When I was a grad student (in America) a couple of decades ago, I was involved in two seminars/roundtable discussions that stayed with me. One was on sexual harassment- I'll save that for another thread. The other was a cultural awareness 'sharing.' For context, this was around the time of the Anita Hill testimony regarding Clarence Thomas
So sexual harassment and multicultural diversity were on the country's mind.
The department had a cultural awareness discussion centered on an exchange between the American graduate students and the recently arrived Chinese graduate students.
To my astonishment, the Chinese saw us American students as unfriendly, always retreating and 'sticking to our own kind.' They found it very hard to connect with us, much as they wanted to. It was because of the way we worked. When American students got their homework or assignment, we went to our desk and worked on it. We did the readings alone, we turned in the problems that we worked alone, and had very little discussion about the matter. We approached the courses individually, and this put the Chinese students off.
It put them off because they were very much about community. They discussed the lectures and reading until every single one of them understood it. They lived and died together. If homework was supposed to be individual work, then they did it individually- but they collaborated heavily on everything up until the point of homework- and they made sure everybody knew the concepts, math, etc. for doing the homework.
This is a very efficient way of learning new material. In fact, I've read in TIMS studies (or, books about the studies like 'The Teaching Gap' and 'The Learning Gap') that this is the asian way of teaching and learning in lower grades as well. There was less of an emphasis on (or, perhaps better, less of a recognition of) individual talent as being the basis of success in school, and more of a culture of "we can all get this together, if you can't it's because you are unwilling to work."
So I am not at all surprised that you observed heavy collaboration- I would be disappointed, however, if you saw deliberate 'cheating.' I can sympathise that people who don't fathom the concept of individuality in learning may struggle to understand the line between what we accept as cheating and not cheating. But that is not to say that they don't, and cheat anyway.
I feel as you do, but it's worth pointing out that if you come from a different frame of reference you may not be observing what you think you are observing. I can't say for sure in this case of course (hence how I ended my post), but he may have seen, say, discussion (in a language he may not be fluent in), showing each other papers, etc., yet may not have been seeing the actual 'cloning' of homework answers. If you walked into a bunch of American students doing this (but couldn't, for whatever reason), it's more natural to assume that there is direct cloning involved.
But different cultures have different norms.
Let's say, for example, that problems 3, 4, and 7 are assigned. Now, problem 7 is a bitch, but shares some of the devilish details, perhaps the 'trick,' with problem 6. Let's also assume that the course requirements are "You must do your own work on homework." As a team, the group worked problem 6 together. But one of the group was still struggling to complete problem 7 for homework. He turns to his friend for help, and the friend replies "remember what we did in problem 6? You do the same thing, but with two <whatevers> instead of one."
Is this cheating?
The direct help "with two <whatevers>" is getting close, but if you are from another culture you may, honestly, think no. Because remember, your whole understanding of education is about getting/doing whatever you need to do in order to solve the problem. So you are going to judge rules differently than someone whose first instinct is "this has to be my work only-- I'll fail all by myself." (I hypothesize that this is part of the problem with international IP laws as well.)
On a personal note, one the other side of the desk I was delighted when students teamed up on homework and did extra. In fact, making solution manuals available and publishing old exams was simply a sneaky way for me to get them to do more work.
You've just made a story my brother told me click.
He spent years living in Taiwan. He came back to North America for college. He was taking an international law course, and Mandarin (he spoke, but didn't read/write as well as he wanted to) at the same time.
To improve his Mandarin he translated his law notes into Mandarin and distributed them to the Chinese students for feedback. As a result he aced Mandarin, and they all aced the law course.
I always thought that was very nice and clever of him, but until you described that cultural difference I didn't realize how much he was simply continuing to live within cultural norms for the culture he had been in.
Thanks, this is interesting. It seems to me there's an excellent middle ground that could help American students get a more social (and potentially effective) education, and also encourage some focus on individual achievement in Chinese and possibly other Asian cultures.
There is a difference in collaboration and collusion.
Collaboration is a way to share ideas, and as a group, innovate or improve the way problems are solved and new ideas developed.
Collusion is a way a group completes a task, in education or practice, with the minimum amount of effort and an equivalent level of quality.
An education system (instead of the concept of a culture) does not equate collusion and cheating at some level, it provides neither the students nor their prospective employers a benefit.
No. Such things were unheard of. As a professor I tried to institute them, but two things worked hard against it. (1) It was a commuter school, so getting people together outside of class was very difficult, as they didn't reside there and they had other places to be. (2) The concept of what to do in a study group was completely foreign. The social pressure to 'behave,' that is, be a good group member, do your share, and so on, wasn't particularly strong. In effect, like a lot of things, it benefited those who least needed the benefit. It also hurt them (they were often the same people who had important other stuff to attend to). Once it went from mandatory to optional, it died.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Hill
and the Tianaman Square protest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_19...
So sexual harassment and multicultural diversity were on the country's mind.
The department had a cultural awareness discussion centered on an exchange between the American graduate students and the recently arrived Chinese graduate students.
To my astonishment, the Chinese saw us American students as unfriendly, always retreating and 'sticking to our own kind.' They found it very hard to connect with us, much as they wanted to. It was because of the way we worked. When American students got their homework or assignment, we went to our desk and worked on it. We did the readings alone, we turned in the problems that we worked alone, and had very little discussion about the matter. We approached the courses individually, and this put the Chinese students off.
It put them off because they were very much about community. They discussed the lectures and reading until every single one of them understood it. They lived and died together. If homework was supposed to be individual work, then they did it individually- but they collaborated heavily on everything up until the point of homework- and they made sure everybody knew the concepts, math, etc. for doing the homework.
This is a very efficient way of learning new material. In fact, I've read in TIMS studies (or, books about the studies like 'The Teaching Gap' and 'The Learning Gap') that this is the asian way of teaching and learning in lower grades as well. There was less of an emphasis on (or, perhaps better, less of a recognition of) individual talent as being the basis of success in school, and more of a culture of "we can all get this together, if you can't it's because you are unwilling to work."
So I am not at all surprised that you observed heavy collaboration- I would be disappointed, however, if you saw deliberate 'cheating.' I can sympathise that people who don't fathom the concept of individuality in learning may struggle to understand the line between what we accept as cheating and not cheating. But that is not to say that they don't, and cheat anyway.