• If students cheat because they are confused isn't that teacher's fault?
  Qiana Bush, CSUDH
• How would the teacher be able to tell the difference between cheating to avoid performance and cheating because of confusion?
  Jessie Volden and Amanda Heflin, UWP

On February 9, 2000 Qiana Bush wrote about Cheating and Structural Violence:

Prepared! I found letter A to be interesting, abut the most appropriate answer to cheating being viewed as something more than a moral deficiency. It seems that if a student is cheating because they do not fully grasp the concept of their course material then the instructor is at fault.

On February 10, 2000, jeanne answered:

Maybe not at fault, but the communication is a problem in both directions. The student's response is magical and superstitious, both of which I consider more conducive to getting better communication between us than simply considering the student's response as criminal. This is one of the problems with labelling: it leads to oversimplified categorizations and blaming, and often we are wrong in our perceptions. We need to be more aware of mis-communication. jeanne

On Mon, 3 Apr 2000, Jessie Volden and Amanda Heflin wrote:

We just read the paragraph on cheating as magic.  We never thought of cheating in that way before.  But how would the teacher know the difference?

Jessie Volden
Amanda Heflin

On Mon, 3 Apr 2000, ,jeanne answered:

If what we seek is knowledge of the student's thinking, then this view of cheating might not help us. But if what we seek is feedback for both us and the student, the message that comes to us when allegations of cheating arise in reality, or when we suspect that cheating may be going on, then this view of cheating is very helpful. It suggests that there is a problem in communication. Maybe our assignments were not clear. Maybe we are expecting that students have more time than they do in reality. Maybe we are expecting that the students share our motivation, when in fact we need to motivate them. If we consider cheating a call for help, we will be wrong some of the time. Some people are lazy, some people are greedy. But most of our students aren't. They want to learn. Sometimes they don't know how to get us to hear that they are confused without having us get mad at them.

Cheating is one way of stating a validity claim. Not a very good way. But if we hear the claim, then perhaps we can help those who are making it learn to express the claim more effectively, without using the gains offered by taking as theirs what has not been earned by them. The wonderful thing about seeing cheating as a kind of magic is that it helps us understand that a validity claim is being made. Hopefully it will also remind us of our responsiblity to help our students state their claims effectively.

You see, in this light, Jessie and Amanda, it doesn't matter that I can't tell the difference between the greedy, lazy student and the confused student. What matters is that I have changed. I have listened in good faith. And sometimes, when you listen in good faith, a greedy, lazy student turns out to be a solid, happy, unconfused student.

I hope you'll all join in this discussion. Trust me, there are many more questions you should ask. Hopefully, more on this issue itself. Like: How do we feel about catering to the confused need to understand, and ignoring the greed? Do you think the greed will disappear, if we cater to communicating fairly? I'm sorry, there are no real answers. This is public discourse, on real problems, to which we as a people need to seek real answers.

jeanne