4 ms·

I think by coming up with "cheating-proof" assignments you'd be ignoring the real issue, which is that students think it's ok to cheat. Lacking some global solu

I think by coming up with "cheating-proof" assignments you'd be ignoring the real issue, which is that students think it's ok to cheat. Lacking some global solution, I think it's possible to deal with cheaters without "poisoning" the classroom. Here's my suggestion, based only on my experience in college and common sense: The key thing is not to make such a big deal about about cheating publicly. No public witchhunts, no Turnitin submissions, etc. Include your plagiarism/citation policy clearly on your course syllabus, and briefly go over it on the first day of class, but that's it. Don't have students submit through Turnitin directly, but use Turnitin yourself discretely. Depending on the severity of the infraction, the first one would result in a stern warning in private, or no credit on the assignment. Subsequent infractions warrant more severe punishment. If you let them off "easy" in their eyes (but not too easy) you're the good guy, but they'll still know you're serious about it. On the other hand, if you announce you're using Turnitin, or otherwise publicly dwell on cheating, then students will feel antagonized and band together against you. If you don't give them a reason to discuss it with each other they won't. As you mentioned before, the social pressure among peers to not cheat is strong. But by ignoring the cheaters you're doing both them and their non-cheating peers, and the university as a whole, a disservice. Kids straight out of high school might not even know what they're doing wrong, and if no one ever tells them they'll grow up to be cheaters in life too. Of course it's also unfair to the non-cheaters who work harder and receive the same grades, and ultimately the same degree. On a larger scale, if a university tolerates widespread cheating the quality of their graduates will decline, which obviously isn't good for anyone. [This is a repost of my comment on the blog]

Panos 15y ago
[and the reply that I also posted on my blog :-)] What you describe was my policy in all prior years. I just stupidly felt last year that I need to hunt further. Nope. Big mistake. Just FYI, I could always locate 1-2 cases of cheating in every semester. But I treated treated as isolated cases.
quanticle 15y ago
I think by coming up with "cheating-proof" assignments you'd be ignoring the real issue, which is that students think it's ok to cheat. Why would that be the case? I mean, if the assignment naturally disfavors cheating (by making it more trouble than doing the assignment honestly), doesn't that send a pretty powerful message to the students? "You might have gotten away with cheating in other classes, but in this one, you'll really have to work." It seems like it would be the same message as a strict anti-cheating policy, but without the acrimony.
_delirium 15y ago
> I think by coming up with "cheating-proof" assignments you'd be ignoring the real issue, which is that students think it's ok to cheat. I think these are related, though. Cheating tends to be lowest when students feel they're doing valuable, real work, and that also tends to be the hardest to cheat on; whereas it tends to be highest when students feel they're doing regurgitation or pointless busywork, and that also tends to be the easiest to cheat on. It's not a perfect correlation, but I think it's one factor. I certainly noticed in my own undergraduate education that cheating was highest in courses that were more boring and cookie-cutter, and lower when the professor was particularly motivating, and had creative, interesting assignments. As a prof now, I don't have enough semesters under my belt for good data, but my impression so far is that how I teach the course and frame the assignments can make a huge difference in how likely cheating is. Put differently, I don't think most people have completely fixed ethics; there are some proportion of people who would never cheat, and others who will cheat whenever possible, but a large portion in the middle whose ethics are strongly influenced by the situation. As in many situations (not only in university), people are more likely to feel it's okay to do "unethical" things if they feel that the situation is bullshit, and less likely if they feel motivated/responsible/engaged with something.

Panos 15y ago

[and the reply that I also posted on my blog :-)] What you describe was my policy in all prior years. I just stupidly felt last year that I need to hunt further. Nope. Big mistake. Just FYI, I could always locate 1-2 cases of cheating in every semester. But I treated treated as isolated cases.

quanticle 15y ago

I think by coming up with "cheating-proof" assignments you'd be ignoring the real issue, which is that students think it's ok to cheat. Why would that be the case? I mean, if the assignment naturally disfavors cheating (by making it more trouble than doing the assignment honestly), doesn't that send a pretty powerful message to the students? "You might have gotten away with cheating in other classes, but in this one, you'll really have to work." It seems like it would be the same message as a strict anti-cheating policy, but without the acrimony.

_delirium 15y ago

> I think by coming up with "cheating-proof" assignments you'd be ignoring the real issue, which is that students think it's ok to cheat. I think these are related, though. Cheating tends to be lowest when students feel they're doing valuable, real work, and that also tends to be the hardest to cheat on; whereas it tends to be highest when students feel they're doing regurgitation or pointless busywork, and that also tends to be the easiest to cheat on. It's not a perfect correlation, but I think it's one factor. I certainly noticed in my own undergraduate education that cheating was highest in courses that were more boring and cookie-cutter, and lower when the professor was particularly motivating, and had creative, interesting assignments. As a prof now, I don't have enough semesters under my belt for good data, but my impression so far is that how I teach the course and frame the assignments can make a huge difference in how likely cheating is. Put differently, I don't think most people have completely fixed ethics; there are some proportion of people who would never cheat, and others who will cheat whenever possible, but a large portion in the middle whose ethics are strongly influenced by the situation. As in many situations (not only in university), people are more likely to feel it's okay to do "unethical" things if they feel that the situation is bullshit, and less likely if they feel motivated/responsible/engaged with something.