To assess academic dishonesty or not?

In the Summer 2013 issue of New Directions for Student Affairs (Selected contemporary assessment issues), well known student affairs leader and scholar, Dr. Greg Blimling reflects upon assessment in student affairs and notes an early interest of his to assess academic dishonesty.  He concludes that quantifying the amount of academic dishonesty on campus is not worth the political and PR related consequences.

 

He writes, "The politics of assessment have taught me that assessment works best when student affairs is part of an institutional effort and not apart from it, and that it is not worth the political price of having some information" (p.13).

 

I was initiated into the world of student affairs under Dr. Blimling at Appalachian State University, so I naturally look up to him.  Most of what Blimling says in his chapter resonates with me.

• Most of us welcome assessment when it yields data we can actually use
• We're overburdened with administrative and bureaucratic tasks and are reluctant to take on assessment work that doesn't truly benefit us
• Assessment is not about collecting data, but rather about collecting actionable data that can be used to effect measurable improvements
• Assessment works better when we're working with colleagues in academic programs and institutional assessment

 

Not assessing academic dishonesty really bothers me, though.  It undermines the core of our mission - student learning.   The willful blindness here is akin to a medical professional not diagnosing symptoms out of fear of bad news or the inability to treat.  I can't imagine any legitimate medical professional doing this.  Why do we?

 

The perception of threat and fear impact our ability to reason, and clearly the threat of losing one's job and its impact on one's career and/or family is a serious threat.  We often over-estimate that kind of threat though, because its emotional significance makes it more readily available in our thoughts. 

 

I believe it is time we acknowledge the fact that our thinking is not as objective or independent as we would like to believe, especially when fear or threat is involved. 

• Fear and threat diminish conscious logical reasoning and initiate rapid and unconscious response systems. 
• Our decision making and perception are influenced by an unconscious 2nd channel of communication involving signal patterning.
• Most of our decisions and judgments are made using heuristics, estimations and cognitive shortcuts, to minimize cognitive load.
• Bias influences our perception and actions. 
• Even reading a novel induces changes in the brain that persist afterwards. 

 

I do not mean this to judge Dr. Blimling or any others who have made this decision.  But I do think we as a field need to speak out against it... because it harms students.  One of our most cherished ethical tenants, "do no harm" was first proposed by Kitchener in 1985 and is now embedded in ACPA's Ethical Principles & Standards.  Allowing students to cheat through their courses directly and indirectly diminishes their learning, which we are responsible to facilitate.  We should know the degree to which our students are able to bypass the established standards of learning for our institution.

 

Students' diminished capacity likely impacts their achievement and opportunity later in life.   Employers say graduates lack job skills (including interpersonal skills, problem solving skills, etc.) at a time when 93% of employers say many of those and similar skills are more important than their major and over 1/3 of college students are failing to improve higher level thinking skills after 4 years.   The fact that nearly 1/2 of graduates are underemployed, working in jobs that do not require a college degree may be the end result of this.

 

The students are, of course, responsible as well, but our willful blindness is an enabling behavior, and admittedly, I take the high road in saying this is something we are responsible for. The cognitive development required for ethical reasoning is not fully developed in many of our students. And I suspect the aversion to assessing academic dishonesty contributes to this era of criticism and distrust higher education faces today.  But I wonder, could assessing it be one of the things that helps us out of it?

 

“If Colleges don't change the way they do business, students will…”  Looking back at an article from 2010 following TIAA-CREF's Higher Education Leadership Conference - how well have their predictions turned out?

Predictions

• Students will change the way colleges do business - partially true.  Fairly large numbers of students have started seeking credit for prior learning, such as military experience, MOOCs, etc.  But several institutions began offering it on their own, too.
• The landscape/paradigm will change and not in favor of traditional colleges and universities - somewhat true.  The landscape is clearly changing and becoming more difficult for institutions to function as they traditionally did.  It is not cataclysmic, yet, though.
• Disconnects between policy makers and institutions would lead to unclear paths and benchmarks - mostly true, I think.  Performance based funding, more budget cuts, etc. are leading to unclear and sometimes dysfunctional relationships and funding systems.
• Higher Education Funding is the next bubble - Unclear now, but recognition that it is the next bubble has been growing widely among those in and outside higher education.
• Outdated systems of teaching and preparing students will lead to a decline in US's competitive position - Unclear, but it is clear that the US has been losing ground in several benchmarks, including global economic markers, degree attainment markers, etc.

Danger, Will Robinson!!

In a June 27th article in the Huffington Post by Lori Day, Why Boys Are Failing in an Educational System Stacked Against Them, Day joins calls to attend to the concerning trends regarding males in the US educational system.  She notes statistics from "experts", one of which is, Michael Gurian, that boys get worse grades, dominate the disciplinary incidents, are remarkably more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD, and more.  Michael Gurian has published numerous position articles and books where he takes research on gender differences related to learning, and brain development and advocates specific parenting and teaching methods based on his interpretation of the research; however, a cursory search turned up no empirical studies on the parenting and teaching methods he promotes.  This doesn't mean Gurian should be disregarded, but it does throw up a cautionary flag.

Day also cites Richard Whitmore claiming that our educational system now forces earlier literacy development, and that boys develop literacy later than girls.  However, that is not a consensus among educational researchers.  To date, there is mixed evidence regarding gender difference in language development; some evidence suggests girls have a slight advantage, accounting for a very small 3% of the variance (Galworthy, et al., 2000), and other research shows no difference at all.  Richard Whitmore has also written a number of works based on government statistics and such, and advocates for specific gender based education.  Again, though, a cursory search found no empirical studies to support Whitmore's recommendations.

Day also comments that boys have certain gender-based learning styles and that education should compliment those styles.  She is careful not to advocate for radical changes, but she does advocate for greater understanding and focus on the needs of boys.  This is a valid concern, however her claim that boys have particular learning styles is not.  There is no empirical evidence to support claims that people have different learning styles.  Students have certainly developed different skills in different contexts, but teaching to specific learning styles does not consistently improve grades according to empirical research.  There could be something there that accounts for the variance in performance, and maybe we are having difficulty identifying it from within our cultural and scientific lenses, but it doesn't appear to be learning styles per se.

Day then compares her own experiences as a parent of a daughter but a sister growing up with two brothers, and she does this quite humorously.  She notes the behavioral tendencies of boys to engage large areas of space in their play and compared that to girls taking less (in general).  She notes evolutionary psychology premises that this is due to male brains being wired for "hunting", which is premised on the fact that male brains show slightly more cortex devoted to spatial reasoning than females.  It's easy to explain things in this way, because our interpretations are culturally bound and tend to support cultural notions already in place, and this is a noted criticism of evolutionary-based conclusions.  

I comment on this  because there is clearly something going on in terms of males performance and retention in the educational system, and I concur with Day that we definitely need to address it, but it doesn't do much good to hype methods, exemplars, and facts that are not supported by research.  Indeed, that can do more harm than good.

"Reverse Transfer?".......Huh?

In a June 19th article by Donna Ekal and Paula Krebs in The Chronicle of Higher Education (article), Ekal and Krebs describe efforts at their respective institutions to account for students who successfully transfer from community colleges (without having earned an AA degree) to 4-year institutions. Within current guidelines, those students are not counted as successes and ultimately lower perceived rates of retention and success.

While I had to do a double-take when I read Reverse Transfer, reading it a little too literally, I am intrigued by the idea. The author's institutions track those transfers and award AA degrees once they have completed course requirements (of the AA degree) at the 4-year institution. The authors contend this is the "ultimate win-win solution." The community college's data on successful matriculation is made more accurate and the students get their AA degree to boot. The authors also say it is a win for the 4-year institution in that the self-esteem of the transfer student is increased by getting the post-transfer AA degree. I'm not sure if there's data to back that up or if it is just a reasoned speculation, but it would be interesting to know.

I say that out of more than just curiosity. If receiving an AA degree boosts esteem, then it could be a useful strategy to increase retention at 4-year institutions. They could designate a point within a major curriculum or completion of Gen Ed requirements (or something similar) where they award the student an AA degree or some similar type of recognition of their achievement. This may very well challenge some sentiments related to feelings of "hand-holding," "coddling," etc. and in some cases, this could be true. However, I believe it is clear that the reality of increasingly diverse student populations and range of preparedness, dwindling state funds, and other issues, requires us to adopt more facilitative approaches to higher education, where the onus is on faculty and administration to facilitate success as compared to the more traditional approach where students are expected to sink or swim.

Irony of Ridicule

-->

Today in The Chronicle, there is a short memo from a department dean that is intended to serve as a humorous update, but actually serves another purpose.

The article subtly laments a student’s faux pas where a student includes a reminder/request for a study guide for the final exam within a condolence email following his or her professor’s unexpected surgery.

The dean included the student’s email in the memo and then informs the faculty of the department that fruit was sent to the recovering professor and adds in comedic fashion that there was no mention of a study guide.

While this does assuredly have some value as a lighthearted memo in the midst of what might not be a lighthearted time, the dean was either shortsighted or successfully illustrated the condescension many students feel in their academic relationships.

The student’s response was certainly not well written either, but of course, the dean is the authority and role model here, and thus has the greater responsibility to communicate thoughtfully between the two of them.

While there are numerous outstanding faculty, students often complain about not-so-outstanding faculty going through the motions of teaching, or skipping classes, lecturing rather than teaching, and so on and so on. They have high expectations for faculty, and many of those expectations are valid.

Students pay for a particular course, and the syllabus and verbal intentions made by the professor in the course may constitute a legal contract. At the very least, the syllabus and verbal intentions made by the professor are understood by students as promises and they plan their lives accordingly and expect a degree of professional follow-through.

When a professor is absent from a class for whatever reason and aspects of the syllabus go unfulfilled, the students are often upset and surprisingly judgmental. This is particularly so when students are expected to fulfill the expectations of the syllabus (project due dates, content, final exams, etc.) without the professor doing so. The inequity here is clear I think.

There is another aspect as well, that I believe faculty – particularly this dean – are often ignorant of. That is the fact that some students are not necessarily upset at the faculty being absent or less than engaged but rather the fact that they are not getting the quality of instruction and opportunity to learn that they are paying for.

Now there may have been more appropriate communication sent to students informing them of the situation and what impact it has on the course. There may even have been measures in place where someone was promptly able to take over the course and continue to provide at least somewhat equitable instruction and materials to the students. The dean, though, made no comment of such, and instead of acknowledging the student’s investment in performing well in the course, or the department’s responsibility to provide for the students, he or she instead attempts to ridicule the student. The dean has rather now ridiculed his or her self and the department she or he leads for showing such a degree of arrogance and condescension when it comes to the students they are there to teach.