The Curious Phenomenon of Hard Work

While I am not an avid techie, nor do I continually lean heavily to the left on many issues, I am still a weekly reader of Slashdot. The occasional article on education tends to raise interesting points, sometimes about technology (forcing students to submit assignments through an anti-cheating system with the suggestion that they’re all guilty until proven innocent) and sometimes not. Thursday, an article from Reuters was posted, claiming that graduate business students admit to cheating more than any other graduate field.

The study of 5,300 graduate students in the United States and Canada found that 56 percent of graduate business students admitted to cheating in the past year, with many saying they cheated because they believed it was an accepted practice in business.

Leaving behind the overt cynicism of the article and the discussion among Slashdot readers regarding the general moral standards of business practices, I found the article more interesting for the rest of the survey’s results. (I am certainly not here to defend the worth of business programs at universities, as they are usually well deserving of the snide comments their low standards and ridiculous courses produce.)

Following business students, 54 percent of graduate engineering students admitted to cheating, as did 50 percent of physical science students, 49 percent of medical and health-care students, 45 percent of law students, 43 percent of liberal arts students and 39 percent of social science and humanities students.

Suggestions as to why this could be so were tossed about in the discussion at Slashdot. Myself, holding a degree in literature, I have always been baffled by those students in my classes that seemed to have an inclination to cheat. The thought of doing such a thing only ever entered my mind when trying to calculate the necessary effort such a scam would require. Because I was almost always presented with a very small number of assignments (almost all writing), and those generally required me to not only create my own topic but correctly defend my position as well, the thought of having to track down something perfectly related and somehow original always seemed to me to be a more complicated, longer task.

A few of the commenters over at Slashdot seemed to think that because original creation is so important to the liberal arts and humanities, while the hard sciences may generally have more right/wrong situations, that this could be the reason for the level of cheating. It’s simply easier when everyone is required to have the same answer. I think this is mostly logical, but at the graduate level I would imagine that engineering students are also creating projects and defending decisions, not just answering multiple choice tests.

From the words of an anonymous commenter:

As a former (undergrad) math student I can honestly say that it all depends on how you define cheat; yes like every good math student I will argue over definitions. In one of my courses my Professor openly said that he anticipated that everyone would end up working in groups to understand and solve the challenging proofs, but he required us to write it up on our own and use our own words; as he pointed out in real world math you needed to be able to collaborate with other mathematicians in order to solve difficult problems, and anyone who was trying to get a “free ride” on the work of someone else would (probably) fail the tests so he wasn’t concerned.

In many humanities and social sciences the point of a paper is to come up (and defend) your own argument; any collaboration (beyond editing) can be seen as a type of academic dishonesty.

Granted, different types of material require different types of evaluation. In my own classes, I’m always cautious to mark students wrong when the question is absolutely wrong, but to allow them points if an answer is plausible. In some instances, I’ll openly allow them to defend their choices, but only if the question warrants such a possibility.

Still, the cautious reader will note how the AC’s post begins: “How do you define cheating?” For myself, I’m unsure how so many people have come to the conclusion that certain actions are only cheating if they can’t rationalize it. Several of the posts over at Slashdot had such an introduction before a personal anecdote. Here’s another example:

I think it depends less on the individuals in the field than it does on what _opportunity_ for cheating exists in the program.

A rather pragmatic and depressing introduction. The poster continues, however, to echo the same thoughts of others.

As an engineering undergrad, cheating on assignments (other than in-class exams) was rampant because there was almost always a clear ‘right’ answer. Sure, you’d fudge things a bit so that intermediary steps were different, or falsify a data point, but you’d want to get more or less the same answer as the guy sitting next to you.

As a social science grad student, each assignment was unique. I might be doing a paper on X while my friend wrote something up about Y. Professors always vetted paper topics to make sure that no two students were working on the same subject. Aside from comparing class and reading notes, there wasn’t much we could do to help each other out.

Where did this sad excuse for ‘appropriate cheating’ come from?

It’s right if no one can tell… It’s not wrong because there’s no way to prove it… People do it in the real world anyway… It’s ok for some subjects because their curriculum all but asks the student to cheat…

Not even a week ago, I was discussing the upcoming first report cards with a few of my students. One student remarked that his English teacher (the year before) had “something like 63 assignments graded in the first 6 weeks alone.” He went on to tell me that he had 13 zeroes and that, frankly, they didn’t really affect him. If a student is not taught that his work has a value, why would anyone be surprised when he later takes immoral shortcuts?

Most of the education courses I took at my previous university had ridiculously complex rubrics that scored an inappropriate number of assignments (usually between 45 and 65 for a single semester) with insignificant values. (Compare this to having only four papers a semester in the Arts.) If a student has to put in a 2+ hour effort on an assignment, it is not appropriate to give him 1.5 points which contributes to a total score of 214 points. Yes, that’s about .007% of the total grade. Even the most irrational, untaught mind will kick in and see the inherent worthlessness in that kind of time-to-effort exchange.

In my entire life, I have only cheated once. It was something of an accident, but I can still admit that it was cheating. My high school chemistry teacher decided that it would be amusingly cruel to test us on various laboratory equipment names by pulling them from a box, throwing them up in the air (giving us about 2 seconds to recognize them) and having us write down the names. No second chance viewing. Because of the seating arrangement during tests, some students were at the regular one-piece desks and others were up at the lab tables (those big black counter-like things with gas spigots). I was in a regular desk and someone else was up at one of the lab tables, sitting almost directly in front of me, but facing to the side. Totally frustrated that I missed one (or probably more) of the items, my mind and eyes wandered away from the side of the room (where the teacher was) and back to my table, and whatever was in front of me. For a brief second, my eyes landed on a classmate’s paper and saw the answer. My mind knew the answer was correct, but also that I didn’t have it myself seconds prior. I wrestled mentally for a moment, then shamefully put the answer on my own paper.

As is evident by the story, I’ve never forgotten that moment, and yes, I still feel guilty about it. It was a stupid thing to do. Not because I could have been caught, but because it was dishonest to myself. I knew I didn’t have the answer, but I wrote it down anyway; gained through convenience and chance, not hard work.

The amount of intellectual laziness required for a graduate student to wholeheartedly believe that an action isn’t cheating if the professor never explicitly banned using someone else’s work is truly outstanding. Then again, if they do not recognize the value of completing one’s work independently, then a discussion of what is and is not cheating is nothing more than splitting sad, brittle, pedantic hairs.

While the issue of cheating in education courses might seem to rank near the bottom of immediate importance, it is, nonetheless, pervasive. I’ve yet to see an education or certification course that wasn’t built upon “groupthink” or that didn’t endorse stealing images off the internet without documentation. I can’t remember a single instance where I was asked to cite sources for lesson plans, and I have witnessed intern teachers present lessons from printed workbooks as if they themselves had taken the hours (or weeks) necessary to create them; nary a nod to the owners or authors. What is one of the most common phrases among teachers…?

“Teachers are always stealing ideas from one another.”

Like too many other things, this is said in a lighthearted, joking kind of manner, as if to play down the meaning of the words. Oh no, they’re not stealing, more like … “utilizing without credit”. Ultimately, these practices are encouraged and usually backed up with some kind of rationalized justification like, “Teachers should collaborate for the benefit of their students.”

So just what kind of teacher does this create? I won’t attempt to over generalize, but I will summarize. Teachers joke about stealing from one another. New teacher interns are repeatedly told to use images and materials without documentation. Professors of teachers model laboriously worthless grading rubrics that do not demonstrate the value of work, but push forward the idea of “busy work”. Education courses have nothing to do with the subject teachers will ultimately teach… they are disconnected jumbles of theory, slanted values and complaints about “everyone else who doesn’t understand how hard it is to be a teacher”.

If a proper teacher, instead, understands the value of hard work and awards it an appropriate value, she will be able to skip busywork. She will also be less likely to ignore the persistent problems of plagiarism. Busy work is easy enough for anyone to BUY. Thoughtful assignments that are directly related to the day’s lessons at hand (yes, that means you must be in charge of your curriculum and keep it in line with each group of students.. ) will have a cumulative effect upon the student. Assignments will be interrelated, relevant, and worthwhile. Sure, it’s likely they’ll be harder, but the worth is twofold.

So long as an appropriate academic value is attached to the assignment, the process of having to work hard on an assignment that deals directly with the curriculum SHOWS the student the worthiness of both the content and of the hard work necessary. After all, the best rewards are those the student can hold internally — those which raise his personal sense of integrity and confidence — and such rewards cannot be taught through disconnected slogans, lectures, or rules.

Newsbits, May 2006

Teachers of Multiculturalism Would Be Proud

In an unsurprising turn of events, 1,500 Chinese teachers face potentially losing their job for not passing a proficiency test in the subject they teach. Speak to most education majors and you'll find a severe lack of actual knowledge about the subject they want to teach. What matters to them is how they teach it, never mind the fact that they don't know "it." The introduction to this article wasn't terribly shocking to me. What I found surprising, however, is that teachers are apparently the same the world over when it comes to taking responsibility.

Teachers are required to pass papers in reading, writing, listening and speaking.
The scheme has provoked controversy since former chief executive Tung Chee-hwa proposed it in his first policy address. The 75,000-strong Professional Teachers' Union boycotted the first tests in 2001, saying it was an insult to their profession.

While education groups say the tests are unfair and detached from the realities of classroom teaching, parent associations support the tests as an indicator of teaching quality and are concerned by the results.

In general, only a third of the candidates pass the written test. In December, a report by the authority criticized candidates' grammar and vague explanations for common mistakes. "Many answers displayed a lack of understanding of English grammar," it said.

"In short, many candidates simply did not demonstrate an ability to discuss language matters in a professional context."

Teachers have criticized the exam's structure. All the tests are standard and do not take into account the fact that a band-three teacher or a primary-school teacher may require other qualities apart from an ability to explain grammatical constructions, they argue. [Emphasis added]

Why are U.S. teachers whining about the NCLB act? Because if a certain percentage of their students don't pass standardized tests, the schools may lose a tiny amount of federal funding. (Remember, the majority of funding comes from the state, and the NCLB act is a federal mandate.) If a student is taught actual content in a subject, there shouldn't be a problem with him having to see it on a very basic test. But, if you're not really teaching any content, or any actual thinking skills, of course you would panic and blame the test, not yourself.

American Students Are Bad At Science

A new report shows that high school students seem to lose their proficiency with science, while fourth graders have slight gains. Again, not too much of a surprise here. However, the report seems to offer this last tidbit as a positive note.

The test administrators translate scores into three achievement levels: advanced, proficient and basic.

On the most recent test, 68 percent of fourth-graders achieved at or above the basic level, compared to 63 percent on the 2000 and 1996 tests.

So much for those prodigal fourth graders.

Among high school seniors, 54 percent performed at or above the basic level in science in 2005, compared to 57 percent in 1996.

If we really need to rank our students by the lowest measure of success, I think there is a larger problem to consider, over the 3% drop. To elaborate on this concern, the article helpful explains what is required for a "basic" rating.

To achieve at the basic level on the National Assessment, high school seniors must demonstrate knowledge of very basic concepts about the earth, physical and life sciences, and show a rudimentary understanding of scientific principles.

Sad.

Teachers Not Taught How to Teach Reading

The headline of the article from the Houston Chronicle reads, "Reading not a science for many teachers." From my own experience, I know this to be true. In one class, I was given methods to determine "readability levels" that were admittedly broken, yet told to use them anyway. There are no courses whatsoever covering phonics or basic grammar, much less vocabulary.

The National Council on Teacher Quality, which issued the report this week, examined course syllabi and required texts from 72 randomly selected education programs and found only 11 colleges, including Texas A&M University, teaching all elements of the science of reading. No other Texas schools were included in the survey.

The report comes more than five years after the National Reading Council endorsed scientifically based approaches to reading, which federal officials define as grounded in the systematic teaching of phonics and related skills.
Still, the new study found that college educators consider the science-based instruction just one approach among many and rarely require future teachers to write lesson plans that apply the tools of reading instruction in a classroom setting.

"The decision about how best to teach reading is repeatedly cast as a personal one, to be decided by the aspiring teacher," the report's authors wrote.

"All methods are presented as being equally valid, and how one teaches reading is merely a decision that works best for the individual teacher."

As a result, roughly one-third of public school fourth-graders read below basic levels, according to the report. (snip)

The debate over how children learn to read has long divided the educational world. Some prefer to teach children to recognize words in the context of stories, known as "whole language" instruction, over more explicit instruction in letters and sounds. [Emphasis added]

Educators greatly dislike phonics because there are a lot of rules, some of which are arbitrary. Many educators believe that "whole language" is the way reading should be taught. Never mind that whole language was originally developed to aide deaf children. If it worked so great for them, it must work equally well for normal children.
For those that don't know, whole language is essentially sight-reading. The term "sight-reading" may be familiar to those who took choir or learned an instrument. In music, the premise is that you learn to immediately identify a note based on its position on the staff and relationship to other notes. This method works extremely well and helps create outstanding musicians. The reason it works is because there are only so many relationships between the various notes and once the mind recognizes the mathematical difference between an E and a G through repetition and memorization, sight-reading music becomes almost automatic. Have you ever seen someone sit down at a piano with a new sheet of music and play it almost perfectly? This is because they have practiced sight-reading somewhere along the way.

However, the idea doesn't translate into reading. Whole Language is supposed to work on the premise of repetition and context (just like musical notes) but words don't have absolute meanings. Verbs change tenses, pronouns indicate subjects, objects or possession, adjectives can become adverbs and frankly, reading the same sentence 15 times doesn't help you understand it anymore than the first time if you can't recognize any of the words.

"See Dick run. Run Dick run. See Jane run. Run Jane run." If you recognize this, then you were probably given similar books when you were young. This is Whole Language. Repetition, repetition, repetition. There's no plot, no point, and there are very few new words. Advocates of this method say that it's better to learn words in context, than by a bunch of sounds that adults don't use anyway. What they seem to forget is that by the time we become adults, the phonemic process has become automatic. Memorizing the word "run" does not help you pronounce "ran," "ruin" or "running." Memorizing the single definition of "run" in one sentence does not help you understand verb tenses and sentence construction.

Advocates may also say that children will "pick up patterns" from this method, but if that's the case, why not just teach them the patterns first and let them read something with a plot, like "Cat in the Hat" instead of "Dick and Jane"? English, being a language that has evolved over millennia and has absorbed rules and words from other languages, does in fact have some arbitrary rules. Sometimes "oo" sounds like "boo" and sometimes it sounds like "book." Teaching phonics helps decipher our language into manageable pieces, instead of sadly telling children that they must memorize millions of words, and only after seeing them in a sentence someone else wrote.