Course Hero Hires Critic of Proctoring and Plagiarism Prevention
Plus, news on the Linkletter/Proctorio suit. Plus, a Japanese student turns herself in to police for cheating.
Issue 90
To subscribe to “The Cheat Sheet,” enter your e-mail address below:
To share “The Cheat Sheet:”
Cheating Provider Course Hero Hires Critic of Remote Test Security and Plagiarism Detection
In an entire buffet of irony, Inside Higher Ed (IHE), which partners with cheating company Course Hero (see Issue 53), has a story on an ironic hire by Course Hero - a vocal critic of education technology.
The hire, Sean Michael Morris, has been quite critical of education technology in general and his joining and now promoting a billion-dollar edtech company is ironic. There is no better word for it.
But as confusing as all that is, I’ll skip over it and focus on the cheating parts.
First is that IHE describes its advertising partner Course Hero as:
the controversial online site that invites students to post and download syllabi, worksheets, essays, previous exams and other course materials so other students can benefit from them (and so Course Hero can generate revenue)
To complete the thought - so Course Hero can generate revenue which it can pass along to IHE.
Further on in the piece, IHE gets closer to describing what Course Hero actually does. But it has to use the words and thoughts of others to get there:
Course Hero has long been maligned by educators who see it as a breeding ground for cheating and plagiarism.
And of course, Andrew Grauer, the CEO and co-founder of Course Hero, predictably told IHE:
Course Hero does not promote cheating
Sure.
Anyway, back to Morris, the new guy at Course Hero. IHE says:
Morris has been particularly critical of plagiarism-detection software, learning management systems and proctoring services.
Ah, there it is.
The new guy at Course Hero really hates proctoring and plagiarism-detection software. But Course Hero does not promote cheating. Sure.
IHE adds:
Some educators interviewed for this article doubted Course Hero’s motives, pointing to a business model that awards students “tokens” for submitting exams and other course material to the site.
I just cannot fathom why anyone would question the motives of Course Hero hiring someone who is “particularly critical” of efforts to detect and deter cheating.
Linkletter Says Proctorio Lost its Legal Appeal
Ian Linkletter, the learning technology specialist at University of British Columbia, had been in a lingering legal battle with remote proctoring company Proctorio.
The short version is that Linkletter publicly criticized the company and in the process, shared some of the company’s materials. Proctorio sued for copyright infringement. Linkletter counter-sued, saying Proctorio was using the courts to intimidate him and silence criticism.
It was messy.
Proctorio lost their first case and appealed. On Friday, Linkletter announced on Twitter that Proctorio also lost the appeal:
I do not have details of the court decision.
In an exclusive for “The Cheat Sheet,” Dr. Laura Gogia, senior analyst at Tambellini Group, a higher education technology research and advisory firm said,
It's still early, but Ian Linkletter's victory feels like a win for any campus leader, faculty, and student advocate who applies a critical lens to the technologies we bring into the classroom. Educational technology is incredibly powerful—and with great power comes great responsibility to question the implications of your actions. Shutting down critique rather than thoughtfully considering it is an untrustworthy act. I hope that other ed tech companies are paying attention
It’s a mistake to use this Linkletter/Proctorio fight as a proxy for remote proctoring - it isn’t. Proctorio is just one proctoring provider, and not even a good representative of the field. And the suits were about copy rights and free speech, not proctoring or pedagogy.
Even so, the sentiment from Dr. Gogia is on pitch. Proctorio taking a critic to court seemed, at best, like bad public relations. At worst, it was born from adversarial motivation and malicious intent.
And though much of the criticism of proctoring has been hyperbolic and unfounded, no one should be afraid of examining or commenting on any education tool.
Japan Student Turns Herself in to Police for Cheating
Several news outlets in Japan ran the story of a question from the country’s national university exam - maybe more than one question - circulating on social media during the test. It was a big deal.
The update is that one student, a 17 year-old high school student who aimed to attend the University of Tokyo, has turned herself in to police, admitting she took a photo of a test question and used a message app to ask for answers during the test.
According to the news reports, a current university student:
was asked via a Skype app to try to solve the problem by someone claiming to be a 17-year-old female high school student that he came into contact with through a tutoring service website, according to the sources.
I don’t have the slightest idea where someone would get the idea that “a tutoring service website” could help you cheat on an exam. Cough.
In any case, even though using phones is banned in the exam, the student allegedly smuggled her phone into the test in her coat sleeve and apparently used it enough to take a photo, engage a message app and ask for help. Top notch proctoring there.
Good for the university student for reporting it. Good for the test-taker for accepting responsibility.
Wiley (Kind of) Makes Corrections to Cheating Report
In Issue 89 I pointed out a few of the errors in Wiley’s recent survey on academic integrity - errors that were consistent with their public messages and quite convenient in downplaying academic misconduct in online settings. Wiley is an education publisher and sells online program management services to colleges.
After being called out by education analyst and observer Phil Hill, Wiley tweeted:
The issue is that the corrections kind of aren’t.
I’d pointed out, for example, that when Wiley asked students if cheating was easier, harder, or about the same during the pandemic. They originally wrote that “student respondents were nearly evenly split” on the question:
Student respondents were nearly evenly split on this question with 51 percent saying the pandemic has made it easier and 49 percent saying it’s harder.
They were not. Wiley simply counted the “the same” as “harder” when the numbers were actually that 59% said easier, 35% said the same and just 14% said harder.
Yet Wiley’s “corrected” version now says:
Student respondents were nearly evenly split on this question with 51 percent saying the pandemic has made it easier and 14 percent saying it’s harder.
What?
They changed the numbers but left the text, leaving it that a 51% to 14% finding is “nearly evenly spilt.” Same thing on the other error I’d highlighted. They changed the numbers but left the text.
I confess, I don’t get it. If you’re going to fix it, fix it. Get it right.
And I realize I’m just dreaming here but how about an apology? A least say “oops!”
The errors were massive, misleading, self-serving and obvious. Again, Wiley is supposed to be an education company, a research publisher. Why put out something so bad in the first place and leave it to a dinky newsletter on cheating to catch it? Wiley is a public company worth $2.8 billion. “The Cheat Sheet” is free.
Note: I was honored to be a guest on “The EdUp Experience” podcast, a really strong and in-depth show about higher ed. Though very little of my session is about cheating, my episode is here: https://www.edupexperience.com/DerekNewton/
This podcast now has more than 385 episodes on higher ed. Check out the show roster here: https://www.edupexperience.com/