Hi Itamar,
It's not that I think students aren't already capable of working, or don't already wish to [work together, constructively, amicably, and respectfully of each other] it's that the academic environments to which most of them have previously been exposed have not given them the opportunity of that, so many of them have not conceived of it as a possibility. At least, that's what they've told me in face-to-face classes where I've been able to create a different environment.
I find it far more difficult to create such an environment on line in distance courses - that is, where students feel it's OK to make mistakes. (If other people have been able to do that I'd really like to know how and if possible, see how, they do it.) No, I don't really think that just observing the Moodle.org would result in students being confident to do experiment without fear of failure in another forum. My attempts at humour often fall flat.
___
You say, "I'm not sure why my proposal that "the author virtually suggests (inadvertantly, to be sure) that the real cheaters are the edcuators" cannot be serious."
But the author doesn't say, "the real cheaters are the edcuators". It's your interpretation that he "virtually suggests (inadvertently, to be sure)". Come on, with "virtually" and "inadvertently" anybody can be understood to mean anything.
Just to take your first observation:
"First, Promote healthy school culture and authentic learning.
Which only means that educators don't do that or at least do it ineffectively. But if this is possible as the author assumes, and if educators are competent as educators assume, it only means that educators are cheating."
It seems to me that your first "if" clause is valid, there's no need to promote something that already exists, but the second one is not. Who are these educators who are competent as they (or maybe other educators) assume? They are not mentioned in the article. Why not assume that educators (or some of them) are incompentent, but not cheating?
Looking forward to your reply,
Glenys
Yes, my criticism of your sophistry was itself intended to be sophistry - though I couldn't put it as elegantly as you do.