In Defense of Cheating?
One of my favourite essays on contemporary approaches to assessment is Donald Norman’s “In Defense of Cheating”. First of all, the title is clever, and secondly, the message is well thought out: change the educational system instead of accusing students of cheating; they only “cheat” because of the way they are taught and assessed. Emulate real life by replacing memorization and individual work with engaging activities and more collaborative work.
Norman emphasizes from the beginning of his article that his purpose is not to encourage deception but to reform the outdated curriculum and assessment practices. In his view, eliminating the need to “cheat” is more important than punishing students after the act. Prevention is better than cure. Changing the instructional philosophies is a must to avoid situations where “students cram for exams, regurgitate the material at exam time, and seldom retain it afterwards.” He underlines the need to emphasize processes – giving students credit for the way they reach their answers, including collaborative work (required in the workplace), and stressing comprehension rather than seeking answers in a vacuum.
Next Norman discusses plagiarism and grading. On plagiarism he has something clear to say: “The sin of plagiarization is not that it involves copying -- this should be rewarded -- but that it doesn't give credit for the originator.” I have to admit that while “copying” is not necessarily as great an idea as Norman makes it sound, using and acknowledging sources is an important skill, not just in academic work, but in real life. What he probably means is that the worst part of plagiarism is the unethical claiming of others’ ideas or work as one’s own. As for grading, Norman is opposed to the way it is done on a curve rather than for mastery: currently, “a person can only get a higher grade if someone else receives a lower grade.” He prefers a system where competition is de-emphasized, and absolute standards are spelled out, even if that means everyone receiving an A. Additionally, he proposes dividing the curriculum into modules that students can master at their own pace: “Admission to higher grades or to universities -- or even employment -- could be based upon what students know. Schools or employers would not look at grade point averages, rather they would judge students by their particular skills, by their ability to work in teams, and by the set of modules that they have mastered."
“In Defense of Cheating” should not fail to grab the attention of educators, employers, or – of course – students!
Posted by May Mikati on 20 January 2012, 1:02 PM
One of my favourite essays on contemporary approaches to assessment is Donald Norman’s “In Defense of Cheating”. First of all, the title is clever, and secondly, the message is well thought out: change the educational system instead of accusing students of cheating; they only “cheat” because of the way they are taught and assessed. Emulate real life by replacing memorization and individual work with engaging activities and more collaborative work.
Norman emphasizes from the beginning of his article that his purpose is not to encourage deception but to reform the outdated curriculum and assessment practices. In his view, eliminating the need to “cheat” is more important than punishing students after the act. Prevention is better than cure. Changing the instructional philosophies is a must to avoid situations where “students cram for exams, regurgitate the material at exam time, and seldom retain it afterwards.” He underlines the need to emphasize processes – giving students credit for the way they reach their answers, including collaborative work (required in the workplace), and stressing comprehension rather than seeking answers in a vacuum.
Next Norman discusses plagiarism and grading. On plagiarism he has something clear to say: “The sin of plagiarization is not that it involves copying -- this should be rewarded -- but that it doesn't give credit for the originator.” I have to admit that while “copying” is not necessarily as great an idea as Norman makes it sound, using and acknowledging sources is an important skill, not just in academic work, but in real life. What he probably means is that the worst part of plagiarism is the unethical claiming of others’ ideas or work as one’s own. As for grading, Norman is opposed to the way it is done on a curve rather than for mastery: currently, “a person can only get a higher grade if someone else receives a lower grade.” He prefers a system where competition is de-emphasized, and absolute standards are spelled out, even if that means everyone receiving an A. Additionally, he proposes dividing the curriculum into modules that students can master at their own pace: “Admission to higher grades or to universities -- or even employment -- could be based upon what students know. Schools or employers would not look at grade point averages, rather they would judge students by their particular skills, by their ability to work in teams, and by the set of modules that they have mastered."
“In Defense of Cheating” should not fail to grab the attention of educators, employers, or – of course – students!
Posted by May Mikati on 20 January 2012, 1:02 PM
No comments:
Post a Comment