I often consider how the convenience of today’s technological advances in student life must astonish older generations.  Most of our courses appear in online classrooms where we can find notes, homework, quizzes and sometimes tests.
Online homework makes grading an ease for teachers. The ability to access notes is especially helpful if a student misses something (almost giving an incentive to skip class). And as far as exams … I know I’m not the only one who takes a sigh of relief when I find out one of mine is online. I wonder, though, how our integrity is affected in testing situations outside of the classroom. Hanging in each Mississippi State University study is the well-known honor code: As a Mississippi State University student, I will conduct myself with honor and integrity at all times. I will not lie, cheat or steal, nor will I accept the actions of those who do.
How many of us have these words written on the walls of our bedrooms? If lecture halls require TAs to walk up and down the aisles to monitor cheating, why are we trusted to act with similar honor when away from the eye of faculty?
During spring final exams last year, an alleged 125 Harvard students turned in suspiciously similar take-home exams which were open-note, open-book and, surprisingly, open-Internet. The skeptical Government 1310: “Introduction to Congress” professor expressed concerns to the administrative board, which led to the biggest cheating scandal in Harvard’s recent history.  About 70 of these students were punished with temporary withdrawal from the university after the investigation ended this past fall. Half of the remaining students received probation while the rest were left unpunished.
Cheating on a test with unlimited open sources seems pretty difficult to me. The “Intro to Congress” students violated codes, crossing the fine line of “take-home exam morality,” when they shared answers, essentially turning in each other’s work. Harvard officials did not care if that work consisted of simply browsing the net. My main concern is the possibility the students in this circumstance did not understand the expectations of them for the exam. Instructions including “open-note, open-book and open-Internet” give such an informal impression and show the professor’s lenience.
Collaborating in such a nonchalant setting seems reasonable, even resourceful. Plagiarism is never okay, and I am not justifying turning in someone else’s work as your own. What I am questioning is the wisdom of presenting the temptation of working with classmates alongside permission to use the Internet to students. Using the Internet itself, I realize, will always result in the use of others’ work.
This being the case, professors must be clear on their expectations of students to use citations. The lack of specific instruction is the cause of messy plagiarism and cheating accusations like these.
The truth is: teachers know students will work together outside of class, even if they shouldn’t. This knowledge does not make the behavior permissible, but it does introduce a responsibility of the school to teach students how to live up to the academic honesty standard in such a new environment.
We can be sure evolving technology in the landscape of education has created situations today’s professors never had to deal with when they were students. When teachers give assignments outside of the classroom, they should at least expect the student will produce different work than if they were inside. Engaging outside of the typical test-taking setting comes with additional distractions and resources that should be taken into consideration by teachers before scandals ensue.