It's already an old story but I haven't had the chance to discuss it with colleagues.
What do you think of Ryerson charging members of a Facebook group with academic misconduct? I know there's blog coverage out there but instead of going through most of it, I thought I'd ask y'all.
Despite my use of quotes in the title, I'm a bit unsure as to whether or not this practise should have been restricted, in this specific context. In a way, it's probably more of a difference in teaching philosophy (I'm all for collaborative learning). But there's a broader issue, in my mind, as to how we should interpret rules in an online context.
Not trying to impose my views. Just thinking out loud.
Thanks for posting this, Alexandre. It may be an old story in higher ed circles, but it hadn't trickled down to me at my level, yet.
I'm still digesting, but the general consensus among our faculty this year as we've discussed academic integrity is the need for more explicit, direct conversations with students about what constitutes cheating and what doesn't as appropriation is so much a part of mainstream pop culture that it seems to be getting difficult for students to tell the difference. The main difference I'd see between the Facebook collaboration and the coffee shop session, though, is that there is a permanent record others can access after the session. I see this as a bonus from the perspective of the constructivist, but not everyone is teaching from this perspective. If the answers to an objective worksheet are posted, this is not collaboration. The article says that no answers were posted, but that poorly chosen wording in directions might have led officials to think there were answers posted. It highlights the necessity of well-chosen wording in an online environment where your words become permanent record, I guess. (See this discussion for a Moodle example.)
I'm still digesting, but the general consensus among our faculty this year as we've discussed academic integrity is the need for more explicit, direct conversations with students about what constitutes cheating and what doesn't as appropriation is so much a part of mainstream pop culture that it seems to be getting difficult for students to tell the difference. The main difference I'd see between the Facebook collaboration and the coffee shop session, though, is that there is a permanent record others can access after the session. I see this as a bonus from the perspective of the constructivist, but not everyone is teaching from this perspective. If the answers to an objective worksheet are posted, this is not collaboration. The article says that no answers were posted, but that poorly chosen wording in directions might have led officials to think there were answers posted. It highlights the necessity of well-chosen wording in an online environment where your words become permanent record, I guess. (See this discussion for a Moodle example.)
Lesli,
Thanks for your reply.
Just to be clear, my "old story" comment wasn't meant to say that everybody knew the story. Just that with the blogosphere/twitterverse emphasis on "in the now" coverage, I feel compelled to add a disclaimer of sorts.
I really like the "conversation with students" angle. Sure, it goes particularly well with our constructivist approaches. But the larger point is that we may want students to learn (about) academic integrity, not just assume that they know what it implies.
The permanent record aspect should actually be an advantage, for an instructor who wants to check on students. Did students merely help each other or did they do the work for them? Like "turnitin" making it easy to check on cheating, transparent and recorded conversations among students make the instructor's job easier.
As a commenter said elsewhere:
As a PhD candidate in educational psychology has said, much of it is about image. Whatever comes out of this, Ryerson runs the risk of looking either too old-fashioned or too permissive.
Catch 22.
I still reserve judgement on the issue. It doesn't sound to me that "cheating" occurred, in this case, but "academic misconduct" is broad enough a concept that I might agree with the university's claim.
Still sad, though.
Thanks for your reply.
Just to be clear, my "old story" comment wasn't meant to say that everybody knew the story. Just that with the blogosphere/twitterverse emphasis on "in the now" coverage, I feel compelled to add a disclaimer of sorts.
I really like the "conversation with students" angle. Sure, it goes particularly well with our constructivist approaches. But the larger point is that we may want students to learn (about) academic integrity, not just assume that they know what it implies.
The permanent record aspect should actually be an advantage, for an instructor who wants to check on students. Did students merely help each other or did they do the work for them? Like "turnitin" making it easy to check on cheating, transparent and recorded conversations among students make the instructor's job easier.
As a commenter said elsewhere:
The fundamental answer that should be sought from students who participated in these facebook sessions is, “did they learn during their participation in the collaborative study sessions”.The constructivist answer may be too easy. But the question is "right on the money." Is the assignment about learning or about testing? If it is in fact testing, the instructor must be prepared to deal with the consequences of giving a take-home assignment. Giving individual problems isn't enough, especially if the material is difficult and the stakes are high. If it is an actual assignment, meant to help in the learning process, why encourage solitary work so much?
As a PhD candidate in educational psychology has said, much of it is about image. Whatever comes out of this, Ryerson runs the risk of looking either too old-fashioned or too permissive.
Catch 22.
I still reserve judgement on the issue. It doesn't sound to me that "cheating" occurred, in this case, but "academic misconduct" is broad enough a concept that I might agree with the university's claim.
Still sad, though.
Hi, Alexandre!
I think that this article in The Star has more detail. To me, expelling the young man might have been going too far, but there were points on the side of the university as well.
According to this article, "the professor stipulated the online homework questions were to be done independently" and "the invitation to the Facebook group may have been what landed them in trouble. It read: 'If you request to join, please use the forms to discuss/post solutions to the chemistry assignments. Please input your solutions if they are not already posted.' "
On the students' side is the fact that "no one did post a full final solution. It was more the back and forth that you get in any study group."
Either way, it is a difficult situation and (I find this with many things) technology increases the scope and scale of application to such a degree that things that might have been acceptable in a real life, face to face environment (limited scope and scale) are no longer acceptable with the virutally unlimited scope and scale of applications such as facebook. (It is the potential, I believe, that causes consternation regardless of the degree to which the outreach/participation on large scale actually occurred.)
I have alerted our dean of students several days ago when I saw the story and am looking forward to getting her perspective on this.
atw
I think that this article in The Star has more detail. To me, expelling the young man might have been going too far, but there were points on the side of the university as well.
According to this article, "the professor stipulated the online homework questions were to be done independently" and "the invitation to the Facebook group may have been what landed them in trouble. It read: 'If you request to join, please use the forms to discuss/post solutions to the chemistry assignments. Please input your solutions if they are not already posted.' "
On the students' side is the fact that "no one did post a full final solution. It was more the back and forth that you get in any study group."
Either way, it is a difficult situation and (I find this with many things) technology increases the scope and scale of application to such a degree that things that might have been acceptable in a real life, face to face environment (limited scope and scale) are no longer acceptable with the virutally unlimited scope and scale of applications such as facebook. (It is the potential, I believe, that causes consternation regardless of the degree to which the outreach/participation on large scale actually occurred.)
I have alerted our dean of students several days ago when I saw the story and am looking forward to getting her perspective on this.
atw
An interesting discussion! Plagiarism attracts a lot of attention in UK too, and one of the threads is a shift of emphasis from the student's behaviour to that of the teacher. So what can the teacher do to avoid plagiarism? set new assignments each year, set assignments where plagiarism is difficult to do rather than easy to detect. It seems to me that 'good scholarship' can be taken to be a constant, agreed 'decent behaviour' - everyone knows what one should do - whereas the context for this behaviour is changing. The principle, do original work, could remain constant but as the context changes, it becomes difficult for the student to do this in the way their teacher intended.
Every weekend, when I was about 13, my Maths teacher set us a geometry proof, and we went home and did our best to solve this. She didn't ask us to do this in the classroom setting but at home. I didn't phone my friends or IM them or share my proof with them in an online space (because I couldn't - the phone was in the hall and my parents would have thought me mad), I just got on and tried it, deriving a sort of satisfaction when I completed the proof. What would I do if it was now? I might ask for help when I was stuck, share ideas, talk through my thinking, etc. All of these would be very effective for my learning and those with whom I am talking/sharing, just different from my solitary puzzling. We are all 'doing original work' in this complex interaction, it's just more difficult for the teacher to perceive our contribution by looking at the end products.
So what is the problem in the Ryerson example (though I agree we don't know the details)? Is it about assessment, the teacher's knowledge of who did what, or what students were learning? Assessment and learning are entwined, but surely learning is more important? I would want to encourage what the Ryerson students were doing if it led to improved learning, so my challenge would be to encourage that behaviour without compromising 'academic integrity', a term that should always be put in quotes IMHO.
So the moral of the story is that while teachers can expect 'good behaviour' from students, it is their responsibility to be aware of the changing context and adapt their teaching and assessment practices accordingly, to maximise student learning and minimise damage to summative assessment. Let's not criminalise social interaction and pragmatism.
Every weekend, when I was about 13, my Maths teacher set us a geometry proof, and we went home and did our best to solve this. She didn't ask us to do this in the classroom setting but at home. I didn't phone my friends or IM them or share my proof with them in an online space (because I couldn't - the phone was in the hall and my parents would have thought me mad), I just got on and tried it, deriving a sort of satisfaction when I completed the proof. What would I do if it was now? I might ask for help when I was stuck, share ideas, talk through my thinking, etc. All of these would be very effective for my learning and those with whom I am talking/sharing, just different from my solitary puzzling. We are all 'doing original work' in this complex interaction, it's just more difficult for the teacher to perceive our contribution by looking at the end products.
So what is the problem in the Ryerson example (though I agree we don't know the details)? Is it about assessment, the teacher's knowledge of who did what, or what students were learning? Assessment and learning are entwined, but surely learning is more important? I would want to encourage what the Ryerson students were doing if it led to improved learning, so my challenge would be to encourage that behaviour without compromising 'academic integrity', a term that should always be put in quotes IMHO.
So the moral of the story is that while teachers can expect 'good behaviour' from students, it is their responsibility to be aware of the changing context and adapt their teaching and assessment practices accordingly, to maximise student learning and minimise damage to summative assessment. Let's not criminalise social interaction and pragmatism.
Hi Frances
good points well made 
we are starting to get 'interested' in this in France too !
we seem to lurch between
do whatever you want but DON'T GET caught
and
wanting to have students go through a 'sheep-dip' before entering the exam hall with a Proctor on each one
the other style of certification in France is "professional certification"
which range in level from 'chamber maid' to 'Engineer'these have no “exams” as such but students write up their experiences to demonstrate that they can 'perform' to the required level. This written work goes to a jury of 'professionals' (no teachers in the jury!) who then chooses (or not) a task for the student to perform. The candidate then has 12 or 24 hours to perform the task in a specific environment
this is of course very frustrating for our 'teachers' but hey c'est la vie !
cu
V
I refereed an article recently about online "cheating" in a similar situation. The prof had moved comprehension quizzes out of the f2f classroom and online so as to use f2f class time better. The quizzes were 10% of the final grade.
The students formed study groups to help each other answer the quiz questions. The prof, incensed at this cheating, brought them up on charges and failed an honors student who refused to tell who else had participated.
The prof failed to realize that, once removed from taking a paper quiz at a desk, students do what they've always done -- organize the most efficient way to get the job done. The next obvious step, which the prof was not smart enough to see, was to incorporate this efficiency into the class procedure. Or, to test the students f2f one time to see whether they were all comprehending.
But, IMO, to punish kids for finding a fast and easy way to finish a low-value task is stupid.
Ryerson has a basement room, the "dungeon," where f2f study groups have been happening forever. All the Facebook kids did was move out of the basement.
The students formed study groups to help each other answer the quiz questions. The prof, incensed at this cheating, brought them up on charges and failed an honors student who refused to tell who else had participated.
The prof failed to realize that, once removed from taking a paper quiz at a desk, students do what they've always done -- organize the most efficient way to get the job done. The next obvious step, which the prof was not smart enough to see, was to incorporate this efficiency into the class procedure. Or, to test the students f2f one time to see whether they were all comprehending.
But, IMO, to punish kids for finding a fast and easy way to finish a low-value task is stupid.
Ryerson has a basement room, the "dungeon," where f2f study groups have been happening forever. All the Facebook kids did was move out of the basement.
I find it interesting that you (and others) put quotation marks around "cheating" but not around "study"