quote: In a landmark ruling on Internet use, a disciplinary panel at Ryerson has ruled the first-year engineering student should not be drummed out for helping run a Facebook study group in chemistry last fall, and ordered his passing mark in the course restored.
In a seven-page ruling, the engineering faculty appeals committee found no proof the Facebook site actually led to cheating by any of its 147 users, even though it invited them to "post solutions" to homework that was worth 10 per cent of the final mark.
But the committee ruled that because the site provided "the potential for large-scale cheating," Avenir should get zero on that 10 per cent portion – which won't change his passing grade – and that he attend a workshop on academic integrity.
Hmmmm, seems like a slap on the wrist even after all this. Personally, if I graduated from Ryerson, I'd be pissed. But since I'm not and I may one day have to compete with Ryerson grads, meh ...
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sad to say I'm not surprised. I'm starting to be in a place where I get to hear faculty whinging, and this is a biggie: admin not supporting faculty during grade dsputes.
For shame, Ryerson.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
They "found no proof that the Facebook group actually led to cheating." Given that, and given Ryerson's policy linked on the first page, I don't see how expulsion would have been appropriate. He would have been expelled on suspicion of cheating.
*
It's relevant that this happened in the engineering faculty. Even if cheating did occur, we aren't talking about plagiarizing an essay. Assignment problems are intended to help you get your head around particular concepts. If you cheat -- as distinct from 'collaborate' -- on your assignments and don't develop the necessary understanding of the concepts, you'll fail the exams and thus the course. In my experience, engineering midterms are worth 30-40% of your grade, finals 60-70%, and take-home assignments between 0 and 10%.
I hope this case serves as a wake-up call to Canadian engineering faculties, because what they should be doing is encouraging students to collaborate and help one another understand difficult concepts -- especially because oftentimes the professors and even TAs are incapable of explaining the concepts in ways that the students can understand. "Clearly, the answer is X; it's trivial!" was altogether too common in my experience with math professors in particular and they often left us shaking our heads. I frequently had study groups with friends and we all helped one another develop the grasp of the concepts necessary to pass exams.
That type of experience is vastly more relevant to the role of an engineer in the workplace than the lecturer 'transmission of knowledge' model employed at the postsecondary level in engineering. Engineering faculties need to be encouraging and supporting this, not condemning it.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: They "found no proof that the Facebook group actually led to cheating." Given that, and given Ryerson's policy linked on the first page, I don't see how expulsion would have been appropriate.
Agreed, actually.
However, IMO he should have failed the class.
quote:Originally posted by twinky: He would have been expelled on suspicion of cheating.
No, because he was soliciting cheating.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
He didn't start the Facebook group. He joined it, and then later took over administration of the group -- basically allowing him to do things like set the tag line for the group and whether administrators or users can send mass messages to the entire group.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd be more inclined to give every member of the group a zero on the assignment provided they were a first-time offender.
However, I also hope that this professor and others like him adjust their teaching practices rather than simply insisting that every student work alone on everything. The goal should be learning, not jumping through stupid hoops.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: However, I also hope that this professor and others like him adjust their teaching practices rather than simply insisting that every student work alone on everything. The goal should be learning, not jumping through stupid hoops.
Assuming there was not some specific reason for the "no working with anyone" rule, I agree. Thank goodness my math and science profs all encouraged study groups -- many gave group projects.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Personally, I think every member of the group should have failed the class.
That's about what I feel. Expulsion is a bit extreme for a first-time thing, but failing the class is quite appropriate.
I do agree with twinky on his pedagogy points, though. Everyone should probably be learning from this.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've had math professors say that students are free to copy all the answers they want on homework (but mention that its probably a bad idea). The homework was a small, but not irrelevant, portion of the grade. The professor viewed it as a way to give those who didn't take the time to understand more rope to hang themselves, and to let those who were really busy occasionally slide on the homework.
That was a fun class.
(edit: I think it happened twice, or maybe three times; I'm thinking of one time in particular where it worked well with the class dynamic).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My favorite math teacher didn't assign problems. He told you where the problems could be located and suggested that you do as many as you needed to (with whomever you needed to) to get the concepts. The grades were based on the exams. If you did badly on an exam, and you brought him a large selection of the problems you'd done, he would look over your work and would let you retake a different version of the exam if he thought that you should've done better.
I rarely did problems outside of class and generally got As and Bs on the exam, but the one time that I seriously messed up an exam, I went home and did a bunch of problems and brought them back to him so I could retake the test. By the time I took it a second time, I'd learned so much from the problems that I did substantially better.
If the goal is for people to actually learn things, it seems to me that his methods worked really, really well.
Posts: 1751 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dean: I rarely did problems outside of class and generally got As and Bs on the exam, but the one time that I seriously messed up an exam, I went home and did a bunch of problems and brought them back to him so I could retake the test. By the time I took it a second time, I'd learned so much from the problems that I did substantially better.
Your actions here are exactly why this is a terrible idea. Your refusal to study before the exam is more reason that you shouldn't get a do over than reason that you should.
No doubt this policy is adored by students, but it really seems like enabled cheating.
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a (former HS) teacher, I sort of agree with HE's assessment of the problems with the policy. (Although calling it cheating is rather over the top.) One thing a student should be learning is study skills and self-discipline. Then again, if they haven't gotten those by the time they hit college, it may be too late . . .
OTOH, as a student I would have loved it. But it would have fed my tendencies towards laziness AND procrastination.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't "refuse" to study before an exam-- I generally didn't need to. At one point, my assessment of the degree to which I understood the material was faulty, but it was quickly corrected because instead of just saying, "oh, I messed up that test, nothing I can do," I went home and worked at understanding the material. Since it wasn't just a plain old fail, it encouraged me to go back and learn it properly rather than shrugging and going on, which I think was the professor's goal. And, honestly, in order to retake the exam, I had to do the equivalent of about six hours worth of problems. I think that he told us once that very few of his students ever took him up on his offer to retake the exam, but then very few of his students didn't do well on his exams.
I liked the way he taught math. I wasn't very mathematically inclined-- leaning more towards English and history-- but most of his class was geared towards using what you know already to figure out another way of solving problems. He generally wrote out a problem and gave us five or ten minutes to see what we could figure out. I learned a lot more from those five or ten minutes than I think I would've learned by doing more examples of stuff I already understood.
Posts: 1751 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the "facebook" side of this debate, I would completely disagree with the idea that being a member of a group makes you responsible for what that group is doing.
Facebook is NOT reality. It's just more of the internet. As an intelligent human being, I know not to trust ANYTHING I read or see on the internet unless it's coming from a VERY reliable source. Facebook isn't that. Photos can be altered, people can lie about themselves--they can have their profiles sabotaged or faked.
I do understand the implications of being careful about what you put on the internet about yourself. I'm sure this kid has learned his lesson, too--even if he did "get off easy", so to speak. I would rather him go free than be convicted of a crime that they couldn't prove he committed.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
but Launchywiggin!... All we have to do, as you know from the facebook group, is to go to the SAME GAS STATION for the next month. If we all avoid the big chains, like Shell and Chevron, and go to the smaller operations like 76 and Arco. This will send the big oil companies into a panic!!! Nevermind that domestic automobiles account for a small portion of their sales, they'll be forced to lower prices! This plan is absolutely foolproof! Except for the fact that we'll all still be consuming the same amount of oil from the same sources, thus never altering the demand and never affecting the price-per-barrel of any of the oil we use...
But still, facebook has some wonderful things to contribute on the subject of macroeconomics.
And being a part of that group would mean that I am, by definition, not a cheater but an idiot.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
