Are we creating a generation who cannot be trusted, or are
we setting them up for failure? That is the major question everyone should be
asking themselves. The concept of this series is twofold: we admit plagiarism
is a problem, however, the tool in which academia is using to combat this
problem is more a detriment to society than a student simply forgetting to cite
a source.
Back in high school, we all had to read Nathaniel
Hawthorne's "The Scarlet Letter" wherein the main character, Hester
Prynne, had a child conceived from an adulterous affair and was branded with
the letter "A". Throughout the story, Hester tries to repent but no
one will accept her. She is shunned by
society and forced to live a life of despair while trying to raise her child.
In today's society, a student who is accused of plagiarism is essentially
branded for life with the letter "P" in their permanent academic
record. Their punishment is simple - no longer trustworthy on any level. Their
future is slim, and thrown off the track they were meant to travel, all because
of an academic tool used by a lazy teacher that flags a paper produced by a
student who forgot to cite a source, or who uses the same English Language in
constructing points or phrases that are too similar to ones used before in a
vast, expansive database.
This past week, we have brought to your attention many
issues regarding the new black plague – plagiarism – and the detection tool a majority
of high schools and colleges are using, called TurnItIn. As a result of the use of such a tool, we
have now created a generation that is considered guilty before they start to
write one sentence. Every teacher in every classroom who uses this academic
tool believes the tool will help them do their job more effectively. Instead,
TurnItIn creates a sense of distrust of inspired students who wish to graduate
with a good grade to experience all that the learning environment can offer
them.
The classroom is supposed to be a place where a child learns
history, science, math and English, along with the creative aspects of music,
art and literature. Instead, it has become a breeding ground for stress,
dishonor and distrust by the very individuals who wished to become a teacher
and inspiration to the next generation.
A student strives to gain good marks, but makes a clerical mistake
and is now suspected of being a liar, a cheater, and grouped in with those who
are lazy usurpers of the ideas of others within the classroom. Could their
mistake be a cry for help with their academic work, which deserves attention
and consideration? Not in our society where everyone is looking for an easy way
out of doing homework, life and politics. Society is breeding liars and
cheaters, therefore, everyone must be guilty, at least to some degree.
Isn’t the quintessential role of public education to meet
each student where they are and inspire them to rise above? Shouldn’t the
plagiarist who is actually a defeatist be given another chance at academic
relevance? Do they not deserve the opportunity to learn? Mistakes are made
every day. Therefore, learning from those mistakes is the key to learning
wisdom as we get older. To be accused of dishonesty at an early age, by their
teacher, their school, and even their parents is detrimental to a young mind.
But to be accused, based on a computer program, raises the bar of destroying a
student's creative juices and locking them in a box of distrust they can never
crawl out of in the future.
Is it not the role of the teacher, or the administration, to
help them correct their course in life, and help them get back on track to
trusting in their own abilities of producing favorable work that taps into
their own creativity? Where is the trust placed in each student to do better,
aim higher, produce work without making mistakes the next time? Where is the
trust in each teacher to be able to guide a student to greater educational awareness
of their own abilities? The student is placed with each individual teacher for
a year or a semester at a time. Should it not be the goal of each instructor to
guide each student to dig deep into their creative minds to produce their own
work, instead of relying on other people’s efforts out of laziness, lack of
confidence, or blatant dishonesty?
$$$Instead, we run student's through the wringer when a
computer program flags them for plagiarism. The TurnItIn system flags a
positive result of cheating. The student is then put on trial, without the
benefit of a lawyer to defend them and where their integrity is suspect. The opinion
of the system, in this case an uncaring algorithm in a database far far away,
gives the final verdict on whether that student may continue their academic or
professional career. TurnItIn is defined as plagiarism detection software, but
somewhere along the line it has been elevated to judge, jury, and executioner.
The student is no longer welcomed or trusted in his future academic career.
Business careers that depend on integrity won’t give this student a second
look. The very system that was supposed to help catch mistakes in student
essays has as a substitute, discouraged original thought. Therefore, instead of
teaching, the system has failed the student through a ‘one-strike, you’re out’
philosophy of intellectual scrutiny and ad-hoc justice. It represents a sort of
“shoot first, ask questions later” mentality when it comes to academic
dishonesty.
How did we get here? Where did we go wrong? And what are the
implications on the next generation of learners, educators and workers? It all
starts with a highly illogical and inaccurate pattern of thought that we will
call the ‘Snowflake Theory’. TurnItIn works off the basic premise that every
student is capable of completely original thought. Correlations to works that
have come before are highlighted and broadcast for all to see. It comes from
the thought that every student has a writing style and mastery over words like
an FBI fingerprint database – no two are alike. This is simply not the case:
The student’s admissions essay for Boston University’s MBA
program was about persevering in the business world. “I have worked for
organizations in which the culture has been open and nurturing, and for others
that have been elitist. In the latter case, arrogance becomes pervasive,
straining external partnerships.”
Another applicant’s essay for UCLA’s Anderson School of
Management was about his father. He “worked for organizations in which the
culture has been open and nurturing, and for others that have been elitist. In
the latter case, arrogance becomes pervasive, straining external partnerships.”
Sound familiar? The Boston University student’s essay was
written in 2003 and had been posted at businessweek.com. The UCLA applicant was
rejected this year—for plagiarism. –January 30, 2012
In the above example, could the UCLA admissions board really
suspect the student of analyzing and gleaning information from every published
student essay over the past eight years? What if that student’s computer was
analyzed and proved the student had no awareness of the prior published essay
in Boston? Or what if that prospective student, aware or unaware, still decided
that the words used in his essay were the best words to use to get his point
across, regardless of whether those words were used and published before? Does
he not have access to the same mastery of the English language or business
buzz-words that others have used before him?
In combating the sin of plagiarism, have we created an
academic TSA-like industry of intrusion and distrust of every student, even the
90-95% likely never to plagiarize? Just what type of message are we hoping to
send to this generation of students? What is the goal of academia? Is it to
produce a generation of fear-mongers, reticent to trust their bosses, their
spouses, and their elected leaders because of the mass scrutiny given to the
small percentage of those not worthy of trust? Or is this one act of academic
indiscretion a forgivable offense? Can they ever be trusted again? Or is it,
like in love, “Once a cheater, always a cheater”? The professor essentially
tells each bright-eyed student upon entry to this wasteland of trust that each
student is designed to eventually cheat, so we've put up safeguards to ensure
those that do will be caught and prosecuted to the highest degree. Is this not
setting our students up for failure? Or worse, has this mistrust ultimately created
an academic environment of failure before a student has a chance to graduate? The
line of distrust goes both ways, lazy students are the result of lazy teachers!
Academia on all levels don’t question the system, they
question the student. The burden of proof is on the student, even if the
student is completely innocent. Correlation does not mean malicious intent on
part of the student. But because a paper has been flagged under the TurnItIn
system, submitted by the teacher or admissions board as cheating, and the
student is left with the responsibility and burden of fighting for their
innocence. And TurnItIn will hide behind the integrity of the academic
environment, which has much more experience in producing original work than the
individual student, in this manner. Students are left with little options,
little resources or credibility, and may find themselves fighting an uphill
battle against academia – road kill on the information superhighway.
Distrust breeds an ‘Idiocracy’
of Students
Much has been debated over a seemingly altruistic piece of
legislation known as the ‘No Child Left Behind’ Act of 2001. The goal of this
legislation was to encourage every state to assess the basic skills through
standardized testing to ensure a student or a school is meeting the standard.
However, the actual achievement of that goal, based on the consequences set out
for failing schools, will only be realized by measuring over time. The same can
be said for TurnItIn. We do not know the full academic ramifications of turning
teachers and administrators against their students. We cannot fully realize the
intellectual capital that is lost by shutting the doors of the academic
environment to those with a past based on a mistake flagged by a piece of
technology. We may never know if academia has turned away the next Einstein, or
Copernicus, due to a false positive made by a database system that works on
fuzzy logic. We may never understand that the very mechanism we employ to
combat plagiarism is discouraging original thought and academic excellence out
of a student’s fear of classification as a cheater.
“We have met the enemy and he is us.” – Walt Kelly
Next: The End of Free
Thinking – What do we Get when we Brand our Students?
No comments:
Post a Comment