The second pre-service session is by John Krutsch, Senior Director, Distance Education, Utah Valley State College on academic integrity. Again, this is going to be one of the blog as I go posts. I’m hoping that the other session that I was interested in – how is your faculty PD. I’ve sent Dan over there and he’s sent the link to this wiki.
Personally, I think that cheating is something that is a part of life – depending on what part of life you are looking at and who is looking. John’s video that he started the presentation with seemed to support this idea – there are many other factors that influence why students cheat and how they justify their actions (grade curves, academic support et al). He went through a section that argued that being able to find answers on demand – once known as cheating in some environ, is now being allowed.
David Wiley of Utah State University says “If your students can cheat on you, then you deserve it!” – lead off a discussion on the instructors role. Personally, I think that the statement is true – garbage in, garbage out. If the instructor doesn’t create a question that supports a unique answer, then cheating is an option. If the questions never change, same thing.
The theory of “Margin” margin = load/power suggests something about why cheating might be encouraged. If there is more to deal with than one has the power to do something about, margin drops and to regain some margin, students might turn to cheating. Instructor generated load is a major issue as instructors don’t align what they want the students to do with what they need to get out of the course – busy work “kills”.
Suggested ways to get around cheating is to ensure clear expectations are delivered to students and managing how assessments are delivered to avoid providing “holes” to cheat through. He also suggests that varying assessment is a way to avoid cheating as well.
The video was interesting over all, but I was hoping for more “how’d they do that” type of thing.
Leave a Reply