Skip to content
  • Home
  • About the Editors
  • AMS.org
← I’m Just Not a Math Person…
A Case for Pre-College Outreach →

Maybe Next Time He’ll Think Before He Cheats

Posted on June 1, 2020 by kthompson

It’s so bizarre to me that since the forced online learning movement started, so many math faculty—and not just at my institution—have been worried about cheating.

Why now?

It’s not a new phenomenon. Students who want to cheat ALWAYS will find a way to cheat. This happens all the time, and everywhere. Every single place I have worked, I have caught a student cheating. Sometimes it’s blatantly obvious like having a piece of paper literally labeled “cheat sheet” beside the exam, sometimes it’s a notecard sticking out of a purse, sometimes it’s a phone not-so-discreetly cradled in a hand, sometimes it’s writing “let a be a prime” (which no one does except someone in a stackexchange answer forum on precisely the problem in question). Other times it’s more subtle and a group effort. At larger universities for mass finals, TAs would pace the hallways and regularly check the bathrooms, sometimes finding notes and solutions on pieces of paper tucked behind toilets or written on the walls of stalls. Even with my online contracting for Art of Problem Solving, I’ve caught sixth graders plagiarising in an extra-curricular math course (think about what THAT reality does to your outlook on mankind.).

So why is it that we’re so worried about cheating now? Because it’s now so “easy”—as if it weren’t before? Because it’s more obvious to us that it’s possible? Because we’re dreading the extra work trying to minimize it creates? Because the process once you catch a cheater got streamlined? I honestly don’t get it. English departments have been dealing with this issue for years—the internet has been a bane to their take-home essay and paper-writing existences. Decades ago, many students would purposefully join fraternities and sororities and athletic groups and clubs in part because of the test banks they’d keep. This isn’t new. Is it just now that math is suddenly thrown into the online/modern spotlight that we’re so concerned?

Or is our fear more philosophical than practical? Deep down do we really believe people will do anything to get ahead, especially if they suspect they won’t get caught? That whether we write it off as stress or societal pressure for good grades or family pride, people will backstab and cheat their way to “success”? That cheating is a bad seed in human nature that now is being given a perfect greenhouse in which to bloom? Certainly the LSATs in their administration take a bleak approach to human nature; having sat for the exam I know that you are fingerprinted, must show photo I.D., can’t bring a phone, and are not allowed to leave the room during the exam. They know THEIR customers. Why don’t we?

Despite my belief that it will happen regardless, and despite my underwhelming and frustrating outcomes when following through with academic integrity cases, I have been societally pressured to continue to do something to try to minimize cheating. Here are some tricks I used in-person and pre-pandemic to address cheating that still work in a co/post-pandemic online setting:

  • Reuse problems as infrequently as possible. In upper-level courses this can be difficult. In abstract algebra, say, classifying all groups of order 8 is a drastically longer and harder exercise than classifying all groups of order 7. But for lower-level classes like calculus or differential equations or linear algebra there’s zero excuse for reusing more than 10-15% of problems. The benefits I see are that it keeps my mind fresh—you’ve got to do SOMETHING to keep yourself from becoming stale after teaching calculus 10 times. Moreover, it decreases the usefulness of any test banks, online or frat house.
  • Do not give out solutions. A lot of colleagues do this, and many students demand it. They all argue that it helps students learn, and makes them feel better in a security-blanket/better-course-eval way. But what actually helps students learn is feedback, not perfectly worked out solutions. If students get appropriate feedback on a returned assignment, they shouldn’t need solutions. But if they still need clarification, they should be able to go to their instructor. Their instructor should be willing to go over exams and mistakes with students. That cannot and will not occur if solutions are released. Back to cheating—think about what’s more likely to be found online. (1) Returned assessments with your blood-red ink feedback. (2) Your well-organized and flawless solutions.
  • When possible, give multiple versions of the exam. In an in-person setting this is especially good if you also have, say, seating charts or general knowledge of where students sit. And you don’t have to get too fancy with this. Suppose you have a multiple choice section. Just reorder the problems and/or answer choices. Whether students talk to each other online or peep at each other’s papers, if Student A’s #4 is Student B’s #7 and A’s answer is D and B’s answer is E—you’ve done something nontrivial to “catch” this type of cheating. It only helps if you’re using some online system where there are actually random number generators.
  • For the upper-level courses, if you’re giving a semi-standard exercise that you know is challenging, before you administer the assignment start looking online for solutions. Chegg and sites like that are much more for the lower-level calculus courses. Mathoverflow and places like that are where to go for upper-level. You may want to rethink assigning even a “classic” problem if there are too many easily-available (correct) solutions. Or, you may want to bookmark sites that say “let a be a prime” so when you’re grading you can be on alert.

That’s just in writing and returning the assessment. Here are some other suggestions:

  • Be detailed with students as to what “cheating” means on a given assignment. Remind students regularly about this. There’s the obvious aspect that what materials are allowed will vary from class to class; there’s the sweet, if unlikely, possibility they’ll just forget what cheating means to you. But IF you catch a student cheating, and IF it’s “severe enough” that you have to take it further, the burden of proof is on you as the instructor. The students are innocent until proven guilty. So making sure it’s clear in writing (and emphasized to them orally because we all know students don’t read instructions) will only help you. Send emails before assessments are due, make it a tab in your online classroom platform, put it on your cover sheets.
  • Be realistic that no matter what you do, there will be students who cheat. Think about which students are more likely to cheat. Students cheat out of desperation. So who is desperate? Those on academic probation or those at risk of being on academic probation. Those who have an F or a D but who “need” a D or a C (even if it’s mathematically impossible for them to get a higher grade, do you think given their grade they’ve figured that out?). Those who have a B but “know” they are A students. All of these people have great personal incentive to do anything for a better grade. Do all of those students cheat? No. Are those the only students who cheat? Also, no. But if you’re not looking out for ANY cheaters, you will never find them. So whether it’s my suggestions or not, come up with a starting point.

Still, with all these discussions now about cheating, and use of lockdown browsers and cameras for proctoring, and with companies like Respondus getting a lot of new contracts, I worry sincerely about the human nature aspect and the greater message being sent. What’s next? Minority Report-esque tactics on the border of espionage and entrapment (#Princeton)? 

Vox had an article recently that echoed my sentiments, as did insidehighered. If we create an environment where it’s very clear that we are EXPECTING students to cheat, how could we be surprised that they meet our expectations? How is assuming they’ll cheat not in some way encouraging them to cheat? When we use lockdown browsers and make them Zoom in with a camera to be proctored, we’re telling students from the start that we do not trust them. We’re treating them like they’re guilty until proven innocent, yet giving them zero opportunities to demonstrate their innocence.

This entry was posted in cheating, classroom design, classroom management, exam feedback, math problems, technology for teaching. Bookmark the permalink.
← I’m Just Not a Math Person…
A Case for Pre-College Outreach →
  • Opinions expressed on these pages were the views of the writers and did not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the American Mathematical Society.

  • Categories

    • active learning
    • AIM
    • attracting math majors
    • AWM
    • balancing research and teaching
    • bias
    • BIRS
    • blogging
    • books
    • cheating
    • CIMPA research school
    • classroom design
    • classroom management
    • classroom response systems
    • collaborations
    • commencement
    • community engagement
    • conferences
    • Contingency plans
    • Creativity
    • dealing with rejection
    • elections
    • end of semester
    • exam feedback
    • extra credit projects
    • Fields medal
    • focussed research group
    • funny things students say
    • giving talks
    • government opportunities
    • grading
    • graduate school
    • grant proposals
    • IAS
    • ICERM
    • ICTP
    • inquiry-based learning
    • interviewing
    • iPad apps
    • IPAM
    • job search
    • joint math meetings
    • math and art
    • math and performance
    • math anxiety
    • math circles
    • math consulting
    • math in the media
    • math in the movies
    • math problems
    • mathematical congress of the americas
    • mathematicians in mass media
    • meeting famous mathematicians
    • mentoring
    • minorities in mathematics
    • MoMath
    • moving
    • Museum of Mathematics
    • networking
    • office hours
    • online homework systems
    • opportunities for faculty
    • organizing a special session
    • outreach
    • parenting
    • PCMI
    • pi day
    • pre-tenure leave
    • pre-tenure reviews
    • public awareness of mathematics
    • quantitative reasoning
    • reading job applications
    • refereeing
    • reimbursements
    • research
    • research collaborations
    • resolutions
    • revising a paper
    • sage
    • science and humanities
    • seminaire bourbaki
    • service
    • social aspects of math life
    • Social situations with students
    • submitting a paper for publication
    • summer school
    • syllabus writing
    • teaching
    • teaching evaluations
    • technology
    • technology for teaching
    • tenure
    • Test-making
    • time management
    • traveling
    • Uncategorized
    • vacation
    • Welcome!
    • women in math
    • work-life balance
    • working in coffee shops
    • workshops
    • World Cup
    • writing letters of recommendation
    • year in review
  • Archives

    • March 2021
    • February 2021
    • January 2021
    • December 2020
    • November 2020
    • October 2020
    • September 2020
    • August 2020
    • July 2020
    • June 2020
    • May 2020
    • April 2020
    • March 2020
    • February 2020
    • January 2020
    • December 2019
    • November 2019
    • October 2019
    • September 2019
    • August 2019
    • July 2019
    • June 2019
    • May 2019
    • April 2019
    • March 2019
    • February 2019
    • January 2019
    • December 2018
    • November 2018
    • October 2018
    • September 2018
    • August 2018
    • July 2018
    • June 2018
    • May 2018
    • April 2018
    • March 2018
    • February 2018
    • January 2018
    • December 2017
    • November 2017
    • October 2017
    • September 2017
    • August 2017
    • July 2017
    • June 2017
    • May 2017
    • April 2017
    • March 2017
    • February 2017
    • December 2016
    • November 2016
    • October 2016
    • September 2016
    • August 2016
    • July 2016
    • June 2016
    • May 2016
    • April 2016
    • March 2016
    • February 2016
    • January 2016
    • December 2015
    • November 2015
    • October 2015
    • September 2015
    • August 2015
    • July 2015
    • June 2015
    • May 2015
    • April 2015
    • March 2015
    • February 2015
    • January 2015
    • December 2014
    • November 2014
    • October 2014
    • September 2014
    • August 2014
    • July 2014
    • June 2014
    • May 2014
    • April 2014
    • March 2014
    • February 2014
    • January 2014
    • December 2013
    • November 2013
    • October 2013
    • September 2013
    • August 2013
    • July 2013
    • June 2013
    • May 2013
    • April 2013
    • March 2013
    • February 2013
    • January 2013
    • December 2012
    • November 2012
    • October 2012
    • September 2012
    • August 2012
    • July 2012
    • June 2012
    • May 2012
    • April 2012
    • March 2012
    • February 2012
    • January 2012
    • December 2011
    • October 2011
    • September 2011
    • August 2011
    • July 2011
    • June 2011
    • May 2011
    • April 2011
    • March 2011
  • Retired Blogs

    • A Mathematical Word
    • Beyond Reviews: Inside MathSciNet
    • Blog on Math Blogs
    • Capital Currents
    • e-Mentoring Network
    • Graduate Student Blog
    • inclusion/exclusion
    • Living Proof
    • Math Mamas
    • On Teaching and Learning Mathematics
    • PhD + epsilon

Proudly powered by WordPress.