A Facebook cheater?
Ryerson student accused of academic dishonesty on Facebook optimistic he won't be expelled
A first-year engineering student accused of cheating through an online study group emerged from an expulsion hearing Tuesday optimistic he would be allowed to stay in school in a case that raises new questions about cyberspace and academic honesty.Supporters of Chris Avenir, 18, argue the Facebook study group he ran was no different from any kind of homework help or tutoring circle, but Ryerson University officials accused him of going too far with an exhortation to “input solutions” to assignment problems.
“I feel pretty confident and optimistic about the appeal meeting we just had,” Avenir said moments after the closed-door, 90-minute hearing ended.
“I don’t have any regrets about what happened inside.”
The faculty appeal committee that heard the case Tuesday was expected to decide on a punishment – which could be as harsh as expulsion – within five business days.
Last term, Avenir became administrator of the online group Dungeons/Mastering Chemistry Solutions, which he initially joined to get help with homework. In all, 147 classmates used the group to swap tips on assignments that counted for 10 per cent of their mark.
What appears to have snared Avenir was the group’s main page, which read: “If you request to join, please use the forms to discuss/post solutions to the chemistry assignments. Please input your solutions if they are not already posted.”
A professor, who had stipulated assignments be done independently, discovered the group, gave the B student an F, then charged him with academic misconduct.
The charge ignited a fierce debate that echoed around the wired world about whether the university, which prides itself on cutting-edge, interactive learning, was in fact acting like a Luddite or whether dishonesty was hiding out on the electronic frontier.
Students are “just floored,” said Nora Loreto, president of the Ryerson Students Union.
Avenir’s case sparked a host of support groups – among them www.chrisdidntcheat.com, with offers of “premium” T-shirts and hats for US$19.99 bearing “Chris Didn’t Cheat” as a slogan and proceeds ostensibly going to defray his legal fees.
Bloggers were mostly scathing of Ryerson’s actions.
“Is it our fault that schools are so antiquated they don’t understand that Facebook is like a virtual study hall or dorm room or any other place we would all normally study?” Davin Carey, a student at San Diego State, wrote in one post.
In another post on the Facebook group “Support Chris Avenir,” Ryerson student Matt Boyle called the school’s action an “outrage.”
“How is this any different from a study group in the library or something?” Boyle said. “I don’t see the school policing those.”
Dissenters, although fewer and further between, suggested that posting online answers did in fact constitute cheating, and that arguing that in-person cheating also occurs is no excuse.
What Facebook has changed, said Fred Stutzman, a doctorate student of social networks at the University of North Carolina, is the open record it leaves, making it easier to gather evidence of academic dishonesty.
“Cheating is cheating and collaboration is collaboration. Because there’s a virtual environment, that doesn’t change the definition of any of these constructs that we’ve written into law or society,” Stutzman said from Chapel Hill, N.C.
“The problem here is that this is going to have a serious chilling effect on these very interesting opportunities for learning and collaboration that the virtual environment affords.”
Avenir’s lawyer John Adair, who was not allowed to speak for his client at the hearing, said if the case isn’t dropped, he will “expose the glaring lack of evidence” behind the allegations.
“The problem here is Facebook is a new realm, and it’s one that the university is seeking to seize without any regard for the specific circumstances,” Adair said.
Ryerson officials have said they fully endorse the online world – as long as it is used appropriately.
-with a report from CP
I actually have some sympathy for the university’s uncertainty regarding evolving technology. To be clear, I don’t for an instant agree with their reaction to this case, but I think students and critics have been far too quick to jump on the “don’t they know this is just a virtual study group” bandwagon. This isn’t a case of university administrators being Luddites – or if it is the problem isn’t confined to only them. Technology presents problems to everyone.
I remember when students were up in arms about TurnItIn.com. Haven’t heard much about that issue lately, but there was a period of time when everyone was out bashing the anti-plagiarism software. Now, there is a very interesting and sophisticated argument against TurnItIn.com based on the fact that it employs and implicitly profits from the intellectual property of students without their consent. I’m still attracted to this criticism. But by far and away the rallying cry of the anti-turnitin movement was some variation on “this assumes we are all cheaters!” And that, my friends, is no less a misunderstanding of technology than this Facebook issue. Graders have always and will always read papers for plagiarism. Automating that process doesn’t assume students are cheaters, just as automating a study group doesn’t turn students into cheaters.
Ryerson stepped in it, this time. But this shouldn’t become only a story about one university’s ignorance. That would ignore the much wider issues of technology and how we adapt to it. Because one thing’s for sure – it isn’t slowing down.
Woo first post ever.
Quoting from the article: ” . . .post solutions to the chemistry assignments. Please input your solutions if they are not already posted.”
Online or not, that’s academic misconduct in my book, and my school’s book too.
The main problem is that they’re going only after him. They’re making an example of him, even though there were 140+ other students involved too.
If Ryerson were really interested in fairness they would investigate and charge the others too. But I guess we all know what they’re really after.
For those considering online study groups, don’t be disheartened by what’s going on here. Before there were Facebook groups, there were online forums. If you’re taking part in online collaboration do it the smart way, in a forum where they can’t identify you unless you want to be identified.
(I guess I’m going to be charged with aiding academic misconduct now)
How many universities in Canada are putting up with Essay Experts? No university administration should bother pretending to be concerned about cheating unless that institution has closed Essay Experts down if that writing service has been doing business on its campus. If the RCMP has no academic integrity unit, the force should form one to deal with systematic Essay Experts-style cheating and frauds being run by universities.
Cheating is not unknown among the faculty of Canadian universities. The worst case I have ever seen is the career a former department head at UBC, who peddled his own inferior books in volume to hapless first-year students for as long as he could get away with it. Apparently the UBC Senate was good at sleeping, but not much else, on this issue.
How about university bookstores that gouge students by having them buy books not really in significant use in courses? Too close to criminal fraud to be distinguished. All of the funding agencies such as CIHR and SSHRC should require universities to stop institutional fraud period.
Students need to learn IT information management. They need to master Internet scripts, Internet research, and Internet communication. If they could, we would not see as many medical mistakes, such as recommending Paxil for a pregnant woman.
Professors should try to exercise imagination in testing so that students will not be discouraged in developing needed skills. Often, the professor who wants to rely on expelling people instead of composing cheat-proof tests for a cheat-proof environment is just not a thoughtful teacher.
I’m actually really surprised at the 140+ charges. When you get into that kind of number you have to know that there’s going to be some kind of push-back as it gets ridiculous. Had they gone with a single charge, it would have gone through with little fan-fare and even less notice but this?
I suppose it’s good though in that it’s bringing forward the issue and forcing institutions to consider when is being collaborative cheating, and when is it part of learning. Something we haven’t often considered in our move to post-secondary as a means to certification instead of enlightenment.