Um...could you explain what cheating means?

Cheating. This is a word that seems to strike fear into the hearts of instructors on a regular basis, especially when combined with the words distance education. There seems to be a general sense of insecurity with the idea that students will be academically honest and show integrity when interacting with course content from a distance. Styron and Styron (2010) explain that cheating is nothing new and that academic dishonesty can be traced back over 100 years; they go on to explain that even though cheating is old, new ways of cheating show up with new technologies. Styron and Styron (2010) go on to state that overall evidence of cheating has increased in recent years but that it is difficult to say whether or not the incidences of cheating in online environments is significantly higher than the average classroom.

This sentiment that online cheating may not be more likely than in regular classroom settings is supported by Hollister and Berenson (2009) as well as Kidwell and Kent (2008). What is interesting about many of these studies on cheating is that they are based, most often, on student self-reporting (Styron & Styron 2010). What was most interesting to me was the variation of responses to what students and faculty even consider to be cheating, a topic studied by Higbee, Shultz, and Sanford (2011). I find often times that the real questions that my students struggle with (and that I find myself pondering) are really what cheating is in an age of connectivist learning (Marais 2010).

I usually attempt to limit cheating by having students develop original creations and allowing them to make up assignments in many cases. Granted, I teach at a high school and this may not work as well in other environments, but allowing students to retest over time provides me with a low anxiety environment when it comes to tests. Grades are still put in, but the students have a limited window where they have the opportunity to prove that they know the information. This is not much different from the real world where learners can test multiple times for a certification, pay to take an ACT like test multiple times, or where learners can retake courses.

Of course, I got away from connectivist learning there for a second and need to go back to it. My classroom looks very different than most when it comes to major assignments because my students spend a lot of time talking to one another, sharing ideas, and crafting collaborative demonstrations of their learning. I still have tests and quizzes, but more often than not the students try to create projects and products that demonstrate their learning. Some people say that I allow my students to cheat because they spend so much of their time communicating with and supporting each other, but I think that in a networked world the true test of their abilities will come out through their interactions with others. They need to be able to perform certain tasks and specific skills individually, but in a globalized world they also need to be able to construct solutions with others in real time across an indeterminate space. So, I struggle sometimes with a narrow view of what cheating is. Like many things, I think that our technology has enabled us to move beyond the definitions that used to apply.

References:

Higbee, J. L., Schultz, J. L., & Sanford, T. (2011). Student Perspectives On Behaviors That Constitute Cheating. Contemporary Issues In Education Research, 4(10), 1-8.

Hollister, K. K., & Berenson, M. L. (2009). Proctored Versus Unproctored Online Exams: Studying the Impact of Exam Environment on Student Performance. Decision Sciences Journal Of Innovative Education, 7(1), 271-294. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4609.2008.00220.x

Kidwell, L. A., & Kent, J. (2008). Integrity at a Distance: A Study of Academic Misconduct among University Students on and off Campus. Accounting Education, 173-16. doi:10.1080/09639280802044568

Marais, N. (2010). Connectivism as learning theory: the force behind changed teaching practice in higher education. Education, Knowledge & Economy, 4(3), 173-182. doi:10.1080/17496896.2010.556478

Styron, J., & Styron Jr., R. A. (2010). Student Cheating And Alternative Web-Based Assessment. Journal Of College Teaching & Learning, 7(5), 37-42.

Community

Community. This is an important aspect of human life as humans are social beings. In the classroom this is a word that captures an idea and helps to determine both the depth of interaction and levels of learning that a student can achieve. In an online classroom it can be the difference between an enriched learning experience and one that is tedious or complicated. 

So, why is it that community can play such a huge role in the online environment? Boettcher and Conrad (2010) discuss the differences between the community that forms in a face to face classroom where students have more casual contact and the requirements for more structured and intentional community building because of the fact that students can be separated by space and time. Community in an online environment is important because it sets the stage for information sharing and creating an environment of support (Boettcher & Conrad 2010). According to Boettcher and Conrad (2009) this kind of environment can be created and maintained by active planning on the part of the course designer, maintenance of presence by the instructor, and the creation of spaces for student sharing. Students maintain that this kind of community is important (Ouzts 2006; Xiaojing, Magjua, Bonk & Seung-hee 2007) though the manner of the community and the role of faculty is still something to be researched. 


Some essential elements are dialog, grouping strategies, and presence of both the instructor and the other learners (Boettcher & Conrad 2010). In addition to these essential elements, some researchers argue that utilizing specific learning theories as a backbone of design and implementation can increase a sense of connectedness, specifically constructivist learning theories (Ouzts 2006). Additionally, different activities can lead to a better sense of community as Perry, Dalton, and Edwards (2008) discuss; in fact they explain in their conclusion that now that community has been shown to be important to learning experiences, it is the duty of instructors to look for additional ways to increase student engagement. 


Over time a community can be sustained online through design and facilitation. The specific learning goals and the instructor's presence can help to inspire the community to support each other and the learning activities and groupings can bring students closer together. Students value a sense of community and a variety of technologies can help to provide students with multiple ways to connect. In the end, the success of the online community will fall back on the intentional design of the course and the meaningful facilitation of the instructor. 

References: 

Boettcher, J. V., & Conrad, R. (2010). The online teaching survival guide: Simple and practical pedagogical tips. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Ouzts, K. (2006). Sense of community in online courses. Quarterly Review Of Distance Education, 7(3), 285-296.

Perry, B., Dalton, J., & Edwards, M. (2008). Photographic Images as an Interactive Online Teaching Technology: Creating Online Communities. International Journal Of Teaching & Learning In Higher Education, 20(2), 106-115.

Xiaojing, L., Magjuka, R. J., Bonk, C. J., & Seung-hee, L. (2007). Does sense of community matter?. Quarterly Review Of Distance Education,8(1), 9-24.