“The real problem is
not whether machines think but whether men do.”
B. F. Skinner
In my last blog post, Does Technology Change What It Means to Cheat?, I discussed the question of whether modern technology fundamentally changed what it meant to cheat. The article was about an online anthropology course and the instant messaging app GroupMe. I concluded that the problem was not with technology changing what it meant to cheat but misuse and incomplete rules concerning the technology. The situation discussed in the GroupMe “scandal” is also representative of the reason why a lot of schools only want their faculty and students to use approved applications.
So, if technology has not changed cheating, then what went wrong in this case? How did 70+ students end up in trouble when only two students directly cheated? The Chronical article says:
“More broadly, the scandal highlights the difficult issue of expanding technology in the classroom, students in the Google generation who view the free exchange of information without citation as not problematic, and faculty members who are wary of the use — and perceived abuse — of new digital tools.”
Now let’s be clear. I think this statement confuses issues in the article. Nowhere in this GroupMe scandal would the addition of a citation fix the problem. According to the professor, a student posted information about a test that is not allowed. It would not have mattered if the student added a citation. Also, we are talking about an online class, so it is doubtful that the professor is wary of technology. Additionally, research is the core of the academy. These researchers want their discoveries disseminated.
The research community has been at the forefront of the movement to make research articles free to the public. Also, the Google generation uses citations; writers of Wikipedia articles use citations. The problem is whether students are using valid sources. Modern technology gives everyone the ability to create content. Some of that web 2.0 content is incomplete or invalid. Contrary to how it is often presented, it has always been necessary to teach students that they need to cite their references. Modern technology means we need to teach students not only to cite but validate their references.
So, if it is not a change in what it means to cheat, and it is not a conflict of generational beliefs then what was the problem? It could be that the students did not think the question was cheating. However, I think the problem is more fundamental than that. The course rule the professor accused the students of violating is, “Students are not permitted to ask about, discuss, or share information related to exams and labs.” The question that caused the violation is “a student had posted in the GroupMe asking what might be on the test.”
“Another student responded with a list of all the textbook concepts the class had reviewed up to the exam, she said.” Now let’s be clear faculty have the right to establish and enforce rules based on their judgment. However, in this case, I think the instructor might be better suited to a rule that is not quite so broad. Suppose the student had asked a different question “What topics have we covered in the course so far?” The answer would be the same list. I would not find anything wrong with that question, and I suspect that question would not have led to charges of cheating.
If we accept that there is nothing wrong with the second question, even though it produces the same response, then the only reason for a cheating charge is because the question contained the word “test.” In this case, I think the professor needs a rule or set of rules that are not quite as broad.
While the rule might be too broad, did all the students violate the rule? In the previous article, I discussed how it was not clear that all 70+ students saw the post. However, the students are not able to prove they did not see the information. Additionally, did the professor tell the students what to do if they encountered a violation? Did the students ask what to do if they encountered a violation? Technology makes it faster and easier to disseminate information; both faculty and students need to think about protecting themselves.
Why should students protect themselves and why should faculty provide instructions on what to do if their students encounter a violation. Let’s look at a potential scenario, I’m a student taking the same anthropology class, and I have signed up to the course GroupMe. I have a terrible time in the course and become disgruntled. I create an alternative account on GroupMe and ask the questions, “Does anyone know what is going to be covered on the next exam?” Then using my primary GroupMe account, I post, “Here are the answers for the next exam.” along with a list of the answers. Now I have not explicitly said it in the post, but the reason for these posts is to sabotage the course.
Would it be fair to fail all the students in the GroupMe? Of course, not, but how do we determine if something like that is what happened? It could be hard to prove. So instead of trying to figure out what is going on after the fact, we need rules and instruction ahead of the time. As a faculty member, you need to not only have rules concerning what students can’t do but what the students should do if they encounter a problem.
As for technology, schools need tools that work for their needs. Apps like GroupMe get used because they meet the requirement of students. However, GroupMe has no way for a moderator to delete a post from all the accounts. There is also no way to flag posts as inappropriate.
Technology has changed our life in a lot of fundamental ways. However, the fact that faculty member’s rules don’t fully account for a situation doesn’t mean we need to change what it means to cheat. As I have said before, schools need to be proactive in the review and development of technologies for use in education. Beyond that, it is more important than ever for schools to provide resources and training for faculty and students.
Thanks for Listing to My Musings
The Teaching Cyborg