Sundry Items
Figured I'd follow Ryan's lead and hit on a number of things.1. TED - is the annual meeting becoming a secular General Conference of sorts, a place where people go to be re-energized in their causes?
2. Conspiracy Theories - I recently read what might be my all time favorite conspiracy theory. In a bit of a double whammy, an article claiming that the retraction of a paper linking autism to vaccines was a "Big Pharma conspiracy" used as an example the discrediting of cold fusion. They were saying that scientists actually discovered cold fusion, but because hot fusion scientists were backed by big business, they were able to successfully put down the cold fusionists. Apparently people actually believe that the solution to clean, sustainable, inexpensive power for the entire world was discovered but swept under the carpet. Unbelievable.
3. Cheating - I recently gave my ap physics class a take-home test with the only limitation being that they couldn't consult with anyone else. Over 1/3 of the class obviously worked together in some form or another. Is it unreasonable to expect honesty from students? I'm guessing that most people would act dishonestly in a situation where there is a moderate to high potential for gain and a minimal chance of getting caught (e.g. pirating music). What surprises me is that even intelligent students (I think I've got the top 5 students in the senior class in that group) underestimate how obvious it is when they cheat. Makes me wonder if they knew I'd notice, but thought I wouldn't care, that I couldn't possibly give a take-home test and expect them not to work together.
For now they all have zeros. Should I allow them to retake for partial credit?
Comments
2. I like the reasoning in that article. A recent cold fusion breakthrough proves that Fleischmann and Pons also successfully conducted a cold fusion 20 experiment years ago! Also, if scientist ridicule some "breakthrough" and there are potential financial consequences to someone based upon the veracity of that breakthrough, then they are clearly motivated by money.
3.
If the only restriction was that they could not work together, then I'm guessing that a lot of the answers you received were so similar as to be nearly verbatim.
First, there will always be someone who claims that the similarity is just a coincidence, which is probably absurd. But while your evidence is likely very strong, it is probably also circumstantial evidence, making this story remotely possible.
Also, was internet off limits? There's also the slight possibility that a number of students used the same reference (the first couple links on a Google search?) and basically copied it. Or, they could have told each other about a website that had the answer, and thought that conveying that information did not violate the rule. Or maybe you made it completely clear that communication of any kind was unacceptable.
I, personally, would never have given a test like this because I wouldn't want to deal with the parent and student fallout.
I remember your sister telling me that in junior high Mr. Pinder was her math teacher. Instead of assigning one math assignment every day, he assigned an average of one lesson a day, but they homework wasn't due until the end of the semester. Of all the students only she and one other student completed the assignments.
This is kind of a similar situation. On the one hand, a teacher is more than just a repository of facts and he ought to teach some life skills. Honesty, like planning/endurance are life skills.
On the other hand, it was a bit of a set up. I remember taking a take-home test at BYU, where I couldn't use notes, and I had a time limit. I was tempted. And that was after my mission.
I do like the idea of cheaters getting their just desserts, though.
2. Just so you know, I'm not a regular reader of NaturalNews.com, just saw the headline in a news feed. Another thing that blows me away is that the comments are entirely in the affirmative. But I guess the regular readers are already in this irrational mindset and any outsider would find it futile to change their minds in that setting.
3. My specific instructions were "open notes and open book, but not open friends." I did have one student as about using the internet (not with other students around to hear), and I told her I didn't mind because I didn't see how it would help her to find the solution to a computational physics problem.
The first thing that tipped me off to their malfeasance was having certain students skip the gimme questions, but completely nail the most difficult ones. I suspected the internet at first, but after doing my own poking around I ruled that out (my experience is that I'm surprisingly more tech savy than 99% of my students).
When I took a closer look, I saw students not just having identical answers, but every line of their solution process was similar with side calculations at the same locations on the page and consistent irregular labeling of variables (using f for final and i or 0 (naught) for initial is common, using ws for whole system is not).
When the test was turned in, the majority of the class said they felt they learned more through the process than by studying for a standard in-class test, so I felt there were merits to it. Now I don't know if I'd do it again.
I had numerous take-home tests in college, many of them timed as well. I always hated them because they were 10 times harder. Maybe it's a BYU phenomenon where honesty is still expected.
I'm rambling a bit, but remember that scene in Dead Poets Society were the teacher leaves the room for the exam because honesty is expected of the students (though they did have the disincentive of having the other student rat them out). Is honesty a lost virtue? Can a teacher or a school make much of a difference? Probably not, but I might be one of the few people in their lives who expects honesty from them.
I thought about doing something similar to what you suggest in the case that a student insists that he/she is innocent. But such an approach would also exclude from punishment those who willfully gave answers. If all I want is an accurate measure of who learned what, that would be fine. But if I'm looking to teach a moral lesson (or simply punish all those involved), I'll have to go a different route.
-Theresa
Giving a take-home test to high school students is kind of like giving them a file-sharing program, and then asking them to only share noncopy righted material. On the one hand, that's what they should do. On the other hand, it seems unlikely to actually happen.
I handed back their tests giving zeros to those I suspected of cheating and just said that if they would like to plead their case they could come talk to me outside of class. I had mentally planned some good lectures on ethics for the class, but decided to keep them to myself.
A couple students explained to me that their responses were similar because they both used yahooanswers to find the exact or similar problems (I guess they do have more tricks up their sleeves than I suspected). They were very forthcoming and even gave me tips on how to enter searches if I wanted to find what they had used. They felt that it was fair because I had only said no help from friends and argued that they spent a considerable amount of time interpreting the web solutions in order to follow the logic. They did kind of have me on a technicality, so I gave them their original scores less 5% for poor judgment and they were satisfied.
Three of the remaining five basically admitted to copying (or letting others copy) either one or two of the more difficult problems, which was accurate with what I had suspected. I told them they could come in after school to take a different test over the same material without a penalty.
The remaining two students haven't approached me and for now will keep their zeros.