There was an interesting article about what we can learn about teaching from students who cheat. The article references a book called Cheating Lessons: Learning from Academic Dishonesty written by James M. Lang.
The article suggested that nearly 75% of students cheat during college and I would guess the number is closer to 100% if you count things like glancing at a neighbor’s result to see if it matches your own. I doubt there are many people at all who have not engaged in at least the mildest form of cheating at one point or another.
The article suggests that certain types of teachers and methods of teaching engender cheating. I’m going to go into that in a minute but I want to quickly talk about what the article was not about.
While reading the comments on the story it became clear that majority of people thought the article was somehow absolving students of culpability if they cheated. That this was some sort of attack on personal responsibility. The idea being that it wasn’t the student’s fault they cheated, it was the instructor. That’s not what the article was about at all. If anyone chooses to cheat, regardless of the circumstances, they should face the consequences of their actions. Again, that’s not what this article was about in any way but I’m trying to prevent comments that are off topic.
Back to the point of the book and the article. The first point of the article suggested that failure was becoming less of an option. With mandatory federal dollars involved in passing an exam, both teachers and students didn’t see failure as viable. The students had to pass the test for the school district to get the money. This led to an environment where students spent most of their time in repetitive (read boring) drills designed to pass the test but not necessarily designed to actually learn material. The book cited several studies in which students who embraced failure as a part of learning ended up learning more.
Certainly in life we often tell people they cannot succeed unless they are willing to fail. In an educational environment where failure is to be avoided at all costs it makes perfect sense to me that achievement and higher level learning would suffer, counter-intuitive though it is. The book suggests rewarding perseverance and hard work over achievement. Again, this seems illogical but a closer examination seems to me to reveal veracity to the idea.
The best way to find achievement is through hard work and tenacity. If we want achievement and don’t stress the methods necessary to get there; we simply invite, even encourage, cheating. If we strongly encourage hard work, study, and perseverance, achievement will take care of itself.
The second thing discussed in the article is that a stimulating environment produces better results than a boring classroom. This seems to me to be self-evident but I’ve witnessed a number of educators suggest otherwise. Learning should not be fun, it’s hard work, I’ve heard more than once.
The article again references the idea of the government mandated testing which results in a stagnant and dull learning environment. Disengaged students don’t learn and often cheat.
The idea here is more straightforward. Educators who provide a stimulating and interesting environment produce students who cheat less and learn more. I have no doubt this is true. It’s easy to think that students fail more difficult classes at a higher rate; however, I think the premise of the article is correct. That a stimulating, interesting, and engaged teacher often has a class that is far more difficult than other teachers but that the students score higher and learn far more. That’s the goal, isn’t it?
I’m certainly not saying we can eliminate cheating altogether but if we can reduce cheating, increase learning, and make things more fun; isn’t that a noble goal? I’m also not saying that those that cheat shouldn’t be held responsible. I’m saying that we shouldn’t dismiss the idea that cheating might be more the fault of the educator than lack of ethics by the student.
Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne
I think you make a lot of really good points, Tom.
My girlfriend used to work for an after-school program put on by a private company that was hired by the public school system. The elementary schoolers that she dealt with were nervous wrecks when the FCAT (Florida’s standardized test to determine “is our children learning”) rolled around each year. These kids were to young to understand federal education subsidies and bonuses. They were stressed out purely off of the vibes of their teachers whose pay would be based on the test scores.
Thank you for the comment, Brantley.
It’s always good to hear form someone with real experience with the situation. The article did talk about how teachers become stressed by expectations although I didn’t discuss it in my blog post. The goal is a safe, comfortable, and happy learning environment.
Tom
Couple of questions for you. How many students did she have in a session? Was it mandatory for the students to be in the class? How much time did she spend a week with them? Did she have to handle discipline problems? Did she have to buy the materials she used? Did she but the students supplies, clothing, and food? Did she have parents ranting when she called with concerns? Did she have to write her own lessons? Society seems to think that teaching is easy. It is a hard job, especially when a majority of people have no clue what it is like to teach.
Did you read this paragraph: While reading the comments on the story it became clear that majority of people thought the article was somehow absolving students of culpability if they cheated. That this was some sort of attack on personal responsibility. The idea being that it wasn’t the student’s fault they cheated, it was the instructor. That’s not what the article was about at all. If anyone chooses to cheat, regardless of the circumstances, they should face the consequences of their actions. Again, that’s not what this article was about in any way but I’m trying to prevent comments that are off topic.
The point of the article was what sort of classroom engenders a learning environment where students cheat and what are methods to avoid that sort of classroom.
I’m sorry that I didn’t make that clear enough,
Thanks for the comment, Anonymous.
She wasn’t an actual public school teacher. She worked for a private company hired by the school district to provide an after-school program.
I’m going to do my best with your questions by memory because she isn’t around right now.
– Each employee took two grades and their approved (possibly a legal issue) ratio was about 20 kids to 1 after-school professional. As kids were picked up, employees were sent home early sometimes (making it a tough way to make money because sometimes she would only work 2-3 hours at a time and it was a bit of a drive to work).
– It wasn’t a mandatory program, just an extra service offered by the school for parents who worked late and were unable to pick their kids up around 3pm when school let out. I’m not sure if the parents paid the school extra for these services, but she worked with a LOT of kids from lower socioeconomic backgrounds so my guess is that it was free to the parents.
– She worked about 4 hours/day (as I said she was sometimes sent home early) four days a week. Wednesdays school adjourned early as a cost-cutting measure so she worked 5-6 those days. That brings the total to about 13-22 hours/week, typically falling nearer to the shorter side.
– Discipline problems were handled via ‘timeouts’ I believe. Other than a designated homework time, it was a glorified recess/arts and crafts deal and they watched movies when they couldn’t go outside.
– She didn’t have to buy materials, but at one point her supervisor was the type that would spend her own money on supplies for arts and crafts. She was much happier working under this particular supervisor than the person who replaced her. No money spent by the after school employees on food or clothing that I know of, but there were snacks provided (I’m guessing this was included in the services purchased by the school district).
– I don’t believe she had much interaction with parents. She had supervisors in charge of dealing with issues like that so she would just inform them of situations and that’s where her responsibility ended.
– She didn’t have to write any lessons, but she did help the kids with their homework if the had questions.
That being said, this wasn’t a position as a Teacher. However, I do know some friends from college that are now teachers and they haven’t become jaded yet! I worry about them, though. Most teachers that I’ve spoken to who have been doing it for a long time are frustrated or bitter even.
Blaming teachers is a cop out. Blame the parents who didn’t teach their children right from wrong. Blame the student who chose to cheat. Blame a society that makes people feel that they are entitled to things even if they don’t work for them. Fewer and fewer people are taking responsibility for their actions.
Did you read this paragraph: While reading the comments on the story it became clear that majority of people thought the article was somehow absolving students of culpability if they cheated. That this was some sort of attack on personal responsibility. The idea being that it wasn’t the student’s fault they cheated, it was the instructor. That’s not what the article was about at all. If anyone chooses to cheat, regardless of the circumstances, they should face the consequences of their actions. Again, that’s not what this article was about in any way but I’m trying to prevent comments that are off topic.
The point of the article was what sort of classroom engenders a learning environment where students cheat and what are methods to avoid that sort of classroom.
I’m sorry that I didn’t make that clear enough,
Thanks for the comment, Alex.
Tom
Yes I read that paragraph. I also read these paragraphs linking teachers to cheating:“Spontaneity, movement, imagination, invention, are what most promote student engagement,” Naison says. Those are the kinds of processes kids can get into. “Students who are bored feel less connection to the teacher and therefore less loyalty. So they are more likely to cheat.”
Lang’s second solution has to do with self-efficacy, meaning students must feel that they have the skills to succeed in each task. To create self-efficacy in students, he encourages teachers to show that they believe in each child, especially the ones who have not given them a reason to.
In answer to the first paragraph I say that there are some things that must be taught through repetition and rote memorization. When I taught fifth grade math we drilled and killed the multiplication facts. The kids had to know them before we could continue with fractions. Was it boring. Yes. Was it necessary? Again yes. As for the boring part I say tough. Life can not be fun every minute of every day. Why is being bored a justification for cheating?
In answer to the second paragraph I believed in my kids. Unfortunately I was often the only one who did. Fighting with parents, administrators, and the general public to make a kid feel good about themselves is very hard. I found that there is a lot of infighting in the African-American community. Doing well in school, speaking proper English, and being respectful often get kids called names such as Oreo or Uncle Tom. I know of some very good teachers who were told that they were Oreos because they held high expectations of ALL of their students. The gifted Math program in the elementary schools was cut because vocal members of the AA community felt there were not enough blacks in the program. When a father that I know stood up and said that his child was in the program he was informed that he wasn’t black enough. These are just a couple of examples of how society knocks these kids down.
Cheating is a conscious decision on a student’s part. THEY make that decision. I can also tell you that you know of at least three people who I know for a fact never cheated in school even though they were bored. I can also assume that you know a few others.
While reading the comments on the story it became clear that majority of people thought the article was somehow absolving students of culpability if they cheated. That this was some sort of attack on personal responsibility. The idea being that it wasn’t the student’s fault they cheated, it was the instructor. That’s not what the article was about at all. If anyone chooses to cheat, regardless of the circumstances, they should face the consequences of their actions.
You read that and still make the exact same comment?
I just don’t understand how I can say it more clearly. Boredom is not an excuse for cheating. No one was trying to excuse cheating. The article was attempting to find out what sort of classroom engenders the most cheating. How to avoid such an environment as much as possible. The book and the article were written to help teachers help students.
Finally, I cheated. I glanced at nearby answers to see if they corresponded to mine on a few occasions. I’m skeptical of anyone who claims otherwise.
Thanks for the comment, Alex.
Tom
Pingback: - Ethics in the NewsEthics in the News