Is it a crime to help peers or double check answers? During a test, helping others is referred to as cheating, but what about in the case of a homework assignment?
In 2008, Chris Avenir started a study group on Facebook where students could post their answers to a take-home assignment. The Ryerson University student was surprised to find himself in trouble.
Despite the chemistry department wanting Avenir expelled, he ended up receiving a zero on the assignment and had to attend a workshop on academic integrity.
Durham College’s policy on academic integrity states that academic dishonesty can refer to collaborating without permission. However, during many class assignments, students work together or bounce ideas off each other.
It is assumed that if the teacher does not prohibit speaking during the class, then there is permission to speak. Students don’t often ask for consent, but it seems as though the college is claiming that students are committing an act of academic dishonesty by not seeking permission to speak.
Now, Avenir is at the head of a $10-million class-action lawsuit against Ryerson University, with an interesting outcome in sight.
Where is the line drawn between helping a peer and cheating? There are several rights for Durham College students that argue in favour of Avenir’s case, as well as many other cases.
Students have the right to freedom of expression, individually or in groups. Once teachers hand out an assignment and tell the students they have permission to take it home, teachers are indirectly giving consent for students to co-operate with their peers. When students have left the classroom, they are no longer under the teacher’s supervision.
Whether an assignment is worth 10 per cent or 50 per cent of the student’s final mark, students will seize the opportunity to better their marks by sharing their opinions with others.
Many students form study groups at a library or at a friend’s house. In Avenir’s case, he chose to create a study group online. And why not? In the technological era, technology should be utilized.
An online study group is no different than a study group at a library. If professors want independent work done, it should be done in the classroom, under their complete supervision.
In the classroom, student responsibilities include contributing positively to the learning environment. Avenir took his responsibility one step further and created a positive learning environment outside school for his peers.
Creating an online study group gave students the opportunity to get positive feedback on their work.
In addition, they would have been able to receive feedback with assignments and help with study notes for tests. It would not be the first online group for students to exchange course information.
In every argument, the policies are those of the school and students should not be penalized for actions taken outside school.
If the student had formed a library study group rather than one online, the professors would never know. Instead, professors should take pride in knowing their students are working together to achieve success.
