next »

[twofish]

I'm a big fan of the honor system when it works, but the kind of intrusive, mind-everyone-but-your-own-business snitch system you describe is despicable. There are better ways to control cheating. Having students spy and snitch on the other is pretty low. Are there snitch bonuses? "Teacher, teacher, Johnny pulled out a piece of paper from his cap." What's this world coming to?

There's no "system in place."  It's merely how I think that the other students would react, and it's quite logical.  If a student cheats, it doesn't directly impact me or the University of Phoenix. 

It *does* affect the other students, because it devalues the hard work that they do.  If you spend ten hours on a team working on a project, you are going to be damn angry that someone does something dishonest on their part of the project.  They aren't leaching off me the teacher, they are taking advantage of you.

It *does* affect you because a large fraction of the work is team work, and if you sign your name on a team project that you know has a fraudulent part to it, you are not merely a witness but an accomplice.

Even if you don't report the person to the administration (and there is no requirement that you should), you are *not* going to want a cheater in your learning group in your learning group the next year, and this sort of social ostracism is quite effective.

Also the social dynamics are a bit different.  In most universities the students are 20 year-olds and come from a different social background than the teacher who is somewhat of a parental authority figure.  The students at UoP are typically older, a lot of them are ex-military, and a good number of them are much more experienced in life than me. 

[shamu]

First, let me say I do not have a problem with students confronting their peers about cheating. I do, however, have a problem with students running to the teacher to report on their peers behind their backs and without giving the peer the opportunity to explain and correct the problem.

It *does* affect the other students, because it devalues the hard work that they do.  If you spend ten hours on a team working on a project, you are going to be damn angry that someone does something dishonest on their part of the project.  They aren't leaching off me the teacher, they are taking advantage of you.

It *does* affect you because a large fraction of the work is team work, and if you sign your name on a team project that you know has a fraudulent part to it, you are not merely a witness but an accomplice.

How does student A's cheating devalue student B's work. It may inflate the overall grade, but it will NOT devalue the other student's work.

Team projects are another issue. The roles should be compartmentalized enough so that credit can be given to each student. I NEVER give a generic "group project grade", because students should be graded on their work (and working with others could be part of it). Peers can confront those who do not pull their weight or otherwise damage the group effort, but an opportunity should exist for them to address those issues.

Maybe I didn't make it clear, but there is a difference between snitching and dealing with peer plagiarism in an honorable fashion.

[drdirt55]

Shamu,

Your point about grading group work is well taken.  I struggle with assigning grades for group projects because I intuitively know that one or two do the work or one severely anal one re-does the work and all get the same grade.  I try to determine from posting activity who participated and who didn't.  I encourage team members to rat on a fellow team member who does not pull their weight - sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.  I've had two different submissions from the same team - someone decides it is not a team effort but an individual effort. 

Team projects are big at one online school I teach for and I have yet to feel comfortable with them.

[larryc]

I am strongly pro-snitching. 

[shamu]

I am strongly pro-snitching. 

Sure you are, Larryc ;-)

Drdirt55, I myself went from having relatively little differentiation in group grades to progressively more differentiation. When I do group projects these days, I make sure the roles are crystal clear and the progress is also being monitored. Fostering collaboration is essential but there has to be a back-up mechanism for cases when certain individuals just won't do their part. Usually, being aware that besides the collective endeavor, there is even greater individual responsibility helps keep things in check. Classroom activities have to be fairer than life;)

[twofish]

Team projects are another issue. The roles should be compartmentalized enough so that credit can be given to each student. I NEVER give a generic "group project grade", because students should be graded on their work (and working with others could be part of it). Peers can confront those who do not pull their weight or otherwise damage the group effort, but an opportunity should exist for them to address those issues.

Most of the projects at University of Phoenix are group projects in one way or another, which was what I was alluding to.  I think we are losing sight of the original topic, which is the idea that somehow online schools are more amenable to cheating than face to face ones, and my reaction which was that the social setting at UoP made it highly unlikely that someone could cheat their way through a class much less a degree. 

What I mentioned was that given that I know that students are sensitive to other team members not pulling their own weight on team projects, if some student were cheating, that the "knives would come out."  When I used that term, I *did not* mean that someone would necessarily go running to the administration, but rather that the other students could make that student's life miserable, and there are plenty of ways of doing that without involving higher authority.  If nothing else, I doubt that the cheater would find people rushing to partner with them on future projects.  At the start of each course, I always get a list of requests to either partner with another student or *not* partner with another student, and I honor those requests, without asking for the reason behind them.  Anyone that cheated, would probably end up socially ostracized and that would doom them.

Maybe I didn't make it clear, but there is a difference between snitching and dealing with peer plagiarism in an honorable fashion.

That gets into a separate discussion, but I do think that you were jumping to conclusions about the social dynamics that I was talking about, and what I meant by "the knives would come out."  Personally as an instructor, I'd prefer it if students handled these situations on their own.

[mustbecrazy]

People who have never taught or learned online often believe they know a lot about it!  They know that online classes are easy to "teach" (they love to put "teach" in quotation marks), they know that students cheat and don't learn anything, they know that no respectable academic would ever teach an online class. How do they know all these "facts?"  They just know.  It simply stands to reason.

OK, Larry, I'll take you up on this.

Question One: how do you control an exam in an online course? How do you verify that student A takes the exam under the same conditions as student B and that neither student is using materials not permitted during the taking of the exam?

I haven't finished reading the thread, so this may have already been pointed out, but what prevents online classes from requiring proctored exams?  As far as I can tell, all of UMUC's online courses require proctored final exams.  It isn't that difficult to find an acceptable proctor, many CC's and 4 year schools have testing centers that will do it.  I realize that some online students avoid courses with such requirements, but I personally, always like being able to state, in explanation of my online and distance coursework, that a significant portion of the grade was earned in proctored situations.

Elizabeth

[groundhog]

People who have never taught or learned online often believe they know a lot about it!  They know that online classes are easy to "teach" (they love to put "teach" in quotation marks), they know that students cheat and don't learn anything, they know that no respectable academic would ever teach an online class. How do they know all these "facts?"  They just know.  It simply stands to reason.

OK, Larry, I'll take you up on this.

Question One: how do you control an exam in an online course? How do you verify that student A takes the exam under the same conditions as student B and that neither student is using materials not permitted during the taking of the exam?

I haven't finished reading the thread, so this may have already been pointed out, but what prevents online classes from requiring proctored exams?  As far as I can tell, all of UMUC's online courses require proctored final exams.  It isn't that difficult to find an acceptable proctor, many CC's and 4 year schools have testing centers that will do it.  I realize that some online students avoid courses with such requirements, but I personally, always like being able to state, in explanation of my online and distance coursework, that a significant portion of the grade was earned in proctored situations.

Elizabeth

I require a proctored final exam for my online classes (but not for quizzes or other tests).  Yes, some students don't like them and avoid the class.  The requirement is listed in the syllabus that is available before the class starts.  I also reserve the right to reduce other grades if there is a big delta between their final exam score and previous tests. 

About 99% of the students have no problem finding a proctor for nominal charge ($5-10).  Even my students overseas (Hong Kong, Taiwan) were able to find proctors. 

[zeedog]

I'm at a cc and all distance learning courses have proctored assessments. This removes the possibility of having a course where all grades are determined from writing papers, for example. Which begs the question for me---why are we so confident the student coming to class is the one who wrote their papers, anymore than the student online.

I suspect at ccs, online teaching experience would be considered an asset. Again, at my cc, it would difficult to get hired full-time without ambition to engage in blended or online teaching.

[msoexpert]

In my experience, I haven't gotten that reaction from employers when I mention my online teaching, so perhaps it's the schools themselves that have a problem.

Wouldn't surprise me if there are some who feel that online is either stupid, ineffective, a waste of time, or for those who can't handle an actual classroom environment.  But in my personal experience, I haven't run into any of these attitudes whatsoever, so perhaps I've been lucky.

However, given the choice of onlne vs. in-class teaching, I lean far more towards the in-class.  And it's not that I have anything against online teaching, but more that I feel that in-class is where you really know if your students are doing the work themselves and mastering things.

With online teaching, you most likely don't get to see them day in and day out actually working on things, and so you really cannot say for sure that they're the ones doing the work at all.  How do you know that there isn't someone sitting next to them feeding them answers?  How do you know that the student really wrote that paper?

True, most students are probably honest and doing the actual work themselves, but as the professor, I cannot really say that for sure.  But with in-class teaching, there's little doubt!  You see them working on things!  You hear their responses and comments!  And you know they're doing some work without cheating when you give in-class assignments and/or tests!  But with online, you just can't say these things, and so online could be considered a step below.

And yes, it's far easier to engage students in-class than online, which is why many online teachers fail.  They simply post their lessons, assignments, and tests, and then drop off the face of the Earth.  And who could blame students for not being overly happy with this?  I certainly wouldn't like it, which is exactly what that's not how I run my online classes.

In fact, I've found that online teaching is harder and more work than in-class.

[rattusdomesticus]

...because you can do it in your pajamas. I used to have the same problem when I freelanced as an art director and copywriter in advertising. No respect. When I landed regular staff positions, my credibility (and price tag) soared. Somehow possible employers could envision me on staff with them because I proved that I could do it. I proved I could work with people all day (every day) and maintain my sanity. Face to face is just different. And yes, online jobs do a lot of the same (but not all of the same) functions and receive less credit.

So we could debate this some more -- or you could consider how our world is *right now* and adjust your expectations. Or stay miserable. Either way.

[msoexpert]

You're absolutely right in saying that schools today are going more and more towards online classes, and in virtually every subject, including ones that have labs.

And when it comes to "respect," classroom (on-campus) teaching will be viewed by some people as being on a higher level and/or more respectible.  I've been doing both, online and on-campus teaching for many years, and haven't personally run into this myself, but I do know of others who have.

I think part of the problem is that "the powers that be" don't really know what's involved in teaching online.  I've found that it's harder than classroom-based ones because of the amount of time that's needed, the way in which lessons must be prepared (written out, lack of referring to something right then and there, adjusting as you go), etc.

And I also think that it has to do with the perception that online teaching isn't really teaching.  I mean, all we do is upload (post) stuff and then sit back and do nothing.  And with each new class, we just repost the old stuff without changes, so it's "easy."

Nonsense!!  Anybody who has actually taught online knows that this just isn't the case.  True, we do use stuff from previous classes, just like classroom-based do, but we also devote more time to interacting with students throughout the quarter / semester, modify stuff along the way, post additional things when needed or if something interesting comes up.

And I think it's the lack of real understanding in terms of how online classes are actually taught that results in our getting a lesser degree of respect.

But regardless, online teaching is not less respectible, but rather is equally respectable and effective.  It all has to do with the manner in which we run our online classes, and how interactive we try to make them.

I, for one, make my classes highly interactive to keep things from being "boring" and to foster a more classroom environment.

[magistra]

I'd just like to add that you (or your TAs, should you be so lucky) will usually wind up with a pretty good sense of who the student is.  You e-mail back and forth, see their posts and discussion board questions, read their essays, see when they post.  If it's a small enough group with enough interaction, you can get a very strong sense of the personality of a good minority of your students -- even a higher percentage than you would in a regular classroom.  I also like to add more questions with room for opinions than I normally would, since it helps get discussions going and it does give me more of a sense of my students.

Someone with the chutzpah to have another person take the course is going to cheat through life anyway, and there's not much you can do.  Chances are they'll get caught at some point.  My sense is that it's pretty rare.  You probably get more cheating in the aggregate in regular classes -- on-line courses adapt to keep 'cheating' to a minimum through the use of timed exams, etc., as have been discussed above, so it's not really worth it to cheat.  You could have someone write a paper for you, but since the whole course tends to be based on writing assignments, that's riskier (and potentially a lot more expensive) than in a class with one writing assignment.  I suspect it's six to one and half a dozen to the other.

[alaskamtngirl]

I have been teaching in the traditional classroom and online for several years, and I have found that teaching online can be much more challenging and time-intensive, primarily for the reasons stated in several of the previous posts.  I'd like to add, though, that in the process of course design and development (I create all of my own course materials), I have learned valuable lessons about pedagogy that have improved my course delivery in the traditional classroom, as well as valuable skills and knowledge about web design, HTML, creating a strong sense of community in the classroom, creating engaging discussion questions, and recognizing plagiarism more quickly and accurately. 

After my experience teaching online courses, I was very comfortable with the trend at my institution to offer a greater number of courses with online or "companion" elements to support the regular classroom environment.  My comfort and skill with instructional technology, in my experience, has improved my reception at interviews--not the other way around.  This probably depends, however, on whether you're interviewing at a research-oriented or a teaching-oriented institution.  The latter is more likely to be receptive to experience in alternative delivery formats, in my experience.

I think that there are good teachers and bad teachers in both venues.  I have colleagues who bore their students to tears in class--and others who do the same online.  Teachers who are committed, motivated, and who care about student learning will typically create an engaging and challenging learning environment, regardless of whether it's in the classroom or on the internet.

[georgia_guy]

In the OP's case, it sounds like they are sayign that they are applying for traditional TT campus positions, in which they will be teaching in a face to face classroom, and their primary experience is online classes. In that case, the reason it is devalued by the SC is because it is less of an indicator that you can succeed in a classroom.

Being able to moderate an online chat room, or discussion forum, is very different than being able to manage a face to face classroom. Designing good online content is very different than designing a good in-class experiential exercise. Etc.

Similarly, if I were hiring a retail manager, for a brick and mortar store, I would be more interested in the person who hasd run a store, than the one who had a successful web retail business (unless I was specifically trying to move into web sales).

Aside from that, on the issue of whether online courses are considered "rigorous" or "as good as" traditional classrooms, often depends on who is offering them. I would be more likely to be impressed by online teaching (in business, which is my area), if it were done at an AACSB accredited institution.

Similarly, if you look at the credentials of the people teaching at an institution, and they don't seem to match well with what they are teaching, that screams problems. As an example, I know someone who is getting a "PhD in Management" at an online school. The school is not professionally accredited, and this individual's dissertation committee has no management PhDs on it (2 economists and a statistician). Additionally, their dissertation committee CHAIR is an adjunct, as are both of the other committee members. Since this seems to be typical of that specific institution, I would probably consider any experience teaching there as worth little.