4 responses

  1. Shawna
    March 28, 2012

    I like thinking about best practices in the classroom in general (not just about cheating) in terms of justice, especially because I do see a syllabus as a contract, which would provide a verifiable basis for just decisions to be made.

    I’d like to hear what you have to say about third type of justice, as you didn’t come back to it in your concluding thoughts.

    If it’s about the “perception” of justice, that third type makes a lot of sense for me as an instructor. Whether I’m deciding to change the syllabus, figuring out how to dock someone for excessive absences, or explaining why they have a heavier reading load than normal next week, I think my students will give a lot of leeway for what I do so long as I explain my rationale 1) clearly and 2) in advance. They seem to think anything I want to do is fair so long as I am open and “respectful” about it.

    I’m not quite sure about how this precisely relates to cheating–other than having open disclosure about particular methods of discerning cheating, which I do give to my students–but I like the potential applications of this threefold model for the classroom.

  2. KC
    March 28, 2012

    I think that the argument about procedural justice depends on what was listed in the syllabus. If the syllabus indicated that cheating will result in a specified punishment, at least part of procedural justice is satisfied. Sure, the instructor may not have explained HOW he knew that students cheated, but I don’t think this is a reasonable expectation on the students’ part. Furthermore, I think he’s offered them more than enough voice in the process, through their option to accept responsibility and face a lesser penalty.

    Frankly, I don’t give much credence to this student’s complaint, either from a justice standpoint, nor from an ethical standpoint. Rules change, both in school and in the real world, and you have to face the consequences if you break them. Complaining that last year people could ride around on their motorcycles without helmets and now they’re required and it’s totally unfair is not really going to fly when that cop issues you a ticket.

  3. Richard N. Landers
    March 28, 2012

    @Shawna – That actually reflects a lot of the research – interactional justice is composed of informational (“adequate information was provided”) and interpersonal (“respectfully provided”) justice, both of which can mitigate the effects of other perceived unfairness. The syllabus trick that you described is something I’ve used for some time – setting up expectations clearly and early does help a lot.

    @KC – I think the key with justice here is that it is all about perceptions; even if the syllabus was clear, if the student didn’t internalize/read it, there’s a lack of informational justice at the least, which also may have led to that comment. I absolutely agree that the student is in the wrong here, ethically. I am rather pointing out that a justice framework can explain why this student believes she was treated unfairly regardless of believing that being caught was fair. On the surface, this might seem to be a paradox.

  4. Douglas
    May 10, 2012

    It’s very vague without understanding how they caught someone cheating. There could be false negatives. What is considered cheating? Were they allowed to look at references? If so, looking at a past exam can be considered as a reference. Under these pretenses, that means they could have been copying and pasting the answer into the textbox for the sake of convenience, and then write their answer in their own words and may even add more to it and then delete the copy-and-pasted text later. The hidden marker could have been left there (I mean, it’s hidden, you cannot see it) when in reality the student wrote very thing himself or herself.

    There’s too much flaws in such a system. Also, that student’s standpoint for punishing past cheaters is a quite… a dick move.

Leave a Reply




Back to top
mobile desktop