Gordon goes on to clarify that "It's more than a fail, it's a failure with a particular reason that is publicly announced that may well be seen by potential employers."A quick review of the comments section suggests that the debate is largely about whether or not "cheaters" should be punished, professors should act as cops, and schools should work to develop assignments that cannot be cheated on.Dr. Rob Gordon, director of criminology at SFU and acting chair of the senate committee on academic integrity, says the new grading is intended to curtail cheating using the internet.
"What used to be a lot of cheating in libraries has changed quite significantly," he told ctvbc.ca.
"We now have to be concerned about cheating during exams with high-tech devices and the inappropriate use of internet sources and downloading, including online companies offering services to students that promote academic dishonesty."
University department chairs can impose the FD grade if they feel the incident warrants a severe penalty, or if the student has landed themselves in academic hot water in the past.
"They only use this grade in particularly egregious cases of dishonestly or in cases when they've committed acts of dishonesty several times and haven't learned from their lesson," Gordon said.
The mark, which has yet to be used in its introductory semester, will stay on the student's transcripts for two years after graduation.
I think there is a greater point here that is worthy of debate: What exactly is "cheating" in the internet age? Information technology is changing rapidly and these changes clearly have a profound impact on how we access, understand, and apply information. Shouldn't our education system try to keep up with these changes?
Of course, our school system is not the only system that is struggling to adapt to how use of information is changing. The media provides another example of such a system. In the past year we have seen an increase of cries of "foul" against bloggers, with some arguing that bloggers are not "real" journalists. While there is no central authority that can give bloggers who link to articles and content written by other people (as I have done above) a grade of FD, discussions of removing the ability to link to articles seeks to accomplish the same result as the new grading system. In response, what bloggers and others argue is that the content is being credited/cited through the link and original content through analysis is being produced. Through this example alone, we see how traditional understandings of text and content, based in the world of print information, conflict with new conceptions of text and the ways in which new technologies allow us to apply information differently.
In the case of schools, the solution to the "problem" has been to devise a system of punishment in the hopes that this will defer students cheating. One might question (and I do) if this is a solution at all--it relies on the ability of professors to catch the cheater, inherently rewards sneakier and more creative cheating innovations, and perpetuates traditional uses of information many of which may be becoming increasingly obsolete in the world beyond formal education. Instead of seeking to punish, what about looking towards positive alternatives that work to help schools adapt to how information is changing?
Let's imagine a system that works to innovate when faced with a changing student body. I imagine a school system that teachers students how to evaluate internet sources for credibility (studies suggest that we as a population, and students in particular, are not very adept at this skill), teaches students how to cite sources on the internet and from traditional print texts, and works to create assignments that adapt to the realities of how information is found and used and encourages creativity in this realm.
