ETHICAL ISSUES GENERATED BY COMPUTER USAGE IN PREPARING HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENTS: AN EXPERIENTIAL APPROACH BY DR. C. M. EHRMAN[1] MARKETING DEPARTMENT LOYOLA UNIVERSITY Chicago June 6, 1997 [1] Acknowledgement is graciously given to Ms. Evelyn Harris for her kind assistance in typing this manuscript. Abstract The recent advances in computer technology have greatly aided students and faculty in writing research papers. For instance, in the past, if a few words had to be deleted from a manuscript, the entire sheet of paper had to be retyped. Sometimes a few comments from a referee necessitated the retyping of an entire manuscript. Current word processing packages can readjust and realign the entire manuscript instantaneously. Unfortunately, the ease of editing can introduce the student to some serious ethical issues. Specifically, the ease of editing makes it almost trivial to copy works from several students and submit this paper for a required assignment. In this paper, this problem is further developed. Several solutions to this problem are also presented. Section 1 -- THE PROBLEM The issue of integrity with respect to homework assignments is certainly not new. Copying someone else's work and handing it in as one's own is a clear violation of one's integrity and is a clear example of plagiarism. Prior to the advent of computers and word processing packages, it was a relatively simple task to detect the lack of integrity. The instructor can simply compare two written reports. If they are identical word for word, there is obvious evidence of an ethical problem. Another way to detect lack of integrity is when students work together on an assignment that had the instruction, "Do your own work". Evidence of lack of ethical integrity would be if students working together at a table in the library suddenly scatter when the instructor enters the library. Computers, unfortunately, present opportunities for students to engage in unethical behavior in much subtler ways. Thus, computers present the opportunity to conceal evidence of unethical behavior. For example, students can "work together" on assignments by simply e-mailing to each other their answers. They do NOT have to sit together at a table in the library any longer to compare notes and work together. There is no longer the danger of being caught by working together. The computer becomes the vehicle of effective but unethical communication. Loyola Logon ID's is a tool that almost all students have. Therefore, it is possible to send completed homework assignments from many students to a single student. It is now possible for Student A to hand in his/her report in which sections from Students B, C, D,....,N are also included. See Figure A on the next page. -------------------------------------------------------------- FIGURE A Ethical Issues in Completing Homework Assignments Using E-Mail Paper from Student A | |<-------Student A's work |-------------------| | | | |<-------From Student B |-------------------| From Student C>| | |-------------------| | |<-------From Student D | | .-------------------. From Student E>. . . . <-------From Student N . . Since Student A augmented his report with reports from Students B, C, D,..., N, the instructor will be at a loss to detect if there was a violation of integrity or not. The instructor cannot match the report from Student A and see a word-for-word similarity with any student except. perhaps a few sentences. Thanks to Word or WordPerfect, Student A can simply modify or change a few words from the paragraphs he took from other students, and evidence of plagiarism is gone. It seems clear that the computer can cause more opportunity for unethical behavior among students who are required to hand in individual reports and homework assignments. It is becoming more and more difficult to gather evidence against the perpetrators of unethical behavior through the use of computers. In the next section several alternatives are given that may be used individually or collectively to solve this problem. Section 2 -- SOLUTIONS 2.1 BITE THE BULLET This solution assumes that computer technology is here to stay. There are computer-jocks among students who can cut and paste reports from several sources, such as, fellow students, students who took the same course last semester, professionals in the field who know the subject matter from an expert point of view,etc. The net result is an excellent, plagiarized "A" paper. A possible solution would be to follow the adage, "If you can't beat them, join them!" Therefore, the instructor can modify assignments so that group input is acceptable. Midterms, Finals and Quizzes are in-class exams in which proctoring can be rigorous. In this scenario, unethical behavior, such as cheating, can be dealt with accordingly. The instructor who allows group inputs for homework assignments will encourage students to work together and can generate positive synergy among the students (2+2=5; the output is greater than the sum of the inputs). The discussion among students may produce a paper of much higher quality. Of course, all members of the same group will receive the same grade. 2.1.1 SIZE OF GROUP A student who wishes to work alone may do so. This represents a group of size one. If he wants to use work from others, he will simply join the group of his choice. The size of the group should be limited to 4-5. Clearly, the instructor can allow the students to pick and choose how many per group. However, a large group can be counter productive. It will confuse the learning experience that can be gained by discussions among group members. A good number is 4-5. 2.1.2 WHEN DOES IT WORK? My experience in teaching Marketing and giving students the option for group membership is as follows. It works very well for upper-level Marketing courses. Only Marketing Majors are allowed to take upper level courses. There is an element of homogeneity among students; they are all focused on Marketing. Therefore, group members will share the work load and be fair to each other in terms of the quantity of work required. 2.1.3 WHEN DOES IT NOT WORK? However, at the Introductory level course (Marketing 301), I found that the solution of optional group assignments does not work well. There can be a significant amount of heterogeneity among students. For instance, some students are already working part-time in a Marketing firm or have a family business, and they know the marketing discipline fairly well, before taking the course. On the other hand, the vast majority of the class typically have no idea what marketing is all about. Marketing is required for all business majors. The actual sequence of Marketing compared to other courses in business is left to the student. Therefore, in a Marketing Introduction class, the instructor can have students who are taking their first business class as well as upper level seniors who are graduating as an Accounting or a Finance major. They decided to leave Marketing for last. In terms of commitment toward serious work in Marketing, there is a wide disparity. The graduating Accounting and Finance majors just want their "C". They know that Marketing is not their area of interest. On the other hand, students who plan a career in Marketing or plan to run their own business in Marketing are focused toward this discipline and want an "A". This disparity of student commitment toward the course content can generate ill-will and hostility among group members, especially if one member is a graduating senior and another member plans a career in marketing. The group members who are graduating seniors will do minimum work (just to get a "C") and the group members majoring in Marketing will do maximum work (to get the "A"). There will be little harmony and lots of frustration in such a group. A possible solution would be to ask group members to grade each other on work committed for the group. However, this evaluation can be biased, e.g., I'll give you a high score if you give me a high score. An intuitive solution to this problem would be to group students by their major. However, this solution is impractical for those students who take this introductory course as their first course in Business Administration. These students do not have sufficient information about business and many did not even declare their major. Furthermore, it is not uncommon for students to change majors. Therefore, it is unfeasible to group students by their major. An alternative approach is suggested in the next section. 2.2 SPEAK SOFTLY AND CARRY A BIG STICK An alternative approach would be to explain to students the hazards of unethical behavior. This can be presented to the students in a positive as well as a negative way. Both approaches are explored in the next subsections. 2.2.1 PAYOFF STRATEGY One of the payoffs of a college education in Business Administration is the learning of effective techniques for problem solving in a business environment. These skills can be applied in many job-related scenarios. The student with a college education in Business Administration is better prepared to handle these problems. A student who learns how to use unethical behavior and learns how to effectively attribute other peoples' work to his own will typically use these same behavioral patterns to the work environment. If a student is not caught in school, his high grade becomes essentially a positive reinforcement to continue and to use unethical behavior in the work place. After all, a college education gives you tools to apply in the business environment. The sad truth is that when one gets caught in the business environment, the losses are very high. If a manager is caught doing unethical behavior (e.g., consistently taking ideas from others and using it as his own, "cheating") he will most likely lose his job. All requests for reference will be very negative. One jeopardizes one's career by copying someone else's work. The word to the student body is: Don't Cheat In School; If You Do, You Will Cheat At Work Also. 2.2.2 THE REAL COST The real cost of unethical behavior is, in actuality, assumed by the student himself. Business students attend a university to learn about Business Administration. A written report allows the student to convey to the instructor his knowledge of the subject matter. The instructor, in turn, can offer feedback on the strong and weak points of an assignment. If a student hands in someone else's work, there is no opportunity for an honest appraisal of the student's knowledge of the subject material. The feedback the instructor gives you is essentially meaningless. The report that was handed in is not a reflection of the student's knowledge of the required material but a reflection of perhaps 4,5,...n students' knowledge of the subject material. Thus, the true loser is the student who is unethical. His tuition dollars are for naught. Furthermore, using Maslow's Hierarchy, self actualization can be one of the motivators to write good papers. If the paper that you hand in is not your work, then you rob yourself of any reward or satisfaction that self actualization offers. 2.2.3 THE BIG STICK There is a technique that the instructor may use to gather evidence and perhaps identify the student who uses unethical behavior on the computer. The administrator of a computer facility has the ability to track frequency of communication between Loyola ID's. The instructor can request from the administrator a printout of communication between students in his class. If an instructor finds, for instance, 10 students in the class communicated with one student, then there might be something suspicious that would warrant that student to be investigated by the instructor. Furthermore, crashes and computer glitches may occur. The instructor may get a copy of your requests to other students to send their work to you! (This actually happened). The "Big Stick" is simply that one may get caught! There still is a risk in unethical behavior. You may get caught! 3. Experiential Results The optimal solution may be a combination of all three approaches. The overall strategy is to stress the positive but include the negative. In terms of an experiential approach, I tried all 4 approaches individually and collectively over 184 Semesters of College Instruction. The Universities included in experiential learning were S.U.N.Y., Rutgers University, Penn State University, University of Pennsylvania (Wharton School of Business), University of Illinois at Chicago, University of Chicago (Graduate School of Business) and Loyola University Chicago. I found that allowing optional group performance for upper level courses worked best. The other three methods were explained to the students in the introductory course. I found another factor is also crucial in terms of enhancing student integrity: Timing, i.e., at what point in time does the instructor gives the messages about student integrity. The "Recency Effect" (Stimuli that are most recent have higher recall rates; this is widely used in advertising) had a significant impact. Thus, messages that were conveyed to the student body in close proximity to the announcement of written assignments were far more effective than messages given at the first day of class with no reminders later on. The instructor can request from the computer administrator to insert the messages of approaches 2,3, or 4 (or all of them) on the screen of the student when they logon. This would enhance the Recency effect and would encourage student integrity. Overall results seemed fairly positive, especially with messages 2 and 3. Message 4 uses the "threats and punishments" approach, and that was not as effective. Additional research is required to measure optimality among alternatives and combination of alternatives. 4. CONCLUSION In the previous sections, the ethical problems that can be introduced in writing assignments and preparing reports were pointed out. Thanks to computer technology, it is much easier to copy reports from several students without even going to school. The student can simply use the modem at home! In terms of offering solutions, we presented two approaches. One approach is to avoid the problem altogether by allowing groups to work together. Unfortunately, this is not always feasible, especially in introductory classes. A different approach is to explain in the classroom the negative features of cheating. First, you may learn how to use it regularly and transfer your "skill" to the work place. Second, in reality, the one who cheats is cheating himself. He paid tuition for courses but will never get true feedback from the instructor on his knowledge of the course material. The final comment is that cheating is not risk-free. The "cheater" may be caught even when the computer is used. If caught, the consequences may be severe. For instance, a student who is caught cheating may be expelled and may have a permanent note on his record that he engaged in unethical behavior.