CBC News reports 18-year old Chris Avenir is now a free man, able to go about his Ryerson University classes without the deluge of digital cameras flashing around him and microphones “poking” him in Facebook style.
His precedent setting social media hearing quickly became an attempt to determine whether an online study group constitutes ‘cheating’ in 21st century media.
When the chime from the Digital Journal Editor’s comment plopped into my e-mail with The Globe and Mail news link, I sat there thinking, “Hmn. No expulsion. But no grade on the assignment. Sounds like a zero sum game.”
What have we learned here in policy & practices? Will faculty make policies clearer? Will students differentiate between process and outcome? Collaboration vs. answers? Is anything any clearer than it was before the media blitz of coverage?
Is this verdict fair? Unfair? Oddly enough, I’m still as muddy as I was from the start, based on the limited amount of transcript information revealed!
Though empathetically inclined to advocate for new media platforms and students’ rights, there’s no question I have a strong disdain for a cakewalk amounting to a ‘log in and lift the answers’ approach so my original premise holds…
It all depends on the factual circumstances.
Ryerson University received plenty of flak about Chris’ online engineering group. The Toronto Star describes student outcries of Luddite thinking along with rapidfire Web 2.0 student support, and of course there’s also been full blown analysis from all sides with an objective eye as well as eyebrows raised to boot.
And yet? We still don’t know the particulars of conduct or intent. Mostly conjecture and spin.
All we really know is that Chris went from being hailed as a scapegoat hero to receiving an assignment zero.
What about the other 146 participants?
Why did they skate when this kid has been objectified for a cause, riddled with media bullets, and stressed out to the point that he may even ditch a lawyer appeal to clear his name altogether and call it a day?
“Everyone seems to think that because he’s not been expelled it’s a victory – it’s just not, it’s not true,” his lawyer John Adair said, admitting he doesn’t know if Avenir will appeal the ruling.
“It’s a finding he’s not at all comfortable with – he doesn’t believe that it’s fair or appropriate,” Adair said. “The attractiveness of an appeal is that he can clear his name, at the same time it has been an extremely stressful experience for him.”
Yahoo news says, “While the case is a “blight” on what’s known as a cutting-edge school the decision is a victory, said Nora Loreto, president of the Ryerson Students’ Union.
“Chris in our view is still innocent, so it is still too bad that he got zero for that 10 per cent,” Loreto said. But considering we were facing expulsion I think this is a victory, certainly a broader victory for the students at Ryerson.”
I dunno…the case captured blogosphere headlines around the world, debating what constitutes cheating…And to me, when CNN headlines, “Facebook ‘cheater’ won’t be expelled from college” I’d say that’s a tarnished reputation from the get-go and damage control needs to come into play…
Media has planted the seed of fame, and watered it with reckless abandon…
He’s already been objectified to ‘Chris, the FB study group guy’ (much less the ‘C’ word, innocent or not) and even though a faculty appeals committee cleared him of academic misconduct, Avenir has to attend an academic misconduct workshop.
Um…That amounts to paying a parking ticket because you don’t have time to fight it in court. Been there, done that. I’m sorry, but I really feel for this kid…I’m losing my objectivity here…
To coin Oprah, (or to be more exact, Wally Lamb) “I know this much is true”…
When the mass media spotlight shines brightly on you and you’re not the one flicking the switch to turn it on, the heat is overwhelming.
Good luck, Chris, with managing the messaging of same.
p.s. Just noticed tomorrow’s PARC forum is titled, “Open Education: Stepping into New Collaborative Processes” with speaker Lisa Petrides, Institute for the Study of Knowledge Management in Education (ISKME)…
Abstract blurb reads:
“The open content movement — which involves the aggregation, sharing, and collaborative enrichment of free educational materials over the Internet — is re-energizing teaching and learning efforts and making educational resources more dynamic through a cross-pollination of ideas and expertise…Drawing on insights from ISKME’s OER Commons initiative, as well as its research on online collaborative learning environments, this Forum will discuss:
(1) How the open education movement is fundamentally about strengthening scholarship and teaching through collaboration — and developing technologies to make that happen
(2) how this nascent movement is addressing the technical and cultural challenges that impact its widespread adoption.”
So…um…gosh. I know they’re NOT saying it’s okay for teachers but not for students…What are teens supposed to discern?
Institutions need to be crystal clear of their new media expectations and parameters…it’s unfair to ‘make up the rules as you go along!’
As Wired Campus commentary mentions, open content and new media is not about ‘playing cop with unenforceable rules’ it’s about student learning, and adapting our process to whatever platform it takes to pay that concept forward as educators…
Fully agree here.
Am I right, educators? Students? Academics? Virtual institutions? Sound off!
What do YOU think?
(Chris Avenir photo credit: Jordan Roberts, Flickr)
I don’t think an online study group constitutes cheating. If teachers aren’t providing the help students need they should be able to utilize whatever resources are available to them. It is no different then a website that was created just for that reason. http://WWW.ESCHOOLSOURCE.COM