Limitations of the study are also discussed.
3

Which Test of Divergent Thinking Is Best?

71%
Runco M. A., Paek S. H., Alsuwaidi H. N., Abdulla A. M., Al-Jasim F. A.
Creativity. Theories – Research - Applications
|
2016
|
vol. 3
|
issue 1
4-18
EN
Divergent thinking (DT) tests are probably the most commonly used measures of creative potential. Several extensive batteries are available but most research relies on one or two specific tests rather than a complete battery. This may limit generalizations because tests of DT are not equivalent. They are not always highly inter-correlated. Additionally, some DT tests appear to be better than others at eliciting originality. This is critical because originality is vital for creativity. The primary purpose of the present study was to determine which test of DT elicits the most originality. Seven measures of DTwere administered on a sample of 611 participants in eight Arabic countries. The tests were Figural, Titles, Realistic Presented Problems, Realistic Problem Generation, Instances, Uses, and Similarities. The Quick Test of Convergent Thinking, Runco’s Ideational Behavior Scale, and a demographic questionnaire were also administered. A linear mixed model analysis confirmed that the originality scores in the DT tests differed by test. Post-hoc tests indicated that the Titles and Realistic Problem Generation tests produced the highest mean originality scores, whereas the Realistic Presented Problems test produced the lowest mean originality scores. These differences confirm that research using only one DT test will not provide generalizable results.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.