Is this cheating?

[Pure]

POLL QUESTION: IS THE ONLINE SHARING [USING A WEBSITE] OF TIPS, ADVICE, ETC., FOR GRADED HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENTS, ASSIGNED FOR INDIVIDUAL COMPLETION, CHEATING?

SPECIFICALLY, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE FACTS AS SET OUT IN THE FIRST ARTICLE, ABOUT MR AVENIR, AT RYERSON UNIVERSITY.


What makes some such projects 'cheating'? Is cheating obsolete, as a concept, in a world where teams do so much? Is electronic 'sharing' different from the behavior of 'study groups'?



http://www.thestar.com/article/309855

Mar 6, 2008

Student faces Facebook consequences



ANDREW WALLACE/TORONTO STAR

Ryerson student Chris Avenir is facing expulsion for taking part in a Facebook study group for one of his engineering courses.

Freshman hit with 147 academic charges for online study network at Ryerson University

Mar 06, 2008 04:30 AM Louise Brown
Education Reporter



Study groups may be a virtual trademark of the Ivory Tower – but a virtual study group has been slammed as cheating by Ryerson University. First-year student Chris Avenir is fighting charges of academic misconduct for helping run an online chemistry study group via Facebook last term, where 146 classmates swapped tips on homework questions that counted for 10 per cent of their mark.

The computer engineering student has been charged with one count of academic misconduct for helping run the group – called Dungeons/Mastering Chemistry Solutions after the popular Ryerson basement study room engineering students dub The Dungeon – and another 146 counts, one for each classmate who used the site. Avenir, 18, faces an expulsion hearing Tuesday before the engineering faculty appeals committee. If he loses that appeal, he can take his case to the university's senate.

The incident has sent shock waves through student ranks, says Kim Neale, 26, the student union's advocacy co-ordinator, who will represent Avenir at the hearing.

"All these students are scared s---less now about using Facebook to talk about schoolwork, when actually it's no different than any study group working together on homework in a library," said Neale.

"That's the worst part; it's creating this culture of fear, where if I post a question about physics homework on my friend's wall (a Facebook bulletin board) and ask if anyone has any ideas how to approach this – and my prof sees this, am I cheating?" said Neale, who has used Facebook study groups herself.

Ryerson officials have declined to comment while the case continues. Ryerson's academic misconduct policy, which is being updated, defines it as "any deliberate activity to gain academic advantage, including actions that have a negative effect on the integrity of the learning environment."

Yet students argue Facebook groups are simply the new study hall for the wired generation. Avenir said he joined the Facebook group last fall to get help with some of the questions the professor would give students to do online. As the network grew, he took over as its administrator, which is why he believes he alone has been charged.

"So we each would be given chemistry questions and if we were having trouble, we'd post the question and say: `Does anyone get how to do this one? I didn't get it right and I don't know what I'm doing wrong.' Exactly what we would say to each other if we were sitting in the Dungeon," said Avenir yesterday. He is still attending classes pending his hearing but admits the stress of the accusations is affecting his midterm exam results.

"But if this kind of help is cheating, then so is tutoring and all the mentoring programs the university runs and the discussions we do in tutorials," he said.

Neale said the Facebook account appears to have been pulled offline yesterday, although Avenir said it has not been in use since the course ended in December. He had earned a B in the class, but after the professor discovered the Facebook group over the holidays, the mark was changed to an F. The professor reported the incident to the school's student conduct officer and recommended expulsion.

Neale said Avenir missed two meetings to discuss the matter because of a miscommunication. Tuesday's hearing was arranged to give him a chance make his case against explusion. Ryerson is not obliged to do so. While Neale admits the professor stipulated the online homework questions were to be done independently, she said it has long been a tradition for students to brainstorm homework in groups, particularly in heavy programs such as law, engineering and medicine.


Each student in the course received slightly different questions to prevent cheating, she said, and she did not see evidence of students doing complete solutions for each other. Instead, she said, they would brainstorm about techniques.

"They'd say to each other stuff like ... `Remember what to do when you have positive cations (a type of positively charged ion)' and that sort of thing," she said.

But Neale admitted 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."

Still, said Neale, "no one did post a full final solution. It was more the back and forth that you get in any study group."

====

http://www.thestar.com/article/310314

Students warned against using Facebook groups for cheating

Professors warn it's easy for participants to neglect the rules when studying with others on the site

www.thestar.com

Mar 07, 2008 04:30 AM Louise Brown
Education Reporter

With the soaring popularity of Facebook among teens, the University of Western Ontario has started 25 Facebook study groups this year in such big first-year courses as biology, English, chemistry and psychology. But each one bears a warning against cheating.

"We thought we'd try this new kind of study group because we know that's where the students are. But we're also using it as a tool to go over tips to avoid cheating," said Leslie Gloor Duncan, Western's co-ordinator of transitional programs. "We tell them to respect the rules of the course," she said. "When they hand an assignment in, they must disclose details about where they went for advice."

The university administers the sites and keeps an eye out for questionable material, but so far has had no complaints.

"You want students to know that there's information they can share, but also information they can't."

A Ryerson student has been charged with academic misconduct for running a chemistry study group last term on Facebook, where students shared information on assignments that were supposed to be done independently. Engineering student Chris Avenir insists his group was only trading ideas, but many professors said yesterday students on the network can be tempted to overlook the rules.

"We don't know the details of the Ryerson case," said Jim Turk, executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers. "But if the professor gives students individual assignments that will be marked and students use other students to help get the answers, that's cheating."

Ryerson student leaders say a Facebook study group is like having a tutor. But Turk says "If you hire a tutor to help you do an assignment for marks, that's cheating, too."

Professor Stephen Satris is executive director of the Center for Academic Integrity in South Carolina, a consortium of about 360 universities. "I'm told the Ryerson Facebook group asked members to `Please input your solutions.' Well, yikes! That's more than just exchanging ideas," he said. As universities beef up efforts to catch cheating, essay mills are working to spruce up their image, Satris said, often billing themselves as "helping with research" or "helping with your academic integrity!"

His centre's website is www.academicintegrity.org –

but if you visit www.academicintegrity.com? You reach an essay writing service

 

[Katyusha]

I don't think it's cheating, because to me it does sound like any real-life study group. I can't remember the number of times in college where a bunch of us would get together over a particularly tough assignment and talk it out...help each other with the problems we each were having with it. Posting full solutions to chemistry problems might be considered cheating but when all that's going on is what goes on in any study group, tutoring program, etc., then what's the big deal?

I think the university needs to look fully at what all was posted before they determine whether or not it can be considered cheating. If they think it was cheating just because it was online and NOT because full answers were being posted, then they need to reevaluate all their tutoring and mentoring programs as well. I would consider that very, very hypocritical.

 

[rgraham666]

I don't think it's cheating, because to me it does sound like any real-life study group. I can't remember the number of times in college where a bunch of us would get together over a particularly tough assignment and talk it out...help each other with the problems we each were having with it. Posting full solutions to chemistry problems might be considered cheating but when all that's going on is what goes on in any study group, tutoring program, etc., then what's the big deal?

I think the university needs to look fully at what all was posted before they determine whether or not it can be considered cheating. If they think it was cheating just because it was online and NOT because full answers were being posted, then they need to reevaluate all their tutoring and mentoring programs as well. I would consider that very, very hypocritical.

I note that Avenir missed two meetings to discuss this due to 'miscommunication'.

That's a common way for courtiers to make sure they control the outcome of a process. When the other side doesn't show up, it's hard for them to have any input.

On the other hand, if getting into the Facebook group required posting answers to homework or exam questions, I'd say that was cheating.

Insufficient data to make a real judgement I'm afraid.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I note that Avenir missed two meetings to discuss this due to 'miscommunication'.

That's a common way for courtiers to make sure they control the outcome of a process. When the other side doesn't show up, it's hard for them to have any input.

True, but this cuts both ways. If you claim not to have received any letters or emails that were sent to you, even if that's because you either ignored them or chose not to supply updated contact information (a common problem with students, who move frequently), then you have a convenient excuse for dragging things out.

Insufficient data to make a real judgement I'm afraid.

*nods* Certainly there's one side that has almost no input into this story, and that's the college. It's bound by federal privacy regulations to make no comment on individual students' academic records, including this sort of case, so they've got both hands tied behind their backs so far as the media presentation of the facts goes.

Still, I thought that this passage summed up the issue pretty clearly, particularly given that the information is supplied by one of the students:

While Neale admits the professor stipulated the online homework questions were to be done independently, she said it has long been a tradition for students to brainstorm homework in groups, particularly in heavy programs such as law, engineering and medicine.

It doesn't matter whether there's a long tradition of students ignoring the requirement that work done for part of their grade be done independently, or not. It's cheating. It has got a long tradition, but that doesn't make it right, and it's no more right in person than it is electronically. It's just easier to prove when there's a written record. If they were told to do the assignment independently and chose not to, then the charges seem to me to be justified.

 

[R. Richard]

The purpose of going to school is supposed to be to learn. Exactly how the learning takes place is not really important.

If a student simply copies the 'correct answer' to a homework problem, then the student is cheating, but cheating him/herself. If the student actually learns how to do the homework problem, then the method that the student used to learn is irrelevant.

If the student is cheating of the homework, then the cheating will be revealed on the in-class tests. If the student actually learned by doing the homework, then the learning will be revealed on the in-class tests.

What is the problem?

 

[BlackShanglan]

The purpose of going to school is supposed to be to learn. Exactly how the learning takes place is not really important.

If a student simply copies the 'correct answer' to a homework problem, then the student is cheating, but cheating him/herself. If the student actually learns how to do the homework problem, then the method that the student used to learn is irrelevant.

If the student is cheating of the homework, then the cheating will be revealed on the in-class tests. If the student actually learned by doing the homework, then the learning will be revealed on the in-class tests.

What is the problem?

Your first assumption. Formal schooling is not solely a process of learning. It is also a process of certification. It's designed to help other people (chiefly employers) have some idea of who has learned what. In order to function effectively as a certification process, it needs to have as accurate a measure as possible of what people have actually learned.

In-class tests can, of course, more accurately reveal the abilities of individual students - in a stressful, time-intensive environment. Out-of-class work can reveal other abilities that are difficult to test in class, such as the ability to perform thorough research or to complete large and complex projects, or the ability to perform tasks in a different and more natural environment. By offering students a chance to do 10% of the course work in out-of-class homework, the professor helps balance out the potential for in-class exams to reflect things other than the skills learned - like level of anxiety or having a whanging head cold the day of the test.

The key point, in Pure's example, is that the work was both (1) a substantial part of the students' grades [10% is roughly a letter grade] and (2) required to be done independently. If people cheat, they gain a letter grade worth of free credit - enough to move a 'D' to a pass.

 

[Liar]

How can you cheat in studying?

You can cheat in passing exams, but that's not the same as studying.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Not sure how to answer.

If the students were graded on the correctness of their answers on homework problems then it's the equivalent of a take-home test, and even cooperating is probably "cheating." On the other hand, how stupid can that prof be, to give "take-home tests" that have objectively correct answers (chem problems). It's almost a dirty trick to expect students under pressure to not cooperate in that situation, and so I'm more inclinded to ding the prof than the students.

(IN contrast I had take home tests in my social science grad school classes that were essays which would demonstrate whether one had integrated in a more subjective way theorerical "lenses" on various issues. That made sense.)

 

[R. Richard]

Your first assumption. Formal schooling is not solely a process of learning. It is also a process of certification. It's designed to help other people (chiefly employers) have some idea of who has learned what. In order to function effectively as a certification process, it needs to have as accurate a measure as possible of what people have actually learned.

You state that formal education is not solely a process of learning and then cite only example of learning.

In-class tests can, of course, more accurately reveal the abilities of individual students - in a stressful, time-intensive environment. Out-of-class work can reveal other abilities that are difficult to test in class, such as the ability to perform thorough research or to complete large and complex projects, or the ability to perform tasks in a different and more natural environment. By offering students a chance to do 10% of the course work in out-of-class homework, the professor helps balance out the potential for in-class exams to reflect things other than the skills learned - like level of anxiety or having a whanging head cold the day of the test.

Research is , by definition, learning from the work of others. If a large and complex task is assigned in the real world, it is almost always done by a team. The examples you cite are examples of teamwork things, not normally individual effort.

The key point, in Pure's example, is that the work was both (1) a substantial part of the students' grades [10% is roughly a letter grade] and (2) required to be done independently. If people cheat, they gain a letter grade worth of free credit - enough to move a 'D' to a pass.

If 10% is 'roughly a letter grade,' then there are 10 letter grades. Since there are normally only five letter grades, then 10% is half a letter grade. Your assumption that cheating yields 10% is based upon your assumption that the student would get 0% if he/she tried to do the work on his/her own. If the student would truly get 0% on his her own, then the student will surely flunk the in-class tests that constitute 90% of the grade.

I am missing your point.

 

[cloudy]

If the school truly considers it cheating, why haven't all the students been charged?

Makes it look like a grudge thing to just charge the one.

 

[alyxen]

If 10% is 'roughly a letter grade,' then there are 10 letter grades. Since there are normally only five letter grades, then 10% is half a letter grade.
I am missing your point.

I think the perspective used to garner the 10% is a letter grade is based on the fact that the bottom half of the percentages (0 to 50%) are all part of F. In other words, if you go from a 90% to 80% grade, you drop a letter grade.

 

[Pure]

note re rox

RA If the students were graded on the correctness of their answers on homework problems then it's the equivalent of a take-home test, and even cooperating is probably "cheating."

Pure: I agree.

On the other hand, how stupid can that prof be, to give "take-home tests" that have objectively correct answers (chem problems). It's almost a dirty trick to expect students under pressure to not cooperate in that situation, and so I'm more inclinded to ding the prof than the students.

Pure: I disagree. I have been in this situation in advanced mathematics courses. The take home test was to prove certain theorems. [A bit like a geometry test, in high school.]

Afaik, none of us 'cooperated,' i.e. cheated; this was a major university on the honor system. There is a 'vow,' signed, under each test, "upon my honor, i have neither given nor received assistance." [meaning unauthorized and undisclosed 'help'].

That said, I've seen groups of students at another major university, often of particular countries, doing science homework assignments together. The university made no effort to control this procedure: presumably the students were smart enough NOT to copy exact wording, but to give the correct answers embedded in their own text.

So i see group efforts at homework aided by computer software as simply the next step in the process, one i don't entirely approve of. Why? Because the advantage accruing to group members gives them 'one up' on those working individually. IF the prof means for students to work in groups, on group assignments, the groups should be set up within the course, openly, and probably all those within a particular group should share one grade.

===

PS. As to the question raised, why Avenir only was charged
The computer engineering student has been charged with one count of academic misconduct for helping run the group

He set up and ran the group [with some help]. Hence hitting him makes sense if the university is moving against the practice. He is, so to say, like a major drug dealer the cops go after, not the fellow buying or selling a nickel bag at the corner bar.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

When I taught college chemistry, I gave homework for two reasons: (a) to teach the students problem-solving skills, and (b) to assess their knowledge and ability at using these skills. These goals are quite different and in fact, incompatible.

The object in (a) is to teach them how to do problems, and anything that furthers that end, such as working in groups, is desirable. Clearly my goal in (b) is different. It's more like taking a test and I want them working separately.

The Professor needs to decide the purpose of each homework assignment and set the rules for his students, whether they can work in groups or not. This is entirely his responsibility and not the onus of the students. You can't have it both ways: use homework as a pedagogic tool and as a test of a student's knowledge, yet that's what he's trying to do.

Once he sets the rules on whether they can study cooperatively or not, the cheating becomes a separate issue.

Just another shitty teacher in action. Chemistry seems to be full of them.

 

[Pure]

question for the dr

When I taught college chemistry, I gave homework for two reasons: (a) to teach the students problem-solving skills, and (b) to assess their knowledge and ability at using these skills. These goals are quite different.

The object in (a) is to teach them how to do problems, and anything that furthers that end, such as working in groups, is desirable. Clearly my goal in (b) is different. It's more like taking a test and I want them working separately.

P: i disagree with the bolded sentence, unless the phrase "working in groups" is specified properly.

'anything that furthers that end' could be, for example, logging onto the alleged 'study group's' website and copying the answer? could it be the poor students' picking the brains of the smart ones?

P: merely to say that some group, somehow _comes up with the answer_ is not sufficient to show whether most of the members are learning 'problem solving,' unless by that one means, 'finding the correct answer by any means, cribbing, cheating, or buying off the 'net.'

 

[SlickTony]

It seems to me that the difference between a group of students brainstorming in the library and a group brainstorming in Facebook isn't that much of a stretch.

In work, cooperative effort is not only praised, it is expected--it's not considered a good thing to have on your eval "is not a team player". In any event, it's been my experience that the people who have all the meetings tend to make more money, um, I mean, be rewarded better than the Lone Man in the Skunk Works, unless that skunk is very, very, very brilliant.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Each student in the course received slightly different questions to prevent cheating, she said, and she did not see evidence of students doing complete solutions for each other. Instead, she said, they would brainstorm about techniques.

"They'd say to each other stuff like ... `Remember what to do when you have positive cations (a type of positively charged ion)' and that sort of thing," she said.

I think this is cruxt of the entire matter. Does it really matter that the study group is on the internet or sitting in some room on campus? My personal opinion is this is exactly what we did in college but not on the internet. You couldn't figure the solution of a problem, so someone would walk you through it. If no one knew how to approach a problem we would brainstorm a method.

At the same time, I haven't seen what was going on in Facebook. Were they simply trading answers or was this truely a study group in the classic sense?

Do I think kids cheat in college? Hell yes. Is this a higher tech version of cheating? I don't know.

 

[R. Richard]

It seems to me that the difference between a group of students brainstorming in the library and a group brainstorming in Facebook isn't that much of a stretch.

In work, cooperative effort is not only praised, it is expected--it's not considered a good thing to have on your eval "is not a team player". In any event, it's been my experience that the people who have all the meetings tend to make more money, um, I mean, be rewarded better than the Lone Man in the Skunk Works, unless that skunk is very, very, very brilliant.

Yes! In the real world the college graduate is expected to be a team player. The team is expect to learn from each other. This last is the rough equivalent of students brainstorming in the library.

There is a form of cheating in the college world that is known and not only tolerated, but encouraged in the real world. If a student 'takes care' of a professor in college, it is a scandal and both may suffer heavy penalties.
In the real world if an employee 'takes care' of a manager, it is a matter that the merely productive employee better not mention.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

When I taught college chemistry, I gave homework for two reasons: (a) to teach the students problem-solving skills, and (b) to assess their knowledge and ability at using these skills. These goals are quite different.

The object in (a) is to teach them how to do problems, and anything that furthers that end, such as working in groups, is desirable. Clearly my goal in (b) is different. It's more like taking a test and I want them working separately.

i disagree with the bolded sentence, unless the phrase "working in groups" is specified properly.

'anything that furthers that end' could be, for example, logging onto the alleged 'study group's' website and copying the answer? could it be the poor students' picking the brains of the smart ones?

merely to say that some group, somehow _comes up with the answer_ is not sufficient to show whether most of the members are learning 'problem solving,' unless by that one means, 'finding the correct answer by any means, cribbing, cheating, or buying off the 'net.'

Copying answers does not further the end of learning how to apply the skills of problem solving. It furthers the end of learning how to copy answers.

When I taught, the purpose of homework was to teach how to solve problems, so learning in groups was fine with me. They had to show me the work though. I didn't care much about getting the right answer. I gave them weekly quizzes for that, and if they'd just copied homework, it showed on the tests and quizzes, in which homework-style questions were 50-70%.

I myself probably wouldn't have gotten through quantum without a study group and I don't see anything wrong with it. You're not going to fake your way through quantum mechanics without understanding the homework, believe me, and that's probably true of any decently-run higher level course.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

When I taught college chemistry, I gave homework for two reasons: (a) to teach the students problem-solving skills, and (b) to assess their knowledge and ability at using these skills. These goals are quite different.

The object in (a) is to teach them how to do problems, and anything that furthers that end, such as working in groups, is desirable. Clearly my goal in (b) is different. It's more like taking a test and I want them working separately.

i disagree with the bolded sentence, unless the phrase "working in groups" is specified properly.

'anything that furthers that end' could be, for example, logging onto the alleged 'study group's' website and copying the answer? could it be the poor students' picking the brains of the smart ones?

merely to say that some group, somehow _comes up with the answer_ is not sufficient to show whether most of the members are learning 'problem solving,' unless by that one means, 'finding the correct answer by any means, cribbing, cheating, or buying off the 'net.'

Copying answers doesn't further the end of learning how to apply the skills of problem solving. It furthers the end of learning how to copy answers.

When I taught, the purpose of homework was to teach how to solve problems, so learning in groups was fine with me. They had to show me the work though. I didn't care much about getting the right answer. I gave them weekly quizzes for that, and if they'd just copied homework, it showed on the tests and quizzes, in which homework-style questions were 50-70% of the test.

An example of what I mean by "working in groups" is: "How the hell do you solve this problem? Anyone have an idea?" "How do you convert calories to ergs?" "Can someone explain the mole concept to me?" It's peer-teaching. That's what I mean.

I myself probably wouldn't have gotten through quantum without a study group and I don't see anything wrong with it. You're not going to fake your way through quantum mechanics without understanding the homework, believe me, and that's probably true of any decently-run higher level course.

 

[SimpleGifts]

I do see some merit in this comment:

"But if this kind of help is cheating, then so is tutoring and all the mentoring programs the university runs and the discussions we do in tutorials," he said.

There is clearly a problem in defining "cheating" in the case of homework. If I pay a tutor to review my questions with me, then it's fine, but if I ask a fellow student for some free advice, it's cheating?

I will say this..******* study groups differ from f2f study groups in that the content of the discussion is recorded in text, and possibly preserved...so students who do not participate in the discussion get the benefit. I don't believe that turns the study group into "cheating" but it's an interesting issue.

In my view, with the given facts, I don't see why this particular study group would constitute "cheating" unless the university managed to police all forms of communication between students. People ask each other questions and get ideas from others--that's the nature of science, and it's the nature of humans who are social.

I fully agree with the good Dr. M...the real solution is, find a way to get chemistry teachers who can teach and who understand how students learn.

SG

 

[CharleyH]

I am a little unclear on the poll question, Can you re-phrase it?

 

[Katyusha]

There is clearly a problem in defining "cheating" in the case of homework. If I pay a tutor to review my questions with me, then it's fine, but if I ask a fellow student for some free advice, it's cheating?

I will say this..******* study groups differ from f2f study groups in that the content of the discussion is recorded in text, and possibly preserved...so students who do not participate in the discussion get the benefit. I don't believe that turns the study group into "cheating" but it's an interesting issue.

I think that may be the problem that people have with online study groups, particularly if the discussions are on message boards or even in chatrooms that are logged and can be accessed at a later time, and waded through to piece together final solutions.

The homework may be 10% of the final grade in that class, but that means the other 90% of the grade comes from in-class assignments and exams. Except when the professors specifically assigned us partners or groups, most of my classes in college required individual work on anything in-class. Students who are merely copying the homework from others will do poorly on that work and their grade will suffer badly anyway. Students who are actually learning how to solve those problems will do much better.

I also don't see why there's an unfair advantage for students who choose to collaborate on homework as opposed to students who do all their homework individually. Forming a study group for a specific class, or getting a tutor or whatever, is a choice that's available to all of them. It would be an unfair advantage if only certain students were allowed help and others were not. Those who did not or could not participate in the online forum still had access to acquaintances in that class and to tutors if they needed help. In a good setting, they would also have had access to the TA's and the professor herself for help.

With all that said, it's not really made clear whether or not the group was merely collaborating or if they were actually just copying each other. That muddles this discussion quite a bit.

 

[Pure]

Note to Charley and others:

I have re phrased the poll question, and put it in bold, in the body of the first posting, at the beginning. Sorry about the fuck up.

NOTE to Simple Gifts:

There is clearly a problem in defining "cheating" in the case of homework. If I pay a tutor to review my questions with me, then it's fine, but if I ask a fellow student for some free advice, it's cheating?

I see your point, and in fact i've worked as a tutor. HOWEVER, it has always bothered me that my client, whose daddy can pay $30/hr for 'help', is going to get a better grade than someone without assistance. [or just the mass assistance of low level grad students who'll give a half hour, at specified times.]

I think the solution is suggested in one of the articles. Students should have to specify the type and degree of assistance they received.

Another solution i've participated in: ON a major paper, the student shows it to the prof, unedited and un-advised. Then with the profs permission, the student turns it over to my hands for polishing. Hence the prof is aware of the student's research and thinking ability, and knows that the writing up is being assisted.

 

[Just-Legal]

Does it really matter that the study group is on the internet or sitting in some room on campus?

Just picking up on this point. I'm about to start some Open University courses (nice light stuff, little stress), and a lot of that can be done online and through online study groups.

When I was at Uni full time, ALL our courses had discussion groups, and even chatrooms (which sometimes decended into slagging the International Relations tutor but that's by-the-by). It boggles me that a mid-range Uni (and I say that with love) would encourage this whilst others seemingly DIScourage it.

Meh, I gave up on the world making sense a long time ago.

 

[BlackShanglan]

You state that formal education is not solely a process of learning and then cite only example of learning.

No, I explained the role of certification. That's not the same thing as learning. It's ideally meant to measure learning, but certification is the act of certifying or vouching for what the student has learned. It involves things not intrinsically necessary to learning, like assessment and record-keeping. Anyone can learn independently without testing, but for the university to certify that learning, they need a means to assess it.

Research is , by definition, learning from the work of others. If a large and complex task is assigned in the real world, it is almost always done by a team. The examples you cite are examples of teamwork things, not normally individual effort.

Yes. That's where the "certification" part is important. In the "real world," by which I presume you mean your own workplace, things are done differently because the goal is different. The goal of research, in the workplace, is to solve a problem. The goal of research in an academic certification context is both to solve a problem and - and usually more importantly - to clearly demonstrate to the certifying individual that you possess the ability to conduct research. While this is sometimes done in groups, it's often done individually because the certification is individual. Each student will have his or her own individual grade; thus, each student needs to be tested on his or her own individual skills, including skills like research.

If 10% is 'roughly a letter grade,' then there are 10 letter grades. Since there are normally only five letter grades, then 10% is half a letter grade. Your assumption that cheating yields 10% is based upon your assumption that the student would get 0% if he/she tried to do the work on his/her own. If the student would truly get 0% on his her own, then the student will surely flunk the in-class tests that constitute 90% of the grade.

I am missing your point.

Evidently we've lived in very different real worlds. I've never attended any institution that ranked a 0-59% anything but an F, and most used ten-point increments up from that to rank the letter grades - 60-69% a D, 70-79% a C, etc. Have you actually attended an institution in which a 20% resulted in some sort of pass? Or are you suggesting that students turning in work they didn't do to receive credit toward their grades somehow doesn't affect their actual grades? The students seem to think that it will.