From the title of the most recent Canadian Council on Learning (CCL) report, you’d think our schools, colleges and universities are seedy dens of corruption where students learn only the art of huckstering. The report, “Liars, fraudsters and cheats: Dealing with the growth of Academic Dishonesty,” attempts to identify the prevalence of academic dishonesty in Canada, the reasons students cheat, and how best to address this concern. A summary of the report can be found on the CCL website here: http://bit.ly/aiPiGF
But before I make any more judgments on the appropriateness of the title, let’s take a closer look at the report. First, the report suggests that cheating is a serious problem, pointing to a survey where “nearly three-quarters of first-year university or college students in Canada admitted to committing one or more serious acts of academic dishonesty while attending high school.” That’s a shocking statistic, and it’s quite clear that the prevalence of academic dishonesty is a serious problem.
Next the report takes it a step further, stating, “over the past decade, researchers and teachers have reported a dramatic climb in the occurrence of academic dishonesty among students in high schools and post-secondary institutions.” But as evidence for this claim, we are given two studies, one from the U.S. that covers only the period from 1963 to 1993 and a second from the University of Waterloo that reports an 81% increase in instances of plagiarism over three years in the early 2000s. The problem with the latter study is that it can be explained simply by increased faculty vigilance and mandatory reporting. In fact, if the recommendations of the CCL report were implemented, we would expect to see just this kind of increase in the recorded instances of academic dishonesty. All in all, the evidence presented is insufficient to justify the claim of a significant increase in cheating. As the report itself acknowledges, “large-scale data on trends in Canada are unavailable.”
Moving to the causes of academic dishonesty, the main culprit, unsurprisingly, seems to be students’ desire to get a good grade or pass the course. The increased use of technology simply makes the process even easier. But the report also cites evidence that students may not be aware of the rules they are breaking and that students often have different definitions of what constitutes cheating. This points to a significant problem in the system – how can we hold student accountable to rules of academic integrity that are often confusing, contradictory, and improperly taught? We need to see more funding for academic support services, such as Writing Centres, improved academic orientation, and a renewed focus on teaching and learning at our post-secondary institutions.
This brings us back to the title of the report. To be frank, it sounds like a cheap way to grab media attention, and it seems to have worked. To be called a liar, fraudster or cheat, one must be intentionally misleading others. But by the report’s own admission, many students don’t know that what they’re doing is wrong.
Finally, I’d like to draw attention to one thing that’s missing from the report – the need for faculty to lead by example. For instance, it’s not uncommon for students to ask why their professor is allowed to submit elements of the same article to multiple journals when the student is not allowed to reuse previous work. Additionally, anecdotal evidence suggests that the definition of what constitutes excess collaboration or improper referencing can vary greatly from professor to professor, and even more so from program to program.
Moreover, as universities have slowly moved from the academic dishonesty model toward a focus on academic integrity, consideration of whether the student intended to mislead others has been removed from the finding of guilt. We’re essentially assuming students should know better when the data says the opposite. What is most concerning about this is that faculty collective bargaining agreements continue to require clear proof of dishonest intent in order to find a professor guilty of academic dishonesty. Are we truly content to hold our students to a higher level of accountability than their own professors?
None of this is to say that academic dishonesty by our students is not a serious concern or that the increased efforts by our institutions to track and create accountability measures for those that act dishonestly are unwelcome. However, the solution lies in increased resources and improved instruction to support students in the learning process. If provided the tools necessary for success, student behavior will reflect a more fair and honest approach to learning.
-Alexi White
Executive Director
With files from: Sam Andrey, Morgan Campbell, Chris Martin
