To take part in discussions on talkSFU, please apply for membership (SFU email id required).
Academic Dishonesty Epilogue
Assignment 2 Written
--------------------
After 24 students were caught in the initial sweep in late October,
20 of them were eventually given a 0% on Assignment 2 for submitting
work from the past answer keys. Even though there was a method to
apply a penalty of -100%, it would have required a TON of paperwork
that I was not willing to churn through. A zero was good enough in
this case.
In each of the 20 cases, a report documenting the incident was
retained by myself, the School, and the Registrar. Any subsequent
incident of Academic Dishonesty (AD) in *any course* in *any semester*
will be seen as a second offense, and will be punished more severely:
usually resulting in failure in the course and/or suspension from SFU.
Coding
------
Some students submitted code that was substantially similar to
another source.
A1: 3 submissions involved.
A2: 5 submissions involved.
A3: 3 submissions involved.
A4: 5 submissions involved.
A5: 1 submission involved.
There were usually three types of stories:
1. Two or more people developed the code together, with a
roughly equal share of the work coming from each. The AD
is clear here: they are required to submit their OWN work,
not half their own work.
2. One person developed the solution on their own and gave the
code to the other person. Even though it's the source's own
work, it is AD if they don't adequately protect their work
from being used by others.
3. One person stole the code from the other person.
#2 was the most common, with the tagline "I didn't copy.. I just
used so-and-so's work as a reference." The result was often
over 200 lines of code in common, with little different than the
variable names. Beware of the line-by-line "reference".
Some other interesting facts:
- 3 students from the 20 cases above, despite being warned about
escalating penalties for a second offense, were involved in
subsequent AD submissions for A3, A4, A5. They will be punished
very severely.
- Some of the students submitted code from a past semester.
This prompted me to investigate archived submissions from as far
back as 2006. In total, I have found 78 more submissions and
47 more students involved in AD. I have begun to meet with these
students. In some cases, the transition was the obvious one:
the code, like the answer keys, got passed from one person in a
past semester to the next generation. (Like #2 above, they would
*both* be guilty of AD.) But some of the stories have been pretty
weird, including:
- Students posted their past homework to online coding forums.
(This is AD.)
- Students from another university asked other students for
material on "operating systems". For some reason, instead
of supplying a reference to the textbook or handing over my
notes, the student handed over their assignment work, which
was clearly irrelevant to anyone outside my course. And
"magically", it reappeared (sometimes in the same semester)
as the submitted work of another student. (This is AD for
all the students involved.)
- Students "tutored" (for $) two or more students, developing
solutions to the homework that were substantially identical.
In one case, the tutor was enrolled in the course.
(Again, AD for all students.)
Summary
-------
In total, there were 31 students (out of 84 enrolled) involved in
Academic Dishonesty in this semester's run of CMPT 300. Many of
them were DDP students.
Now because I brought up that whole DDP issue again, I'm probably
going to get some more students yelling at me or hate-mailing me.
I've already been called a racist 3 times this semester, which is
always delightful. :-)
To set the record straight, here's what I think about DDP students.
I think that some of them are honest, hard-working students, who are
comparable to SFU's best students. You would think I would have lost
respect for those involved in the Academic Dishonesty, but for the
most part, it was quite the opposite. Most showed remorse, maturity,
and a willingness to learn from the incident. Their ability to be
honest with themselves will take them a long way in life.
The flipside were all the whining and excuses, including: ignorance of
the rules, and a general belief that the rules would not be enforced.
This was a cultural difference, and yes, *you were responsible* for
being aware of the rules. But you were only partly to blame. It is
hard to take to heart the words "Submit your own work or you will be
punished", when you have never been punished for all your life.
*** The lion's share of the blame is on the DDP Coordinators (both at
ZU and SFU) who did not emphasize this cultural difference sternly,
loudly, and frequently enough. Also to blame are the cohort 1 students
who got caught copying assignments last fall in CMPT 307. They should
have told the cohort 2 students about it.
Cheating is one of the great taboos. It is rarely seen as an issue
taken seriously, except for the ones who have been caught and punished,
and they are too embarrassed to share their experiences. Hopefully this
e-mail will spark some discussion among yourselves.. feel free to pass
it along.
As for DDP cohort 2, please tell the tale of this incident to cohort 3.
They might not appreciate the favour you're doing for them, but it will
be a big favour.
Regards,
Brad.
--------------------
After 24 students were caught in the initial sweep in late October,
20 of them were eventually given a 0% on Assignment 2 for submitting
work from the past answer keys. Even though there was a method to
apply a penalty of -100%, it would have required a TON of paperwork
that I was not willing to churn through. A zero was good enough in
this case.
In each of the 20 cases, a report documenting the incident was
retained by myself, the School, and the Registrar. Any subsequent
incident of Academic Dishonesty (AD) in *any course* in *any semester*
will be seen as a second offense, and will be punished more severely:
usually resulting in failure in the course and/or suspension from SFU.
Coding
------
Some students submitted code that was substantially similar to
another source.
A1: 3 submissions involved.
A2: 5 submissions involved.
A3: 3 submissions involved.
A4: 5 submissions involved.
A5: 1 submission involved.
There were usually three types of stories:
1. Two or more people developed the code together, with a
roughly equal share of the work coming from each. The AD
is clear here: they are required to submit their OWN work,
not half their own work.
2. One person developed the solution on their own and gave the
code to the other person. Even though it's the source's own
work, it is AD if they don't adequately protect their work
from being used by others.
3. One person stole the code from the other person.
#2 was the most common, with the tagline "I didn't copy.. I just
used so-and-so's work as a reference." The result was often
over 200 lines of code in common, with little different than the
variable names. Beware of the line-by-line "reference".
Some other interesting facts:
- 3 students from the 20 cases above, despite being warned about
escalating penalties for a second offense, were involved in
subsequent AD submissions for A3, A4, A5. They will be punished
very severely.
- Some of the students submitted code from a past semester.
This prompted me to investigate archived submissions from as far
back as 2006. In total, I have found 78 more submissions and
47 more students involved in AD. I have begun to meet with these
students. In some cases, the transition was the obvious one:
the code, like the answer keys, got passed from one person in a
past semester to the next generation. (Like #2 above, they would
*both* be guilty of AD.) But some of the stories have been pretty
weird, including:
- Students posted their past homework to online coding forums.
(This is AD.)
- Students from another university asked other students for
material on "operating systems". For some reason, instead
of supplying a reference to the textbook or handing over my
notes, the student handed over their assignment work, which
was clearly irrelevant to anyone outside my course. And
"magically", it reappeared (sometimes in the same semester)
as the submitted work of another student. (This is AD for
all the students involved.)
- Students "tutored" (for $) two or more students, developing
solutions to the homework that were substantially identical.
In one case, the tutor was enrolled in the course.
(Again, AD for all students.)
Summary
-------
In total, there were 31 students (out of 84 enrolled) involved in
Academic Dishonesty in this semester's run of CMPT 300. Many of
them were DDP students.
Now because I brought up that whole DDP issue again, I'm probably
going to get some more students yelling at me or hate-mailing me.
I've already been called a racist 3 times this semester, which is
always delightful. :-)
To set the record straight, here's what I think about DDP students.
I think that some of them are honest, hard-working students, who are
comparable to SFU's best students. You would think I would have lost
respect for those involved in the Academic Dishonesty, but for the
most part, it was quite the opposite. Most showed remorse, maturity,
and a willingness to learn from the incident. Their ability to be
honest with themselves will take them a long way in life.
The flipside were all the whining and excuses, including: ignorance of
the rules, and a general belief that the rules would not be enforced.
This was a cultural difference, and yes, *you were responsible* for
being aware of the rules. But you were only partly to blame. It is
hard to take to heart the words "Submit your own work or you will be
punished", when you have never been punished for all your life.
*** The lion's share of the blame is on the DDP Coordinators (both at
ZU and SFU) who did not emphasize this cultural difference sternly,
loudly, and frequently enough. Also to blame are the cohort 1 students
who got caught copying assignments last fall in CMPT 307. They should
have told the cohort 2 students about it.
Cheating is one of the great taboos. It is rarely seen as an issue
taken seriously, except for the ones who have been caught and punished,
and they are too embarrassed to share their experiences. Hopefully this
e-mail will spark some discussion among yourselves.. feel free to pass
it along.
As for DDP cohort 2, please tell the tale of this incident to cohort 3.
They might not appreciate the favour you're doing for them, but it will
be a big favour.
Regards,
Brad.
Comments
I think he may have spent more time trying to find plagiarism than the actual marking. I've borrowed code before (well not 100% of it) and most instructors don't seem to care unless it's really obvious. Cause really, how many ways can you write a program to do a specific task besides changing the variable/method names and moving the order around?
But a good lesson for all.
[shameless sucking up]
cmpt 300 w/ Brad Bart was one of the best courses I have ever taken.
[/shameless sucking up]
DDP Students? China-born Chinese students.
Clearly he is being racist.
clearly these students cheated.. calling him racist because he found out they cheated shows how immature and remorseless they are.. the rules for cheating are simple.. if you want to cheat.. make sure whatever you're doing won't come back biting your rear.. the risk of someone finding out that you cheated is always there.. it's a risk you need to take and if you get busted.. tough luck..
Other than that, it's like Siuying said, it's a risk.
I don't cheat, and I don't rat other people out for cheating, but I get a warm fuzzy schadenfreudian feeling when people get busted like this.
I thought it was dual degree program, but that doesn't seem to fit in this context with everyone bringing up race. :P
Oh well you deserve what you get for taking a class with him
But yea, he takes the AD stuff way too seriously (digging through 3 years worth of assignments to find similarities). Hey, this guy assigned x = 1 and this guy assigned y = 1! He must've just changed the variable name and passed it as his own. Then he summarizes his report and e-mails it to the whole faculty. Too bad he teaches it at least 2/3 of the time every year.