I gave my students a take home exam over spring break. (This is normal where I teach) One of the questions was particulary difficult. It came down to a factor of three in the solution. That factor inexplicably appeared with no justification on many of their exams. I intend to have the students I suspect of cheating come to my office to solve the problem on the board. What would you do?
Edit: I gave them the Tuesday before spring break until the Thursday after. I didn’t want it to be right before or right after.
When I say normal I mean giving take home exams.
A bigger picture may be; why is sending kids home for break with homework. It is my opinion, that people learn better when they actually have a break during their break. in my opinion, this is a tactic to prepare kids to think its normal to work all the time. That breaks are never actually breaks.
See edit please
If you don’t want students to work together and learn from each other don’t give home assignments. It’s not like they won’t be able to work together irl
Nothing.
Having any homework for the holidays is already enough. Of course most of them would just want to have that gone ASAP.Leave it. Life’s hard enough, just let em have the W before the real world bursts their bubbles more.
Wait, you gave them work over their spring break? What the fuck?? Let them have a damn break!
Do nothing, first of all any homework is open book, no buts
Second of all it comes down to not being a dick
You do realise that even if they do cheat, since its a take home you likely won’t face any negative consequence, its just a win win in general
Yeah you have a take home test over the holidays, fuck that
You will probably get better answers if you ask this in a community dedicated to teaching/professors. Posting on general asklemmy seems like you’re going to get flamed a bit.
I gave my students a take home exam over spring break. (This is normal where I teach)
That is rough. Nothing you can do about it this time, but, in the future, I wouldn’t recommend giving work over break even if others are doing so. Breaks are there for a reason.
It came down to a factor of three in the solution. That factor inexplicably appeared with no justification on many of their exams.
It’s hard to say without seeing exactly what you mean, but this sounds a little flimsy. You want to be pretty sure before you accuse someone of cheating. You can always just mark the answer as wrong if they didn’t prove to you that they understand it.
I intend to have the students I suspect of cheating come to my office to solve the problem on the board. What would you do?
If I strongly suspected cheating, I would probably do something like that. Just be aware that the environment is different from a paper exam, so you need to be lenient. They are not used to standing in front of a board and working while someone watches. Also, a problem on a take-home exam could be worked on for hours, whereas you presumably expect them to do it quickly. You may need to give them the solution they wrote and see whether they can explain it to you. Or, give them most of the solution, but have them fill in some missing details that they should know if they actually did the problem.
Also, as others have said, there was no cheating unless you were very clear on what resources were allowed and not allowed on the exam.
FWIW, I do strongly disagree with the folks who are saying that any take-home exam should be open-everything. The argument that you will be able to do it in your career doesn’t hold water. School isn’t the workplace. Students are working on simple problems to build up skills that they can use to solve more complicated problems later on. If people want workplace rules about collaboration in the classroom, then the problems need to be scaled up accordingly. In many schools, that does happen later in the curriculum with things like senior projects or some project-based upper-level courses. But, teaching that way from the start wouldn’t give students the time and support they need to gradually improve, so allowed resources need to be scaled back accordingly to account for the deliberate oversimplification of the problems.
On a more personal note, sorry that you have to deal with this. Everyone can appreciate that the situation is tough for the students, but a lot of people don’t realize that dealing with cheating is also very stressful and disheartening for teachers.
I think this is a really good, well-measured answer. The only thing keeping it from being perfect is your bit defending the idea that a take-home exam is not open-book. I think the reply from @livus@kbin.social is excellent here. Any assessment needs to be tailored to the goals of the assessment. A take-home exam is one where the teacher has no ability to restrict a student’s access to their books or the Internet. So they shouldn’t even try. The questions should be tailored to test their understanding of the underlying principles, or even better, should encourage their ability to do research.
Sure, just posting the entire question on Stack Exchange and blindly repeating the answer you get there is cheating. But you need to actually think about the format of the assessment and play to its strengths, not try to ignore them. If you want a closed book exam, have a traditional exam with an invigilator.
Thanks for the reply! I figured that bit would be the sticky point. I tend to give long answers, so let me start by saying that I really struggle with that bit and, although I don’t fully agree, I see your point and acknowledge that I may be wrong here. I don’t want to argue, but I do want to clarify my thoughts and maybe have a dialogue if you’re interested.
First, I want to clarify between two reasons I see when people are posting about this that are distinct but can sometimes get muddied: (1) “real life” is open note, so schoolwork should be too; (2) it is impractical to stop students from using their notes (or whatever) at home, so even if it would be helpful in theory, it just disadvantages honest students in practice.
I strongly disagree with (1) for the reasons in my original post. That’s the main thing that had me somewhat annoyed and led me to post that probably unnecessary section of my previous post. You don’t seem to be arguing for (1), so I’ll just leave that be, but I wanted to clarify for the benefit of anyone else reading. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but (2) seems closer to what you are saying, so I’ll talk about that for now.
As far as (2), I agree, but accepting that wholly runs teachers into another practical issue: in-person time constraints. If I want to test a student’s ability to, say, complete a complicated proof, then putting the time constraint and pressure of a 1 or 1.5 hour exam may be unfair and arbitrary. So, if I need my exams to be in-class and proctored, then I might not be able to test the skills that I am actually teaching, and students tend to dislike that as well. It feels like we’re forced into a choice of either giving a fair exam at home and trusting students or giving a time-pressured or trivialized exam in class. Neither option feels great, but, to me, this makes the take-home exam and trust at least seem like a reasonable option.
The questions should be tailored to test their understanding of the underlying principles, or even better, should encourage their ability to do research.
This is a really good idea. However, without assuming at least some honesty from the students, I don’t think there is really any defending against the methods of just asking the other students or posting the paraphrased question somewhere the teacher won’t see, so it feels like it brings us back to take-home work being impossible, which is a bummer of an endpoint.
Some of it may also come down to “has no ability to restrict…” (emphasis mine). When I used to teach, I taught programming. Although I could not restrict their access to resources outside class, I could detect cheating better than they would expect, and I warned them about this beforehand. I think that if students believe being caught is a credible threat, then it can alleviate that feeling of “if I don’t cheat, I’m just letting everyone else look better than me,” and it makes following the rules a reasonable option. Despite all my rambling above, I probably would not give a take-home exam if I didn’t believe I could detect cheating with at least moderate probability. So, in OP’s case of (presumably) physics, I probably wouldn’t do it. In the end, maybe we don’t even disagree at all in this case. (Edit: I meant to add this link: What it looks like when students copy code . Just a funny take on what I used to see sometimes.)
Tough questions like this are one of the (many) reasons I no longer teach, so bear in mind that this is all just the view of a washed-up former professor :)
(Also, I learned the word “invigilator” today, so thanks for that)
Yeah so I definitely don’t believe in (1). (1) would imply that closed-book exams should never be applied, ever, which I think is silly.
(2) is a pretty good summary of my position here.
If I want to test a student’s ability to, say, complete a complicated proof
So, I think this comes down to the question of what are exams good at, and what are assignments good at. If it takes longer than about 2 hours, it’s probably just not a good topic for exam-like assessment. Exams, whether completely closed-book, completely open-book, or somewhere in between (“one page of notes” seems fairly common), specifically test someone’s ability to work under time constraints, which in turn necessarily means it’s also testing their ability to focus in addition to testing their actual understanding of the subject. Up to about 2 hours, that seems reasonable, but when you get too long, it starts getting unfair because the “focus” aspect starts outweighing the “understanding of the subject”.
And if time isn’t a constraint, and you allow them to work on it at their own pace over a week or more, well…that’s just the definition of an assignment. In the modern world, I’ll concede that assignments are very tricky. When I was in uni I regularly used Stack Overflow for some of my programming assignments, finding pre-existing answers to specific aspects of problems I had, in precisely the same way that today as a professional software engineer I often end up on SO. A couple of times in uni, I even asked questions on SO. Though these were not just asking the whole assignment on SO, but instead a narrow, focused problem I was facing. In my opinion, this should be considered acceptable.
What should not be acceptable is if someone puts the entire assignment up on SO and asks someone to solve it for them. I actually saw that once, when it came up as I was searching for help myself. They didn’t get useful answers, thankfully.
And then there’s a fuzzy line as to exactly how much help it should be acceptable to get, and I don’t know how to draw that line.
Closed-book exams are useful because they test a student’s ability to work under pressure and they test how well the student understands the information. Assignments are good because they test a student’s ability to apply their understanding at a much deeper level when working on a larger problem.
But what’s the value in a take-home exam, if we assume that the intent is to be closed-book but with effectively unlimited time? Presumably that means it’s a problem roughly on the scale of an assignment, but they’re not meant to be able to look up their notes, review the lecture material, etc.? I just don’t understand what the point of that is. So even taking the practicalities of enforcing it out of the equation, I just don’t think it’s a worthwhile thing to do for a problem of such a scale. But when you do add in the practicalities, it becomes far clearer: much better to just let them use what resources are available and make it an assignment rather than an exam.
What it looks like when students copy code
For what it’s worth, I’ve seen first hand that code copy-detection tools are honestly not actually all that great. Yeah, if they’re stupid enough to just rename some variables and move some lines around, they’ll get caught. But if you do even a moderate amount of refactoring—breaking some pieces into different functions, un-breaking-out some other material from methods into one big method, finding a set of variables that previously got used together and turning them into a class—even if the actual underlying steps the code is taking end up identical, the tools get fooled and the plagiarism is not detected. It’s a classic case of how criminals (in this case, plagiarists—obviously not technically criminal) tend to be really stupid and that’s the only reason they get caught.
Also, I learned the word “invigilator” today, so thanks for that
I’m actually not 100% sure on what “proctor” means, but based on how I’ve seen it used in this thread, I gather the two are the same? Proctor being American-English while invigilator is British- and Australian-English.
Whoa – I assumed I would get a notification when you replied, but apparently not. Glad I checked the thread again!
But what’s the value in a take-home exam, if we assume that the intent is to be closed-book but with effectively unlimited time? Presumably that means it’s a problem roughly on the scale of an assignment, but they’re not meant to be able to look up their notes, review the lecture material, etc.?
Interesting point! I definitely see where you’re coming from here… If I gave a take-home exam, I would want students to use their notes, some online resources, etc. I just wouldn’t want them to copy an exact answer from online or other students. That may just be impractical today.
For what it’s worth, I’ve seen first hand that code copy-detection tools are honestly not actually all that great.
100% agree. I had small enough classes that I could check for plagiarism more directly. And, what you said later is spot on – I think most students who cheated were not subtle enough to make hard-to-detect changes. Though, if they were, I wouldn’t know they cheated, so… hard to say.
I’m actually not 100% sure on what “proctor” means, but based on how I’ve seen it used in this thread, I gather the two are the same?
Yep! Based on an online dictionary that said “proctor” was the US version of invigilator :)
Anyway, you make some great points, so thanks for the discussion!
I assumed I would get a notification when you replied, but apparently not
Yeah, that happens sometimes to me, too. It’s incredibly frustrating.
There has to be evidence of their process for me to accept it as evidence of understanding/ability. I have made it clear to them that this is necessary. Their job is to convince me that they know what they’re doing. (But… I’m teaching HS Mathematics). So … I’d mark it wrong/incomplete. I’m also working on student understanding of consequences of their actions, so wouldn’t give them another opportunity on that exam. They would need to improve things on the next exam.
Throw the question out, but offer extra credit to anyone who can show their work.
Hold an in class quiz with essentially the same problem but with different values. The students that actually worked through the problem should be able to do it again with the changes. Those who didn’t understand and just put down what their peers got will struggle with a quiz. Bonus points if you can restructure the problem in a way to elucidate which specific aspects you think the students were skipping over with help from their peers. Feel free to have specific requirements assigned point values in the problem statement.
Don’t call them into your office and put them on the spot. That will make this adversarial. Your job is to teach them how to solve problems and communicate their methods in a clear fashion. You should reevaluate your problem writing and grading policies if just looking up answers can earn a passing grade. If you give a quiz, be up front with them that you have concerns about some students skipping the work and copying answers. Reiterate that the point of the exam was to make sure they can solve problems, the correct answer is merely a byproduct.
I will add speculation that there is a difference between what your students think you expect from an answer and what your expectations actually are. Mismatches in expectations are immensely frustrating for both parties. So don’t leave your students guessing. Give them specific examples of work of different quality and what aspects earn full points and what things might lead to point deductions. Some of the best professors I had would publish all the prior year exams with their solutions. That gave everyone the opportunity to mimic the workflow and match the level of detail expected. That also elliminates the concern of students finding the answers online or from prior year students for exams as the teacher will have had to avoid reused questions entirely.
That’s a terrible thing to be considered normal. Those students were on break, on vacation. I didn’t do work for my job when I was on vacation! I hate cheating, but I hate that you made them take an exam on break even more.
Edit: “Class, I see some of you did not understand the way I require work to be shown. For this reason, I will reteach my requirements. Those of you who did not understand will be given an opportunity to retake the exam.”
I’d praise them for answering the difficult question correctly and then ask if they’d mind giving a short presentation to the class on how they reached to solution… for tomorrow’s class.
You’re highlighting the issue. Allowing them to save face. And now they’re forced to really understand it well enough to give a lesson on it to their classmates.
I wouldn’t do anything. Your job is to teach, not to discipline. Your students can choose to do or not do whatever work you set them; it’s their education and their choice. Ultimately cheating only affects them and their learning.
Also, seconding the fact that if you give people a graded take home exam that implies open book (including the internet and each other)
I appreciate the feedback. Even the negative feedback. You guys really think I’m some kind of asshole 🤣. I typed this from my phone in bed, so now that I’m at a keyboard, let me explain fully.
When I said I gave the exam over spring break, I didn’t mean it began at the beginning of spring break and ended at the end of it. That time was available for them to work on it. When I give exams, I give them a little over a week. From Tuesday to Thursday the following week. In this case, it began the Tuesday before spring break and ended the Thursday after. The reason I did this is because, like many of you, I remember papers being due immediately before or right at the end of breaks. By saying I gave it over spring break, I meant I gave them plenty of time.
I am very clear what is and is not permitted for an exam in my syllabus. They get an equation sheet, the allotted time, and they can work with a partner. Nothing else. Except for AI in which case they must screenshot everything. This is mostly for my curiosity. It still doesn’t work for physics.
When I say normal at my institution, I mean to give a take home exam. I wasn’t deviating from the norm by doing this, and it is the way I typically do it. As we have all experienced, you may have a day when you have 3 exams. Maybe that happens to only a few students. It disproportionately effects them. Giving this time, they can work it into their schedules.
So what did I see that constitutes cheating? It’s very clear to me that the students used solutions from Chegg and/or other sites. If you’ve done this sort of thing with code, you know that folks will change the names of the variables, but not the structure or logic. It reads exactly the same. That was the case here. A few students were so (hilariously) guilty of cheating, they actually rewrote the solution to a similar, but different problem. Those problems had a different number of parts!
This is not my first time doing this. I’ve done this at several other universities. In those cases, I didn’t have the issue of cheating, so I don’t have a very explicit cheating policy in my syllabus. I’m taking the advice that some have given and giving them credit for what they’ve done. I will however be telling them on Tuesday (a conversation I am NOT looking forward to having) that I know many of them cheated, that I have evidence of it, and that I will refer them to the honor council should it happen again.
The part that sucks the most is I trust students. Having done this before, I’ve found that if you trust students, respect them, they in turn respect your expectations. Given how blatant this cheating is, it feels like a betrayal. Thanks again to everyone who replied, it has given me plenty to think on.
I think getting them to show their work is appropriate and for any that can’t replicate their work explain to them the downfalls of cheating. The other comments here justifying likely haven’t ever been in an academic setting. Relying on cheating is setting yourself up for failure if you intend to continue studying at a tertiary level.
I don’t think a punishment is necessary for cheaters just a lecture. Let them know people can and have had their degrees rescinded years after the fact when their cheating was detected with newer methods.
Edit: downvotes for suggesting that cheating is bad lmao. Like I said cheating at uni is easily detected these days. Fuck the getting caught, you’re paying however much to get an education, you may as well actually learn.
I am one of “the other comments”, I have a masters in physics, a PhD in bioengineering, postdoctoral work with respiratory diseases, have taught undergraduate and graduate level courses, and currently work in R&D for a huge biotech company. Rest assured I know the academic setting, what the students allegedly did is not only fine, it is smart and good practice IRL
I’ll take your word for it. At the institution I’m currently at and my former one this is academic misconduct as it isn’t your own work. I’m real suss on anyone claiming to have a phd while suggesting methods that essentially introduce a potential time bomb for your degree. May as well actually learn how to learn if you’re going to uni but hey that’s just my (apparently red hot) take.