“What do you think they’re going to do to me?” Student experiences of formal academic integrity processes
4 August 2020
What does a poolside academic integrity hearing in an episode of Community have to do with student experiences of academic integrity processes in the real world? Deakin University Student Association senior advocate Dr Penelope Pitt found some surprising parallels between Community‘s depiction of alleged cheating and the student experiences outlined in her recent paper with CRADLE Fellow A/Prof. Wendy Sutherland-Smith and Kevin Dullaghan. No pools, though.
I’ve been watching more TV than usual during COVID-19 lockdown in Melbourne, and I recently re-watched episode 5, season 1 of TV sitcom Community. Aptly titled Advanced Criminal Law, this episode is a memorable fictional depiction of a student facing an allegation of cheating in higher education and, surprisingly, the plot has some parallels to the findings of a recent research paper I co-authored with CRADLE researchers A/Prof Wendy Sutherland-Smith and Kevin Dullaghan.
“What do you think they’re going to do to me?” This is the question Britta asks her classmate Jeff as the two Greendale Community College students are sitting together in the cafeteria, looking worried. In a previous scene, their Spanish 101 teacher found a crib sheet on the classroom floor and Britta had confessed to the entire class that she cheated on her Spanish test.
Before Jeff has a chance to answer Britta, the head of the college, Dean Pelton, approaches and says, “Well we’re not going to give you an ice-cream … I’m afraid Greendale takes this kind of thing very seriously. Your case will be reviewed by a disciplinary tribunal tomorrow in Boardshort Hall. You could be facing expulsion.”
The next day, three judges – Dean Pelton, Señor Chang (the Spanish 101 teacher) and a professor – sit behind microphones atop a poolside podium below a big sign that reads Judges Booth. It turns out Boardshort Hall houses the college’s Olympic-sized pool. Jeff, an ex-lawyer, acts as Britta’s ‘defence counsel’. When it’s revealed that Britta had confessed under pressure – Señor Chang had threatened to give every student in the class a zero on the test unless one of them confessed to cheating – Jeff moves to have the case thrown out. At this point, Dean Pelton declares, “this tribunal is adjourned,” but, before he can bring down his gavel, Britta says, “Wait, I cheated.”
Still via What’s Alan Watching
During a five minute recess, Britta consults with Jeff in the pool’s change room. Jeff can’t understand why she would admit to cheating when she was going to get away with it. When Britta explains she admitted to cheating because she has “a problem with dishonesty,” Jeff exasperatedly points out, “You’re on trial for cheating!” Through talking with Jeff, Britta works out the reason she cheated: “I think I left that crib sheet on the floor because I wanted to get caught. I’m so used to screwing everything up, I just wanted to get it over with.” Back poolside, Jeff tells the judges, “She doesn’t want to succeed because she doesn’t think she can, so she goes out of her way to fail. … If you want to rehabilitate [Britta] you need to sentence her to staying here with us…”
Aside from how ludicrous it would be to carry out an academic integrity hearing on a poolside podium with judges and microphones, I was struck by a few things from this episode: the impact of the Dean’s threat of expulsion; Britta’s honesty and the complex reasons she cheated on the assessment task; the legal language used in the college’s process for addressing cheating; the value of Jeff’s role in assisting Britta; and a tension between punishment and rehabilitation in the potential outcomes. These aspects of the sitcom plot reverberated with some of our recent research findings.
We interviewed students who had received an allegation of contract cheating and attended a university hearing. Contract cheating is, in general terms, where a student has asked someone else to do their assignment (or part of it). Of the various breach allegations that university students can receive, contract cheating is among the more serious. Exclusion from the course can sometimes be a possible outcome, just as it was for Britta in the Community episode. However, prior to our study, little was known of the student experience of an allegation and hearing, as no previous researchers had spoken to students who had actually been suspected of contract cheating. Through our research, we sought to find this out in order to improve the process and the student experience.
I work as an advocate at a university student association and part of my role is to support students through the process of responding to an allegation of an academic integrity breach. Students confide in me about what they did or did not do, and why, and their fears of what might happen next. I listen and guide them through the process of understanding and responding to the allegation. These conversations happen one-to-one, behind closed doors in interview rooms and more recently via Zoom. (Note: they do not generally happen in a cafeteria or in pool change rooms!)
I am very grateful to the students who shared their experiences of going through a contract cheating allegation and hearing with me for our research study. Rather than relying on quirky sitcom plots, we now have an understanding of some of the experiences and longer-term needs of real-life university students who face cheating allegations.
You can read more about this in our paper in Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education (limited free access here).
Final note: I’ve omitted many great moments in my recount of the Community episode. There’s also a secondary storyline about plagiarism and the new college song. If you want to find out what outcome the judges give to Britta or if you too are relying on TV for some light relief during this pandemic, I recommend you watch it… after checking out our paper.
