Cheating in Cyberspace: Student Integrity and Online Learning
Professors have been discussing the problem of academic cheating among students for years with little hope of a solution in sight. As the locus of teaching, learning and assessment shifts to an electronic, rather than a physical, space, the problem has neither vanished nor diminished but merely adapted to its new environment like a persistent strain of bacteria. The discussion, which has also shifted online, is now being fuelled by fears that the electronic environment will prove hospitable to cheating and cause it, or at least allow it, to flourish. The DEOS-L (Distance Education Online Symposium) electronic discussion list recently played host to a month-long exchange of ideas and opinions about the issues at stake.
Is academic dishonesty inevitable?
Educators participating in the debate evince a range of attitudes toward student cheating, whether offline and in-person or online and at a distance. Some dismiss it as inevitable: where there's a will to cheat, students will find a way to cheat, so why waste time and energy in futile efforts to prevent it? Certainly, the resourcefulness of the determined cheater often far exceeds the ingenuity of the professor's precautions: in a similar DEOS debate of last year, professors told of students learning sign language expressly to cheat on exams and reprogramming calculators to store hundreds of pages of notes. Others take it much more seriously and share elaborate schemes for ensuring honesty. Most, however caution against taking vigilance to the point that it detracts from teaching: at some point, the time spent circumventing cheaters is better spent considering pedagogy and developing the student-teacher relationship. "If you expect someone to succeed they will, if you expect them to fail, they will. Why should we expect them to cheat?" asks one DEOS member.
Who suffers when students cheat?
Considerable attention is given to the question of exactly who suffers when students cheat. Some say it is only the cheaters themselves, whether they are caught or not. Others say it is also the honest students who suffer. Still others point out that there are disciplines such as medicine and engineering in which "a student who is not competent may endanger others' lives." Indeed, there was recently a case before the courts of a young "doctor" who cheated and bluffed his way right into the operating room. Many contend that cheating affects the institution itself, and not just a few individuals: "When we assess our students and find that they have achieved the required objectives, we certify them ... and that certification is a measure, not merely of the students' competencies but of our own competency and academic reputation as well," argues one commentator. When students cheat in college and then fail in their careers, the argument goes, "it reflects not only on them but on the institutions that certified that they had demonstrated competency." Another vehemently agrees: "When we graduate cheaters who then try to wedge themselves into positions of responsibility based on the name of our institution, all of us who work to maintain standards and quality education are hurt. We lose credibility and support." He anticipates the critique that such cheaters are few enough in number that they can hardly pose a threat to a particular institution: "I don't mean that one cheater can bring down an entire university. Cheaters are like termites; with numbers and time, they can bring down the mightiest structure."
Is academic dishonesty on the rise?
As for numbers, are they in fact growing? The general impression seems to be that cheating is indeed on the rise in colleges and universities. But why? Undoubtedly, the popularity and accessibility of the Internet have occasioned an increase in plagiarism, not only of the cut-and-paste kind, but also of the commercial kind, as essay vendors and traders set up virtual shop on the Web. Equally undoubtedly, it's easier for a distance-or distributed-learning student to cheat on an exam written in privacy at home than it is for a traditional student to cheat on a proctored exam. But for the most part, students who don't cheat aren't going to start simply because it's become easier. Educators point instead to increased competition combined with an attitude that places value on the end result (the degree or diploma) rather than on the process (the learning). Says one writer, "an increasing number of students are of the mistaken impression that their tuition money buys credits, rather than buying the right to pursue those credits (or not)."
Are alternative assessment methods the answer?
At the center of the debate about cheating lies the real heart of the matter: the purpose and nature of assessment methods, and their relationship to pedagogy and learning. The kinds of cheating that are most likely to occur in a distance or computer-mediated situation—consulting notes and books or having someone else take the exam or write the paper—are only possible when assessment is divorced from all but the factual content of classes. All too often, we "measure learning by what can be memorized and repeated on a test." A few list members suggest an enlightened alternative: basing assessment on the demonstration of an understanding of the intellectual content of classes, rather than on the ability to produce a few facts. "Assign students to sum up or pull the main points out of a week or two's discussion...what did they learn from the conversation, what other questions came up as a result, what are they planning on doing with this information. The final result is a new knowledge product—even if they cut/paste/quote from the original messages, they are evaluating, analyzing and synthesizing information—the upper levels of Bloom's taxonomy." Not only will students think more and learn more, but cheating will be almost impossible: "it's hard to buy a term paper which talks about the last two weeks of online conversation for your class."
Conclusion
Such a solution fulfills the best goals of pedagogy, for it requires students to think critically, to contextualize and synthesize information, and to build creatively on the knowledge of their peers and teachers. It also makes the best use of the very technologies that some fear will lead students to cheat: "if we, as instructors, have regular e-mail contact with students, review and require drafts of essays, meet to MOO or chat, have students collaborate, and take advantage of all that the Web has to offer, while minimizing the reliance on multiple choice sorts of exams...then the opportunity to cheat is minimal, and I would go so far to say is less likely than in the traditional classroom."
Not surprisingly, more questions are raised than are answered; but the topic asserts itself as one that is ripe not only for further discussion but also for more formal inquiry. Issues for consideration include:
References
DEOS-L (Distance Education Online Symposium). Cheating; Cheating and Integrity;
Integrity of DE Students; Online Cheating; Sitting for Exams; Student Integrity and
Cheating; Testing. Discussion list. [Online]. Archives: http://www.fwl.org/hyper-discussions/deso-fwl/ e-mail: listserv@lists.psu.edu [1998, August 18-September 8]
Critical Reviews
Go to edited version by DD
H
This is a well written article in that it reads easily and raises some good issues for discussion. I believe it would benefit from a stronger focus on technology issues give the nature of our journal. It would be interesting to ask readers to offer suggestions on how emerging technology could be used to support the idea of making cheating more difficult. As is it could be a good springboard for further discussion on the topic. To achieve that end the author could offer some specific questions in the close as opposed to the general issues for discussion that are there [although they are worthwhile].
The article could also be made stronger and more timely with some discussion of the idea of competency based assessment and evaluations. From what I hear this is an idea that is growing in importance as part of the re-evaluation of the education process in a technology age. Carol Twigg has written on this topic and articles can be found at the NLII site: http://www.educause.edu/nlii/keydocs/.index.html
U
While this is an important topic, the article in question has not even begun to consider all the creative and educationally sound ways of dealing with plagiarism and cheating. For example, the Chronicle of Higher education recently featured an article on this very issue. A summary of discussions on a single mailing list is not sufficient research on the topic of cheating in cyberspace. The author needs to incorporate more concrete examples on how to deal with, among other things, the "process" of writing a research paper or completing a project. To paraphrase what one of my colleagues told The Montclarion (January 21, 1999), our student newspaper, students may be able to buy the product (a term paper) but they can't cheat on or buy the process. I would strongly encourage the author to provide further concrete examples from other sources, not just DEOS-L. I would not publish it as it is.
Material posted from the discussion list and The Montclarion follows:
See for example the following quote from our student newspaper, The Montclarion, January 1999:
"Dr. Grover Furr, who teaches a new course entitled "Internet for
English Majors," thinks that student plagiarism is merely a symptom
of a larger problem.
"I think that things like term papers on the Internet expose the
teaching," Furr said. "They only work for classes that are taught badly
to begin with. I think teaching must be really awful to create a
situation wherein students can do this sort of thing."
According to Furr, there is a simple answer to the problem of
plagiarism. He requires his students to submit notes and a first draft
along with their papers. He also workshops the paper with them, checking
on their progress week by week, he said.
"You can’t buy the process," he reasoned, "only the final product.
If
you only require a final product, you’re just asking for students
to do this." He failed a Freshman Composition student two years ago for
handing in only a final paper. "I don’t care if you wrote the paper. If you
don’t show me
the process, you’re failing the class," he said firmly."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Postings from the DEOS-L:
My questions would be these: why are we so preoccupied (some of us
anyway) about the integrity of our students when it comes to testing?
Why is there a greater doubt cast upon the honesty of distance
education students when these concerns are rarely expressed in the
face-to-face classroom and left to the purview of the instructor? Is
this because distance education tests/assessment methods are shoddy,
lacking in imagination, and promoting cheating or is it because we
figure we can't trust someone we can't look in the eye?
The above questions don't represent my cynicism, but they are the sort
of questions I have for all who are so worried that distance ed
students are more prone to cheating than those in the classroom.
Brad
On Wed, 15 Jul 1998, Ryan Caruthers wrote:
> I am a videoconference producer in Dallas, Texas and on August 27th, we will
be broadcasting a live teleconference on the topic of "Unsupervised Testing in
Distance Education."
>
> Please either post, or e-mail me questions about that topic you might like to
have answered by our group of panelists.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ryan
>
******************************************************************
Bradley Bleck
Department of English
Director of Distance Education
CC of Southern Nevada
bleckb@nevada.edu
www.ccsn.nevada.edu/academics/departments/English/bleck.htm
702.651.4099
******************************************************************
>>> Posting number 1542, dated 20 Jul 1998 06:38:45
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 06:38:45 -0700
Reply-To: DEOS-L - The Distance Education Online Symposium
<DEOS-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU>
Sender: DEOS-L - The Distance Education Online Symposium
<DEOS-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU>
From: Carlton Scott <scott@SELKIRK.BC.CA>
Subject: Re: Integrity of DE students
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
AMEN Marie
I have always found it arrogant beyond belief that instructors assume we will
cheat. As a life long learner, and teacher, I expect the best from my
students and assume they are honest. If once in awhile one cheats, well who is
the loser anyway? Besides that nothing makes my blood boil quicker than to be
treated as though I had every intention of cheating. To presume the worst is
an insult to me.
I confess I do not understand why so many instructors seems to be obsessed with
the possibility of their students cheating. They seem to take it as a personal
affront if a student does cheat when actually the affront is to the student
themselves.
Does this over concern with cheating come out of the highly competitive
educational system we have developed? Or does it come from a subconscious fear
that we, the instructors, for all our posturing are the real cheats and are not
giving our students the quality and substance they should expect? This latter,
in my subjective opinion, born of 30 years experience as an educator and a
student is the most likely.
Carlton Scott, ABE Instructor, Selkirk College, BC
Richard /Marie Maiello wrote:
> Hello, all!
>
> GOOD FOR YOU, BRADLEY BLECK !
>
> This is my first posting to this list-serve, although I have been "lurking"
> for quite a while. I find the discussions very interesting, but until I
> read what Brad had to say about our students' integrity, I didn't really
> have a "gut reaction" to what I have been reading.
>
> Bradley - I agree with you totally. I go into a course believing that my
> students (whether using face-to-face means or DE) are going to give me
> their best efforts, and be honorable about it. Now, I am not naive enough
> to believe that no student will cheat, but in the long run - is that our
> job or our concern as instructors? Are we merely "police" for the schools,
> or is our main function to make available information we feel is pertinent
> to the subject matter and then test how well students have processed that
> information? I may be old fashioned, but I believe in that old theory that
> if you expect someone to succeed they will, if you expect them to fail,
> they will. Why should we expect them to cheat?
>
> Marie "Stacy" Maiello
>
>>> Posting number 1543, dated 20 Jul 1998 09:51:41
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 09:51:41 -0500
Reply-To: DEOS-L - The Distance Education Online Symposium
<DEOS-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU>
Sender: DEOS-L - The Distance Education Online Symposium
<DEOS-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU>
From: Clint Brooks <CBROOKS@NWACC.CC.AR.US>
Subject: Re: Distance Learning Videoconference
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
It seems to me that opportunity is the chief worry. In the face to face
classroom an instructor generally sees his or her charges on a regular basis
and, with the exception of out of class work such as a report or term paper,
evaluates them in person. While deceit is certainly possible, there is far
less opportunity than the student who is tested alone on a computer at home,
which of course is the picture of education in the future that many have
painted. Even videoconferencing is limiting unless an instructor can see
the whole room at the other sites. We try to have someone in each room,
just to allay temptation mind you.
Clint Brooks
Distance Learning Coordinator
NorthWest Arkansas Community College
One College Drive
Bentonville, AR 72712
(501)619-4382
FAX (501)619-4383
cbrooks@nwacc.cc.ar.us
brooks@comp.uark.edu
http://labs.nwacc.cc.ar.us/disted/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BRADLEY BLECK [SMTP:bleckb@NEVADA.EDU]
> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 1998 11:36 AM
> To: DEOS-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU
> Subject: Re: [DEOS] Distance Learning Videoconference
>
> My questions would be these: why are we so preoccupied (some of us
> anyway) about the inegrity of our students when it comes to testing?
> Why is there a greater doubt cast upon the honesty of distance
> education students when these concerns are rarely expressed in the
> face-to-face classroom and left to the purview of the instructor? Is
> this because distance education tests/assessment methods are shoddy,
> lacking in imagination, and promoting cheating or is it because we
> figure we can't trust someone we can't look in the eye?
>
> The above questions don't represent my cynicism, but they are the sort
> of questions I have for all who are so worried that distance ed
> studens are more pront to cheating thanthose in the classroom.
>
> Brad
>
> On Wed, 15 Jul 1998, Ryan Caruthers wrote:
>
> > I am a videoconference producer in Dallas, Texas and on August 27th, we
> will
> be broadcasting a live teleconference on the topic of "Unsupervised
> Testing in
> Distance Education."
> >
> > Please either post, or e-mail me questions about that topic you might
> like to
> have answered by our group of panelists.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ryan
> >
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ******************************************************************
>
> Bradley Bleck
> Department of English
> Director of Distance Education
> CC of Southern Nevada
> bleckb@nevada.edu
> www.ccsn.nevada.edu/academics/departments/English/bleck.htm
> 702.651.4099
>
> ******************************************************************
>
>
>>> Posting number 1552, dated 21 Jul 1998 10:52:24
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 10:52:24 -0400
Reply-To: DEOS-L - The Distance Education Online Symposium
<DEOS-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU>
Sender: DEOS-L - The Distance Education Online Symposium
<DEOS-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU>
From: deos moderator <deos@psu.edu>
Subject: : RE: [DEOS] Distance Learning Videoconference
In-Reply-To: <199807202049.QAA18294@r02n06.cac.psu.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>This message was originally submitted by ryba+@PITT.EDU to the DEOS-L list at
>LISTS.PSU.EDU. You can approve it using the "OK" mechanism, ignore it, or
>repost an edited copy. The message will expire automatically and you do not
>need to do anything if you just want to discard it. Please refer to the list
>owner's guide if you are not familiar with the "OK" mechanism; these
>instructions are being kept purposefully short for your convenience in
>processing large numbers of messages.
>
>