When I was in graduate school, I remember coming across a quote that said, in effect, school is where children learn that helping their neighbor is cheating. I think I read it in an early work by my former advisor, but cannot say so with 100 percent certainty, which I regret. Nevertheless, I thought about that sentiment this past month when I heard about the alleged cheating that occurred at Harvard University. This story gained some national media attention for a while, which one would expect given Harvard’s long-storied and Ivy League pedigree. As details slowly emerged, I began to wonder about the parameters of the assessment on which the students allegedly cheated. It turns out that the assessment was a take-home exam for an introduction to government course on which students were allowed to use their course books, class notes, and even Internet resources, but were not to discuss the test with anyone. For the record, I do not know the faculty person who administered this test for his class and have no further knowledge of the matter than what I have read in different media outlets. As an educator, however, I think I can state with some confidence that the test itself was flawed as an assessment.
The main purpose of any educational assessment should be to provide students the opportunity to demonstrate what the know and what they can do with what they know as a result of learning particular course content and developing the skills commiserate with that content. For example, physics faculty should expect their students to demonstrate their knowledge of particular principles of physics and apply those principles to differing scenarios to show they know and can apply those concepts to solve a problem or achieve an outcome.
Education by its very nature is a collaborative endeavor. Students’ depth of understanding increases when they have the opportunity to discuss theories, ideas, or concepts with one another. They then can demonstrate that deeper understanding through different modalities, whether it is a written test, presentation, simulation, or debate. Unfortunately, education by cooperation increasingly is no longer an acceptable pedagogical approach. Education through competition continues to gain currency.
Education through competition undergirds the penalties states and school districts incur for not meeting the nearly-impossible-to-meet Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) on standardized tests as required by No Child Left Behind. Education through competition also is at the core of the Obama administration’s Race to the Top initiative. It also is behind misguided calls for merit pay for teachers, which likely would result in teachers hoarding their best lessons and methods from their colleagues to get a bigger share of incentive pay pot at the end of the year, thus serving neither students nor teachers.
To be clear, I am not saying that the Harvard students are innocent of violating standards of academic integrity. If legitimate instances of plagiarism exist, for instance, the University should take the necessary steps to minimize it from occurring again. What does seem evident, however, is that the desire to achieve on misguided, poorly developed, or otherwise poorly executed assessments in an ever-increasing competitive environment is driving more and more academically talented students (and some teachers) to challenge academic standards of behavior.
Here’s hoping the responses at least are more pedagogically sound than the assessments.
