Dozens of Reported Plagiarism Incidents On Coursera's Free Online Courses 210
An anonymous reader writes "The discussion forums in Coursera's Massive Open Online Courses are full of talk of plagiarism these days. 'Plagiarized essay — so disheartening,' said one post. 'Continued Plagiarism in the Assignments,' says another. Students are cheating even though the courses carry no credit. Plagiarism-detection software may be in the future, the company's leaders say."
Any worse than elsewhere? (Score:4, Interesting)
Is there any reason to believe that the problem is any worse at Coursera than at meatspace universities? When I was at NGCSU, there was apparently enough of an issue with plagiarism that more than one professor spent a whole class period on discussing the issue, and a centralized system (Turnitin.com) was used to detect the most blatant forms of cheating.
Re:Any worse than elsewhere? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:No. People are stupid (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:No. People are ignorant (Score:5, Interesting)
THIS. In a college English classroom, intro level classes, the first MONTH is spent explaining to the students what plagiarism is, and what it isn't.
I don't know where the attitude of "copy and paste != plagiarism" came from (I have theories see below if you want), but it is prevalent. If I had a dollar for each student who "just borrowed" a line or two from other papers or other sources, I wouldn't be a teacher anymore, I'd have a self-funded space program.
My theory about that attitude comes in the form of easy and quick = best. That, above all else is the attitude in today's US society. If it's easy, if it's quick, it must be good. What we're seeing is the disposable consumer culture translated into an educational setting. That is all my opinion and is not rooted in anything outside of my personal experience.
Re:No. People are ignorant (Score:2, Interesting)
I can tell you where the idea comes from. It comes from the idiotic idea that doing a research paper on a topic that has already been researched a million times before is useful in any way shape or form. It comes from the notion that you can teach PROPER research procedures on dummy(fake/psuedo) research projects.
IF you want to fix the problem, fix the process. Make it REAL research, on things that matter to the kids. Yeah that means more work for teachers, but teachers are supposed to be teaching, and not teaching by rote.
I remember reading books, and doing book reports only to get C's and D's until I discovered CLIFF NOTES. I then did a papers based on those and got B's and C's, and it was much easier. Guess what, I never read the books again. Was the goal of those papers to teach writing or make sure you read the books, or something else? Because it didn't teach me anything of the sort, it taught me that if someone else has done the work, you use that. It also taught me to not do papers on things that didn't interest me at all. Perhaps that was the lesson I was supposed to learn ;)
Re:So (Score:5, Interesting)
"Who are you? 500 words."
Re:Any worse than elsewhere? (Score:4, Interesting)
Online courses like this are just another way to deliver an education to those easiest to educate. Those that are motivated, can learn well from lectures and books, will take the time in recitation and practice, and will seek out peers and mentors. Before online courses these people learned from libraries, auditing courses, or just forming connections with knowledgable people. They would carry their desks to school, and spend thier teenage years figuring out how to fund college, sometimes traveling to foreign countries to do so.
I am not saying the online courses are useless. They may very well bring an educational opportunity to motivated persons who did not otherwise have the resources. What I am saying is that we might consider applying the adage that if we are successful if we manage to educate one additional person. I know this is not PC in the no child left behind, but it is perfectly consistent with race to the top, where we encourage all students and provide all possible resources to maximums potential. So the dicks who want to go through courses and cheat are as inconsequential as the dicks in college who cheated in high school and spend all day bragging about their high GPA. It does not effect the personal learning of those who want to learn.
At some point it is not the responsibility of the school to babysit the kids. It is the responsibility of the school to provide valid learning opportunities, and the students are responsible to make use of those opportunities. The world will punish those who screw up. I was recently at a presentation at a major engineering firm and it was stated that they hire as many graduates as they can, but the new hires have only months to learn the job and prove they can apply this knowledge. Do you think that your friends are going to help you cheat when six figures are involved and competition is fierce? Even at telemarketing jobs I have seen 300 page binders that are expected to be assimilated in two weeks, and then employees given two more weeks to start producing. For $10 an hour.
So no, online courses should not be singled out for cheating. But they are not going to be the means of overall educational savings. As the students who are easy to educate get filtered out to these other learning opportunities, more money per student is going to be needed to educate those who are more resistant. IMHO, this is the key to the whole debate. Online education is going to be a critical part of training kids, but it is no silver bullet.
Re:No. People are stupid (Score:5, Interesting)
Given how you express "the point of education," I don't believe you are entirely in outer space. That said, (and at great karmic peril)...
Your provocative "stake in the sand" is nothing but smoke and mirrors. The peg that you hang your hat on and the headline of your opinion is just dreadful. First, you expect the audience to accept your assumption that those who do not maximize their potential do so because they do not value education -- there are no facts in evidence that support your argument. Second, you mistake Populism for Liberalism. Third, you fallaciously munge conflicting ideas of "equal opportunity" with "different rules for different classes" -- monsterous logic. It is distracting, divisive, deceptive, and a flagrant derail of the topic.
1. There is nothing to support a generalization or the causal relationship that people who do not take advantage of education do not value it. Of the many potential alternative challenges, awareness of educational opportunity and access to educational opportunity are key influences on behavior. One simply can not responsibly leap to the conclusion that education is not valued because of the results or outcomes don't meet expectations.
2. You're understanding of "liberal" and "Liberalism" is distorted, ill-formed, and harmful in the echo chamber. With respect, I believe you are either ignorant in the terminology or ignorant in the application of the terminology.
3. Let's be clear about one thing, while there may be philosophical, economic/classical, and social liberals; each with orthodox and progressive advocates -- the foundation of all Liberalism is centered on Enlightenment values put forward by Hobbes, Locke, and Hume who ventured that the fundimental freedom of human beings and the legitimacy of government stems from the consent of the governed.
Put more succinctly, Thomas Jefferson codified core Liberalism into the Declaration of Independence (of the United States): "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the Governed..."
The post hoc argument is vaccuous and vapid... and does nothing to either explain Plagiarism (in the context of this article) or to uplift the dialog about social capacity for intellectual or trade education. I have little doubt that the use of the word "liberal" in this thread is nothing short of literary abomination... much as religious, racial, and orientation labels have been distorted by one faction to be used as hate words for another faction... your madlib rhetoric could just as easily substitute "Catholic" or "Gay" or "Negro" or "Hacker" and been no more (or less) offensive to a marginally representative audience. The argumentation technique is just wrong and has no relevance to the discussion.