This link has been bookmarked by 35 people . It was first bookmarked on 31 Mar 2008, by Mario A Núñez.
-
10 Mar 14
-
Competition is perhaps the single most toxic ingredient to be found in a classroom, and it is also a reliable predictor of cheating.
-
ranking students against one another -- is much worse. Similarly, while it’s destructive to lean on students to raise their test scores, it’s even more damaging to lead them to think about how their scores compare to those of other students
-
Competitive schools are those where, by design, all students cannot succeed.
-
Competition typically has an adverse impact on relationships because each person comes to look at everyone else as obstacles to his or her own success.
-
he task itself, or the act of learning, becomes a means to an end – the end being victory.
-
Competition may “motivate” some people, but only in the sense of supplying an extrinsic inducement; at best this fails to promote interest in the task, but more often interest in the task actually diminishes.
-
Competition often erodes academic self-confidence (even for winners) – partly because students come to think of their competence as dependent on how many people they’ve beaten and partly because the dynamics of competition really do interfere with the development of higher-order thinking.
-
cheating becomes more likely,
-
-
06 Feb 14
-
Cheating is more common when students experience the academic tasks they’ve been given as boring, irrelevant, or overwhelming.
-
To put this point positively, cheating is relatively rare in classrooms where the learning is genuinely engaging and meaningful to students and where a commitment to exploring significant ideas hasn’t been eclipsed by a single-minded emphasis on “rigor.”
-
Competition is perhaps the single most toxic ingredient to be found in a classroom, and it is also a reliable predictor of cheating.
-
In each case, cheating becomes more likely, as students feel unsupported, uninterested, and incompetent, respectively.
-
If cheating is defined as a violation of the rules, then we’d want to know whether those rules are reasonable, who devised them, and who stands to benefit by them.
-
-
03 Nov 13
-
30 Oct 13
Dwayne HarapnuikTo put this point positively, cheating is relatively rare in classrooms where the learning is genuinely engaging and meaningful to students and where a commitment to exploring significant ideas hasn’t been eclipsed by a single-minded emphasis on “rigor.” The same is true in “democratic classes where [students’] opinions are respected and welcomed.”[7]
-
12 Jun 13
-
11 Sep 12
-
10 Sep 12
Patty Van SpankerenAlfie Kohn reacts to a cheating scandal by citing research about school conditions in which cheating is more likely to occur.
-
09 Sep 12
Carolyn DurleyCheating rare when learning is engaging MT @alfiekohn: clichés about cheating: http://t.co/bGeWNST0. Own take on issue: http://t.co/uiuQ6xj4
-
23 Aug 12
-
To put this point positively, cheating is relatively rare in classrooms where the learning is genuinely engaging and meaningful to students and where a commitment to exploring significant ideas hasn’t been eclipsed by a single-minded emphasis on “rigor.” The same is true in “democratic classes where [students’] opinions are respected and welcomed.”[7]
-
Cheating is particularly likely to flourish if schools use honor rolls and other incentives to heighten the salience of grades, or if parents offer financial inducements for good report cards[10] -- in other words, if students are not merely rewarded for academic success, but are also rewarded for being rewarded.
-
-
14 Aug 12
-
20 Mar 12
-
01 Feb 12
-
“underestimate the impact of situational factors and to overestimate the role of dispositional factors in controlling behavior
-
overlook how profoundly the social environment affects what we do and who we are.
-
individualism is both a descriptive reality and a cherished ideal.
-
resistant to the simple truth
-
“Human behavior is more influenced by things outside us than inside
-
function of the particular situation
-
is as much a
-
own inner experience and training, his general ideas and ideals, his fears, ambition, and purposes
-
teachers don’t seem to have a real connection with their students, or when they don’t seem to care much about them, students are more inclined to chea
-
discovering the significance of ideas,
-
ultimate goal of learning is to get good grades, they are more likely to see cheating as an acceptable, justifiable behavior
-
pressure is experienced in terms of one’s standing relative to others
-
competitive school is to cheating as a warm, moist environment is to mold
-
Cheating could be seen as a rational choice in a culture of warped values.
-
If cheating is defined as a violation of the rules, then we’d want to know whether those rules are reasonable, who devised them, and who stands to benefit by them
-
-
28 Jan 12
-
18 Jul 11
-
17 Feb 11
mr kaplanA fair amount of research has accumulated since the publication of that report to illuminate the situations in which students are most likely to cheat and to help us understand the reasons they do so. We’ve learned, first of all, that when teachers don’t seem to have a real connection with their students, or when they don’t seem to care much about them, students are more inclined to cheat.[5] That’s a very straightforward finding, and not a particularly surprising one, but if taken seriously it has the effect of shifting our attention and reshaping the discussion.
ethics honesty editorial debate plagiarism dishonesty cheating
-
02 Jan 11
-
07 Jul 10
-
18 Apr 10
-
26 Jan 10
-
23 Jul 09
-
or.”
-
Cheating is more common when students experience the academic tasks they’ve been given as boring, irrelevant, or overwhelming.
-
cheating is relatively rare in classrooms where the learning is genuinely engaging and meaningful to students and where a commitment to exploring significant ideas hasn’t been eclipsed by a single-minded emphasis on “rig
-
when students perceive that the ultimate goal of learning is to get good grades, they are more likely to see cheating as an acceptable, justifiable behavior,”
-
the more classrooms drew attention to students’ academic performance, the more students “observed and engaged in various types of cheating.”[11]
-
There was less cheating when they made it clear that the point was to enjoy the learning, when understanding mattered more than memorizing, and when mistakes were accepted as a natural result of exploration.[
-
But it would be pointless to cheat if you were interested in the learning itself because cheating can’t help you understand an idea
-
Competition is perhaps the single most toxic ingredient to be found in a classroom, and it is also a reliable predictor of cheating.
-
Competition typically has an adverse impact on relationships because each person comes to look at everyone else as obstacles to his or her own success.
-
Competition often erodes academic self-confidence (even for winners) – partly because students come to think of their competence as dependent on how many people they’ve beaten and partly because the dynamics of competition really do interfere with the development of higher-order thinking.[
-
If it’s true that cheating, or at least some versions of it, really is at an all-time high, that may well be because pressures to achieve are increasing, competitiveness is more rampant and virulent, and there is a stronger incentive to cut corners or break rules. In fact, we’re currently witnessing just such pressures not only on children but on teachers and administrators who are placed in an environment where everything depends on their students’ standardized test scores.[21]
-
People who play cooperative games don’t require reminders to be “good sports” because they’re working with one another toward a common goal.)
-
By working together, students not only are able to exchange information and divide up tasks but typically end up engaging in more sophisticated problem-solving strategies, which, in turn, results in more impressive learning on a range of measures. Structured cooperation in the classroom also proves beneficial in terms of self-esteem, relationships, and motivation to learn
-
Alas, most collaboration is simply classified as cheating.
-
Even here, the intent appeared to be foiling cheaters rather than improving the quality of assessment and instruction. Or, to put it differently, the goal was to find ways to prevent students from being able to cheat rather than addressing the reasons they wanted to cheat -- or what the instructors regarded as cheating (and why).
-
Maybe a bigger problem is that teachers require students to memorize instead of teaching them how to think.”[
-
Such a perspective reminds us that how we educate students is the dog; cheating is just the tail.
-
-
22 Jul 09
-
Glenn MosesArticle from Alfie Kohn on cheating and handling cheating.
-
Lee Ross attracted some attention (at least within his field) by coining the term “fundamental attribution error.” He defined this as a tendency to “underestimate the impact of situational factors and to overestimate the role of dispositional factors in controlling behavior.”
-
We frequently pay so much attention to character, personality, and individual responsibility that we overlook how profoundly the social environment affects what we do and who we are.
-
Specifically, we’re apt to assume that people who commit crimes are morally deficient, that the have-nots in our midst are lazy (or at least insufficiently resourceful), that children who fail to learn simply aren’t studying hard enough (or have unqualified teachers). In other words, we treat each instance of illegality, poverty, or academic difficulty as if it had never happened before and as if the individual in question was acting out of sheer perversity or incompetence.
-
is all about ‘Gotcha!
-
This continues to be true even though we’ve known for quite some time that the environment matters at least as much as individual character when trying to predict the occurrence of various types of cheating.
-
when teachers don’t seem to have a real connection with their students, or when they don’t seem to care much about them, students are more inclined to cheat.
-
Cheating is more common when students experience the academic tasks they’ve been given as boring, irrelevant, or overwhelming.
-
cheating is relatively rare in classrooms where the learning is genuinely engaging and meaningful to students and where a commitment to exploring significant ideas hasn’t been eclipsed by a single-minded emphasis on “rigor.”
-
(Interestingly, one of the mostly forgotten findings from that old Teachers College study was that “progressive school experiences are less conducive to deception than conventional school experiences” – a result that persisted even after the researchers controlled for age, IQ, and family background. In fact, the more time students spent in either a progressive school or a traditional school, the greater the difference between the two in terms of cheating.)
-
“when students perceive that the ultimate goal of learning is to get good grades, they are more likely to see cheating as an acceptable, justifiable behavior,”
-
Cheating is particularly likely to flourish if schools use honor rolls and other incentives to heighten the salience of grades, or if parents offer financial inducements for good report cards
-
If students are led to focus on how well they’re doing more than on what they’re doing, they may do whatever they think is necessary to make it look as though they’re succeeding
-
There was less cheating when they made it clear that the point was to enjoy the learning, when understanding mattered more than memorizing, and when mistakes were accepted as a natural result of exploration.
-
Interestingly, these studies found that even students who acknowledged that it’s wrong to cheat were more likely to do so when the school culture placed a premium on results.
-
it would be pointless to cheat if you were interested in the learning itself because cheating can’t help you understand an idea.
-
But that environment – the values and policies of a classroom, a school, or a society – is decisive in determining how pervasive cheating will be.
-
What the data are telling us, like it or not, is that cheating is best understood as a symptom of problems with the priorities of schools and the practices of educators.
-
Competition is perhaps the single most toxic ingredient to be found in a classroom, and it is also a reliable predictor of cheating.
-
In short, a competitive school is to cheating as a warm, moist environment is to mold -- except that in the latter case we don’t content ourselves with condemning the mold spores for growing.
-
How ironic, then, that some of the adults who most vociferously deplore cheating also support competitive practices – and confuse competitiveness with excellence – with the result that cheating is more likely to occur.
-
Because competition, a relentless focus on achievement, and bad pedagogy aren’t new, it stands to reason that cheating isn’t exactly a recent development either.
-
In fact, Elliot Turiel compared surveys of students from the 1920s with those conducted today and found that about the same percentage admitted to cheating in both eras – an interesting challenge to those who view the past through a golden haze and seem to take a perverse satisfaction in thinking of our times as the worst ever.
-
In fact, we’re currently witnessing just such pressures not only on children but on teachers and administrators who are placed in an environment where everything depends on their students’ standardized test scores.
-
If schools focus on relative achievement and lead students to do the same, it may be because they exist in a society where education is sometimes conceived as little more than a credentialing ritual.
-
Cheating could be seen as a rational choice in a culture of warped values.
-
Some kinds of cheating involve actions that are indisputably objectionable. Plagiarism is one example.
-
we should be able to agree that it’s wrong to use a specific concept or a verbatim passage from another source without giving credit if the objective is to deceive the reader about its origin.
-
cheating actually consists of a failure to abide by restrictions that may be arbitrary and difficult to defend
-
“I want to see what you can do, not what your neighbor can do.” (Or, if the implications were spelled out more precisely, “I want to see what you can do all by yourself, deprived of the resources and social support that characterize most well-functioning real-world environments, rather than seeing how much more you and your neighbors could accomplish together.”)
-
most collaboration is simply classified as cheating. End of discussion.
-
hat does it say about the instructor, and the education system, that assessment is geared largely to students’ ability to memorize?
-
s information being collected about students’ capacity to remember what they’ve read or heard for the purpose of helping them to learn more effectively -- or is the exercise more about sorting them (comparing students to one another) or controlling them (by using assessment to elicit compliance)?
-
Once we’ve decided that someone’s action is morally wrong, her efforts to challenge that premise, no matter how well-reasoned, merely serve to confirm our view of her immorality.
-
the goal was to find ways to prevent students from being able to cheat rather than addressing the reasons they wanted to cheat -- or what the instructors regarded as cheating (and why).
-
“Maybe a bigger problem is that teachers require students to memorize instead of teaching them how to think.”
-
“finally convinced me that the kinds of research papers I had customarily assigned were not accomplishing what I had in mind.”
-
suppose that cheating could be at least partly curtailed by tightly monitoring and regulating students or by repeatedly announcing the dire penalties that await anyone who breaks the rules.
-
“In our stampede to fight what some call a ‘plague’ of plagiarism, we risk becoming the enemies rather than the mentors of our students; we are replacing the student-teacher relationship with the criminal-police relationship. . . .Worst of all, we risk not recognizing that our own pedagogy needs reform. . . [if it] encourages plagiarism because it discourages learning.”
-
It is sometimes said that students who take forbidden shortcuts with their homework will just end up “cheating themselves” because they will not derive any intellectual benefits from doing the assignment. This assertion, too, is often accepted on faith rather than prompting us to ask just how likely it is that the assignment really would prove valuable if it had been completed in accordance with instructions.
-
Outraged condemnations of cheating, at least in such instances, may turn out to have more to do with power than with either ethics or pedagogy. Perhaps what actually elicits that outrage is not a lack of integrity on the part of students so much as a lack of conformity.
-
Such a perspective reminds us that how we educate students is the dog; cheating is just the tail.
-
-
09 May 09
m kwhat leads students to do what they’re not supposed to and what does that tell us about their schooling.
-
12 Mar 09
-
31 Mar 08
-
We’ve learned, first of all, that when teachers don’t seem to have a real connection with their students, or when they don’t seem to care much about them, students are more inclined to cheat.[5] That’s a very straightforward finding, and not a particularly surprising one, but if taken seriously it has the effect of shifting our attention and reshaping the discussion.
-
Cheating is more common when students experience the academic tasks they’ve been given as boring, irrelevant, or overwhelming.
-
To put this point positively, cheating is relatively rare in classrooms where the learning is genuinely engaging and meaningful to students and where a commitment to exploring significant ideas hasn’t been eclipsed by a single-minded emphasis on “rigor.”
-
“when students perceive that the ultimate goal of learning is to get good grades, they are more likely to see cheating as an acceptable, justifiable behavior,” as one group of researchers summarized their findings in 2001.[9]
-
Cheating is particularly likely to flourish if schools use honor rolls and other incentives to heighten the salience of grades, or if parents offer financial inducements for good report cards[10] -- in other words, if students are not merely rewarded for academic success, but are also rewarded for being rewarded.
-
Thus, a recent study of more than 300 students in two California high schools confirmed that the more classrooms drew attention to students’ academic performance, the more students “observed and engaged in various types of cheating.”[11]
-
When you look at the kind of schooling that’s all about superior results and “raising the bar,” you tend to find a variety of unwelcome consequences:[12] less interest in learning for its own sake, less willingness to take on challenging tasks (since the point is to produce good results, not to take intellectual risks), more superficial thinking . . . and more cheating.
-
That is exactly what Eric Anderman, a leading expert on the subject, and his colleagues have found. In a 1998 study of middle school students, those who “perceived that their schools emphasized performance [as opposed to learning] goals were more likely to report engaging in cheating behaviors.”
-
More cheating took place when teachers emphasized good grades, high test scores, and being smart. There was less cheating when they made it clear that the point was to enjoy the learning,
-
when understanding mattered more than memorizing, and when mistakes were accepted as a natural result of exploration.[13]
-
What the data are telling us, like it or not, is that cheating is best understood as a symptom of problems with the priorities of schools and the practices of educators. To lose sight of that fact by condemning the kids who cheat and ignoring the context is to fall into the trap that Lee Ross warned us about.
-
One major cause of cheating, then, is an academic environment in which students feel pressured to improve their performance even if doing so involves methods that they, themselves, regard as unethical. But when you look carefully at the research that confirms this discovery, you begin to notice that the worst environments are those in which the pressure is experienced in terms of one’s standing relative to others.
-
In fact, Elliot Turiel compared surveys of students from the 1920s with those conducted today and found that about the same percentage admitted to cheating in both eras – an interesting challenge to those who view the past through a golden haze and seem to take a perverse satisfaction in thinking of our times as the worst ever.[
-
-
01 Jun 05
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.