- 最后登录
- 2023-2-4
- 在线时间
- 5701 小时
- 寄托币
- 29807
- 声望
- 4149
- 注册时间
- 2008-11-24
- 阅读权限
- 100
- 帖子
- 1374
- 精华
- 20
- 积分
- 9285
- UID
- 2575525
- 声望
- 4149
- 寄托币
- 29807
- 注册时间
- 2008-11-24
- 精华
- 20
- 帖子
- 1374
|
本帖最后由 irvine666 于 2009-3-10 03:26 编辑
本来还想写一段扩展型的讨论,就是那种:xxx不是唯一的解决方案,方案可能还有哪几种。 不过算了下字数已经实在太恐怖,所以略过。
TOPIC: ARGUMENT242 - The following appeared as an editorial in the student newspaper of Groveton College.
"To combat the recently reported dramatic rise in cheating among college and university students, these institutions should adopt honor codes similar to Groveton's, which calls for students to agree not to cheat in their academic endeavors and to notify a faculty member if they suspect that others have cheated. Groveton's honor code replaced an old-fashioned system in which students were closely monitored by teachers and an average of thirty cases of cheating per year were reported. The honor code has proven far more successful: in the first year it was in place, students reported twenty-one cases of cheating; five years later, this figure had dropped to fourteen. Moreover, in a recent survey conducted by the Groveton honor council, a majority of students said that they would be less likely to cheat with an honor code in place than without."
WORDS: 568 + 100(修改的时候添加)TIME: 00:30:00 DATE: 2009-3-9 下午 07:09:31
The suggestion of adopting honor codes similar to Groveton College(GC)'s at first glance soundly bases upon the evidence of declining number of cases of cheating, the survey of Groveton honor council, and the assumption that the great success of GC could be wide spread by the same regulation, still, to prove these hypothesises needs more work of reasoning.
The major suspicion stems from the doubt whether the number of cheating cases indeed declined. To be realistic, the statistics of the study, reliable and objective as it might be, is not sufficient to buttress the deduction of the author. Could the report coming from students reflect the real phenomenon of cheating? Advanced tricks might play an important role in the declining number of students who cheated in examination. In other words, the decreasing number of cheaters reported might only illustrate that fewer students who did not utilizing high-tech cheating measures had been "caught" in examination, rather than that they had complied with the restriction of GC more than ever before. There might exist a myriad of students cheated but did not be reported in test. Besides, students might not be willing to report others who were cheating. If, for example, certain compromise -- such as cheating together or keeping silent about others' cheating action -- has been established among the students during the past five years, the honor code would be finally proven to work little, if any, in preventing cheating.
In addition, another survey of the less-cheating will of students faces the similar challenge too. Its generality is first questioned. How many students were included in the survey? Without a significantly large sample pool, one would require great act of will to trust a survey. Generally speaking, as is self-evident, a survey related to education is useful only when it manages to deputize general will of all students. Unfortunately, for the author might intentionally conceal the number of the respondents, it is reasonable for readers to suspect the representativeness of the survey. Moreover, the grade and gender of the students have been undeserved overlooked. Were the interviewees limited in one or several groups sharing similar study customs? If those who preferred not to cheat are mainly students in grade one, or if majority of the example were girls who enjoyed attending class and doing homework, the will of respondents could hardly represented that most students would not take part in speculation any more. Since the author simply slipped these issues, the survey he cited appears to be insufficient to bolster his judgment of students' attitude toward the honor code.
What is more, even if the honor code of GC verified to be an effective approach to inhibit and eliminate cases of cheating, to generalize its experience to every college, being blind to the differences in educational level, is skeptical. The average degree of difficulty of tests, as is apparent, should be taken into account. If, for instance, the examinations of other universities are much harder than the one of GC, students of those colleges would be overwhelmingly likely to cheat. Actually, when the supervisors simultaneously turn out to be the cheaters, they would certainly lose their function of supervising. Such phenomenon should be to serve as essential negative impact to the effectiveness of the regulation. Therefore, the suggestion of wide spread of the honor code might be an action with little effect. Though the author might confidently believe that the same honor code measure would be actualized everywhere, his failure to scrutinize the education and examination condition of each college does weaken his position.
In sum, the author supplied a seemingly beneficent suggestion to prohibit students from cheating, whereas his deduction is not rational. Were there more background of the investigation demonstrating that the number of cases of cheating was really decreased by the honor code policy, detailed information about the participators of the survey, and comprehensive conditions of those colleges and universities suffering dramatic rise in cheating, the advice of him would be relatively strengthened. |
|