Jeannie Azzopardi
OMDE 608
Section: 9040
Monday, March 20, 2006
Assignment #3
Word Count: 1426
Ethical Issues in Distance Education
Introduction
This paper sets out to critic the work of Phillip Tesch (2004) in his article, Ethics in Distance Education. Tesch’s assessments include the lack of ethical training in higher education, particularly in North American, the need for training in ethical issues from a very early age, how ethics are taught and the need for learners to value, respect and acknowledge sources of information not because it is legal mandated but because of moral obligation and finally, what repercussions should be handed down to cheaters.
For this author, Tesch’s assertions are heavy-handed and often unsupported. Admittedly, ethical issues exist but Tesch does not effectively differentiate issues that may be uniquely attributed to distance education from those within classroom environments. The solutions that Tesch offers are insular, cynical and full of blame. Parents and elementary educators have dropped the ball and as a consequence, Tesch believes, regulations, rules and punishment are the remedy. What are obviously absent are solutions that take more positive avenues.
Why Are Students Cheating?
Tesch (2004) contends that the reason students are cheating is based on two factors; that students are no longer taught to respect the work of others and the ease of obtaining information through the Internet. Within traditional schools, Tesch asserts, students understand what is expected of them but in distance education and with technology savvy students, there is a sort of a literal free-for-all attitude regarding information. Tesch (2004) maintains that students in the digital age have the attitude that, “Someone who doesn’t care about maintaining exclusive rights to something puts it in plain view of others… (p. 2).” This is very much like saying that these students would naturally steal the car with unlocked doors or a shiny paint job. Our younger instructors, also digitally knowledgeable, are in cahoots with the students; “The teachers of the new ethical standard are peers, not necessarily older or wiser (p.2).” Furthermore, Tesch (2004) contends, there is a general contemptuousness of attribution in students from North America, “This fundamental virtue is quite un-American – to say that this idea, or these words, or this musical phrase or work – is not mine, but must be credited to another (p.2).” This statement is not only insulting but generalizes without support.
None of this author’s sources demonstrated a higher rate of cheating in distance students in contrast to campus students. In fact, DiBiase (2000) believes that the distance education student is decidedly different from the campus student in that they are usually older, employed, have obligations, are more responsible and understand their goals. There is agreement that there is a greater ease of obtaining information because of the Internet and a general lack of knowledge in applying citations to these materials. The fact that the Internet exists for all students denotes that cheating can occur with all students – not predominately distance education students. There are unquestionably cheaters, however.
Renard (1999) identifies three different types of cheaters: “The unintentional cheater,” who doesn’t have the proper understanding, if any, of how to cite sources; “The sneaky cheater,” who is aware it is cheating but uses plagiarized pieces in ways that are difficult to detect; and “The all-or-nothing cheater,” who may be desperate and simply copies entire pages of papers (p. 38). There are websites that support and encourage cheating by offering whole or sections of papers and specialized research for a fee - Evil House of Cheat.com, Homework World, and School Sucks.com for example (Renard 1999).
Boston University filed suit against cheat sites like Cheat.com citing as their reasoning that such sites have reduced the quality of BU’s education (Clayton, 1997). Shyles (2003) agrees with BU, “…failures to ensure academic integrity and quality control may over time erode institutional credibility… (p. 4).” Certainly, this is a reasonable concern for institutions as well as for those students who do not cheat. As Van Patten and Chen (2002) point out, “Students who use these services denigrate the learning process (p.4).”
While Tesch (2004) believes that, “The teacher (or other institutional authority) can define the rules, which most often identify conducts which will be sanctioned (p. 1),” Huang (1999) suggests that distance education is creating an entirely new culture and taking advantage of the social interaction within that new culture should be directed toward teaching the value of one’s own work rather than designing harsher punishment.
What Can Be Done?
There is general fallout in student values – in society as whole - if one were to believe Tesch (2004), “When a society or government observes that people are not conducting themselves the way they ought to - that they cannot be trusted to do the right thing - then laws rules, or regulations are developed, moving things from unenforceable to enforceable (p. 1).” According to Tesch (2004), responses to cheating should include credos and honor codes where the student swears to his or her own truthfulness as well as their classmates; “I have neither given nor received unauthorized assistance, nor do I know of others who have (p.3).” This smacks not only of McCarthy-ism but seems unrealistic given Tesch’s belief in the downfall of the moral principles of students. Teachers need to contend with unethical activities and support ethical behaviors (Tesch, 2004) Other sources also cite codes, contracts and codes of conduct, although they are more perfunctory. Shyles (2003) cosigns contracts and keeping students’ writing samples as well as reporting other students.
Alternative approaches for suppressing cheating range from the nearly absurd: Biometric solutions such as eye scans, and voice recognition technology (Shyles, 2003) which are expensive, do not thwart collaboration at a distance and seem Big Brother-like, to video-conferencing using internet cameras to proctor tests (Coursol, 2004), to turning responsibility for impeding cheating to faculty and course design. An anonymous writer for one of the previously mentioned websites believes that professors and institutions should take some accountability because they “they do not make assignments specific to their course work or work with students on drafts of their papers (Clayton, 1997, p.1).”
There are websites that offer instructors resources for checking for plagiarism but there is very little time for instructors to check every paper (Van Pattern, 2004). What is left? Most of this author’s sources put forth positive approaches that include more interaction between the instructor and students as well as student-to-student and group study to promote connectivity (Gibbons, et al., 2002). Huang (1999) agrees that collaboration leads to less cheating and a greater sense of worth amongst students and less feelings of isolation.
Renard (1999) regards the process of writing to be paramount and subscribes to institutional and instructor change in thought processes that would celebrate this method in opposition to the end-all-be-all endorsement for the production of the final result. Using rewrites, revisions, and drafts as teaching tools that encourage self esteem and pride can be a miraculous step forward in reducing cheating. Renard (1999) also promotes multiplicity in evaluation and assessment of learners – what they know, what skills they are lacking and how much of the material they have assimilated.
Getting creative in assignments can close the door on cheating. Using random selection of multiple choice questions for each student as they sign in for testing; asking questions that are not packaged and recycled but are open-ended and personal - what you would do, what if, put yourself into the scenario and opinion type questions. Not only does this quall cheating and engage the student but it gives them an opportunity to develop critical thinking skills (Renard, 1999).
Finally, nearly all resources ask instructors to teach students how to respect original work through instruction of proper citation techniques.
Conclusion
On many counts, this author agrees with Tesch’s assessments on ethics. There is cheating and it must be addressed. Tesch did not provide evidence however, that cheating in distance education is any more dominate or unique than cheating on a physical campus and by all sources, distance education students may cheat less than campus students by virtue of their age, experience and commitment to learning.
There is no doubt that policies should be in place and sanctions made explicable. The black and white attitude and effrontery demonstrated in Tesch’s article proves only to put a negative spin on a critical issue. A positive approach that disperses responsibility to all stakeholders while advancing pride, self-confidence, esteem and a reverence for original work (including one’s own) can do more to quash cheating than an authoritarian approach that leaves no room for healthy growth and development. Above all, the need for a change in the institutional mind set must move toward a fête of accomplishment throughout the entire learning process and moves away from castigation.
References
Clayton, M. (1997). Term papers at the click of a mouse. Retrieved Mar. 18, 2006, from
Christian Science Monitor Web site: www.csmonitor.com/durable/1997/10/27
/feat/learning.1.html.
Coursol, D. (2004). Cybersupervision: conducting supervision on the information
superhighway. In Report: CyberBytes: Highlighting Compelling uses of
technology in counseling, North Carolina.
DiBiase, D. (2000). Is distance education a faustian bargain? Journal of geography in
higher education, 24(1), 130-135.
Gibbons, Amy, Mize, Charles D., Rogers, Keri L. (2002). That’s my story and I’m
sticking to it: Promoting academic integrity in the online environment, Paper
presented at: ED-MEDIA 2002 World Conference on Educational Multimedia,
Hypermedia & Telecommunications. Proceedings, 14th, Denver, Colorado, June
24-29.
Huang, Hsiu-Mei. (Oct, 1999). Discovering social and moral context in a virtual
educational world, Paper presented at: Social and Moral Fabric of School Life
Conference. , Seattle, WA.
Renard, L. (1999). Cut and paste 101: Plagiarism and the net. Educational Leadership,
38-41.
Shyles, Leonard. (Nov., 21-24, 2002). Authenticating, identifying and monitoring
learners in the virtual classroom: Academic integrity in distance learning, Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Communication Association,
New Orleans, LA.
Tesch, P.C. (2004). Ethics in distance education. In U. Barnath & A. Szücs (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd EDEN Research Workshop Oldenburg, March 4-6, 2004, (pp. 481-484). Oldenburg: Bibliotheks- und Informationssystem der Universität Oldenburg.
Van Patten, James, J., Chen, Ge. (April 1-5, 2002). The internet culture, student learning
and student retention. Paper presented at: Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
