this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2024
41 points (73.6% liked)
Asklemmy
43956 readers
1043 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think this is a really good, well-measured answer. The only thing keeping it from being perfect is your bit defending the idea that a take-home exam is not open-book. I think the reply from @livus@kbin.social is excellent here. Any assessment needs to be tailored to the goals of the assessment. A take-home exam is one where the teacher has no ability to restrict a student's access to their books or the Internet. So they shouldn't even try. The questions should be tailored to test their understanding of the underlying principles, or even better, should encourage their ability to do research.
Sure, just posting the entire question on Stack Exchange and blindly repeating the answer you get there is cheating. But you need to actually think about the format of the assessment and play to its strengths, not try to ignore them. If you want a closed book exam, have a traditional exam with an invigilator.
Thanks for the reply! I figured that bit would be the sticky point. I tend to give long answers, so let me start by saying that I really struggle with that bit and, although I don't fully agree, I see your point and acknowledge that I may be wrong here. I don't want to argue, but I do want to clarify my thoughts and maybe have a dialogue if you're interested.
First, I want to clarify between two reasons I see when people are posting about this that are distinct but can sometimes get muddied: (1) "real life" is open note, so schoolwork should be too; (2) it is impractical to stop students from using their notes (or whatever) at home, so even if it would be helpful in theory, it just disadvantages honest students in practice.
I strongly disagree with (1) for the reasons in my original post. That's the main thing that had me somewhat annoyed and led me to post that probably unnecessary section of my previous post. You don't seem to be arguing for (1), so I'll just leave that be, but I wanted to clarify for the benefit of anyone else reading. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but (2) seems closer to what you are saying, so I'll talk about that for now.
As far as (2), I agree, but accepting that wholly runs teachers into another practical issue: in-person time constraints. If I want to test a student's ability to, say, complete a complicated proof, then putting the time constraint and pressure of a 1 or 1.5 hour exam may be unfair and arbitrary. So, if I need my exams to be in-class and proctored, then I might not be able to test the skills that I am actually teaching, and students tend to dislike that as well. It feels like we're forced into a choice of either giving a fair exam at home and trusting students or giving a time-pressured or trivialized exam in class. Neither option feels great, but, to me, this makes the take-home exam and trust at least seem like a reasonable option.
This is a really good idea. However, without assuming at least some honesty from the students, I don't think there is really any defending against the methods of just asking the other students or posting the paraphrased question somewhere the teacher won't see, so it feels like it brings us back to take-home work being impossible, which is a bummer of an endpoint.
Some of it may also come down to "has no ability to restrict..." (emphasis mine). When I used to teach, I taught programming. Although I could not restrict their access to resources outside class, I could detect cheating better than they would expect, and I warned them about this beforehand. I think that if students believe being caught is a credible threat, then it can alleviate that feeling of "if I don't cheat, I'm just letting everyone else look better than me," and it makes following the rules a reasonable option. Despite all my rambling above, I probably would not give a take-home exam if I didn't believe I could detect cheating with at least moderate probability. So, in OP's case of (presumably) physics, I probably wouldn't do it. In the end, maybe we don't even disagree at all in this case. (Edit: I meant to add this link: What it looks like when students copy code . Just a funny take on what I used to see sometimes.)
Tough questions like this are one of the (many) reasons I no longer teach, so bear in mind that this is all just the view of a washed-up former professor :)
(Also, I learned the word "invigilator" today, so thanks for that)
Yeah so I definitely don't believe in (1). (1) would imply that closed-book exams should never be applied, ever, which I think is silly.
(2) is a pretty good summary of my position here.
So, I think this comes down to the question of what are exams good at, and what are assignments good at. If it takes longer than about 2 hours, it's probably just not a good topic for exam-like assessment. Exams, whether completely closed-book, completely open-book, or somewhere in between ("one page of notes" seems fairly common), specifically test someone's ability to work under time constraints, which in turn necessarily means it's also testing their ability to focus in addition to testing their actual understanding of the subject. Up to about 2 hours, that seems reasonable, but when you get too long, it starts getting unfair because the "focus" aspect starts outweighing the "understanding of the subject".
And if time isn't a constraint, and you allow them to work on it at their own pace over a week or more, well...that's just the definition of an assignment. In the modern world, I'll concede that assignments are very tricky. When I was in uni I regularly used Stack Overflow for some of my programming assignments, finding pre-existing answers to specific aspects of problems I had, in precisely the same way that today as a professional software engineer I often end up on SO. A couple of times in uni, I even asked questions on SO. Though these were not just asking the whole assignment on SO, but instead a narrow, focused problem I was facing. In my opinion, this should be considered acceptable.
What should not be acceptable is if someone puts the entire assignment up on SO and asks someone to solve it for them. I actually saw that once, when it came up as I was searching for help myself. They didn't get useful answers, thankfully.
And then there's a fuzzy line as to exactly how much help it should be acceptable to get, and I don't know how to draw that line.
Closed-book exams are useful because they test a student's ability to work under pressure and they test how well the student understands the information. Assignments are good because they test a student's ability to apply their understanding at a much deeper level when working on a larger problem.
But what's the value in a take-home exam, if we assume that the intent is to be closed-book but with effectively unlimited time? Presumably that means it's a problem roughly on the scale of an assignment, but they're not meant to be able to look up their notes, review the lecture material, etc.? I just don't understand what the point of that is. So even taking the practicalities of enforcing it out of the equation, I just don't think it's a worthwhile thing to do for a problem of such a scale. But when you do add in the practicalities, it becomes far clearer: much better to just let them use what resources are available and make it an assignment rather than an exam.
For what it's worth, I've seen first hand that code copy-detection tools are honestly not actually all that great. Yeah, if they're stupid enough to just rename some variables and move some lines around, they'll get caught. But if you do even a moderate amount of refactoring—breaking some pieces into different functions, un-breaking-out some other material from methods into one big method, finding a set of variables that previously got used together and turning them into a class—even if the actual underlying steps the code is taking end up identical, the tools get fooled and the plagiarism is not detected. It's a classic case of how criminals (in this case, plagiarists—obviously not technically criminal) tend to be really stupid and that's the only reason they get caught.
I'm actually not 100% sure on what "proctor" means, but based on how I've seen it used in this thread, I gather the two are the same? Proctor being American-English while invigilator is British- and Australian-English.
Whoa -- I assumed I would get a notification when you replied, but apparently not. Glad I checked the thread again!
Interesting point! I definitely see where you're coming from here... If I gave a take-home exam, I would want students to use their notes, some online resources, etc. I just wouldn't want them to copy an exact answer from online or other students. That may just be impractical today.
100% agree. I had small enough classes that I could check for plagiarism more directly. And, what you said later is spot on -- I think most students who cheated were not subtle enough to make hard-to-detect changes. Though, if they were, I wouldn't know they cheated, so... hard to say.
Yep! Based on an online dictionary that said "proctor" was the US version of invigilator :)
Anyway, you make some great points, so thanks for the discussion!
Yeah, that happens sometimes to me, too. It's incredibly frustrating.