21–30 of 124 posts
"But wait, that would require huge amounts of time investment from the professors/TAs"
Yes, it's almost as if paying $65k a year for someone to teach you something should result in that person teaching you that thing instead of just checking in to see if you've learned it on your own.
The article doesn't seem to even consider the possibility of assessing students in some other way than through standardized homeworks which are easily copied. For example, individual projects where everyone in the class is working on something different; or at the other extreme, proctored exams. (Of course, neither of these systems is entirely free from cheating, but the barrier is higher.)
The article doesn't seem to even consider the possibility of assessing students in some other way than through standardized homeworks which are easily copied. For example, individual projects where everyone in the class is working on something different; or at the other extreme, proctored exams. (Of course, neither of these systems is entirely free from cheating, but the barrier is higher.)
For intro-level CS courses, neither one works all that well. You can do that in more advanced (but still undergraduate) courses, but for beginner-level you IMHO need the feedback loop of regular homework. It doesn't have to be strictly graded, but it basically has to be there and at least some enforcement for it actually being done (e.g. handing in homework is required, but it's not a problem if it is doesn't actuall…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For intro-level CS courses, neither one works all that well. You can do that in more advanced (but still undergraduate) courses, but for beginner-level you IMHO need the feedback loop of regular homework. It doesn't have to be strictly graded, but it basically has to be there and at least some enforcement for it actually being done (e.g. handing in homework is required, but it's not a problem if it is doesn't actuall…
Assess the homework, give them a grade on it but don't have it factor into their final grade at all. Just let the exams / big projects take care of that. If you're regularly failing your homework, it probably means you won't be ready for the exam that actually counts. Which should be enough feedback
You claim
> We have virtually eliminated false positives at this point
but offer no explanation for how you verify this.
You later rant about the fact that students have the audacity to challenge these (very serious) charges and the university actually expects you to follow up when they do. The horror!
IMO it's your system of senseless programming exercises and automated grading that is broken. Instructors need to put in the time and effort and assign homework where students have to actually think and be creative, rather than reuse the same assignments for the 10th year running and be shocked when submissions turn out to be similar.
It was my senior year, and I attended a systems programming course that was being piloted and was very challenging. Work in the CS department was very group heavy, especially in courses heavy on theory. I benefited a ton from working with groups with other students outside of class. In your data structures/theory/math courses, this wasn't an issue - But in this class in particular, peoples submissions started to look similar.
It was resolved rather quickly because we just had to be honest, but I thought it was interesting - Specifically because, in classes that were so challenging heavy collaboration was what pulled me through, I barely remember the course content anymore. But, the soft skills I acquired from hours of collaborating with my peers after class hours has followed me for life and made a noticeable impact on my career.
The article doesn't seem to even consider the possibility of assessing students in some other way than through standardized homeworks which are easily copied. For example, individual projects where everyone in the class is working on something different; or at the other extreme, proctored exams. (Of course, neither of these systems is entirely free from cheating, but the barrier is higher.)
i've always wondered why they don't do something like select a random number of students and ask them to explain their work in an interview with the professor or TA.
i figure, even if they cheated, if they can give a satisfactory explanation, they probably learned the damn thing anyway. plus, you don't have to select even half the students before word gets around that they better understand the work they are turning in.
Otherwise, we'd be promoting collaborative learning and letting those who don't contribute or cheat simply cheat themselves.
College isn't about education, but about signaling your value as a contributor to capitalism. Otherwise, we'd be promoting collaborative learning and letting those who don't contribute or cheat simply cheat themselves.
Most things related to grading support the certification function, not the education function.
Requiring students to submit their VCS history along with the finished project would at least up the cost to the students for copy and pasting. They even hint at that sort of solution in the piece by mentioning cosmetic changes to the files at the last minute.
Was going to post something similar -- to protect myself as a student, I'd quickly adopt git to keep a history of my work. Not that this couldn't be forged... Does git count as a block chain for proof of work? :)
This has so many advantages even beyond defending against plagiarism charges that it really wasn't hard to drive home.
The big advantages being defense against the inevitable computer crash and the inevitable directory deletion.