Session
8
Track Chair and Session Chair: Michael F. Welsh, University of South Carolina
CASES:
Cheating or the
Appearance of Cheating? (A) & (B)
Asbjorn Osland, George Fox University
Mark Ankeny, George Fox University
Sarah Davis
Glenda Short, University of South Carolina
Issues in Mathematics
Education Reform
Judith McVarish, Bloomsburg University
Walter E. Stone, Jr., University of Massachusetts
Leslie A. Daly, Lesley College
Michael F. Welsh, University of South Carolina
CHEATING OR THE APPEARANCE OF
CHEATING? (A) & (B)
Asbjorn
Osland, George Fox University
Mark
Ankeny, George Fox University
Case Objectives and Use
The cases (A & B) could be used in teacher education courses at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Cheating is a topic readily discussed by students. Of particular interest in this case are the cultural dimensions, in that the protagonist, Leo Rodanovich, was a foreign student from a culture where cheating was perceived differently than in the U.S., and the professor’s naive approach to testing and dealing with the problem. The professor, Eric, appeared naive in that he allowed too much banter and flexibility during the testing period and left the room. He also should have sought the counsel of others in his department before filing a formal cheating allegation; some faculty later suggested that handling such problems on a one-to-one basis with the student could have proven superior to the full-blown inquiry. The teaching objectives are as follows: 1) Analyze and critique Eric’s actions; 2) discuss cheating and how to avoid it in the classroom; 3) Assess the cross-cultural aspects of cheating in the American classroom; and 4) Discuss appropriate methods for handling cheating allegations and appeals.
Case Synopsis
Case A deals with an alleged cheating incident. Eric Sandoval, the professor, left the room
and returned to find a foreign student, who was attending an American liberal
arts college, standing in the back of he room holding a study guide during an
examination. He subsequently accused
the student, Leo Rodanovich, of cheating and gave his an F for the course, as
specified in the course syllabus. Leo
admitted to holding the study guide but claimed it was accidental and that he
was not leafing through it but rather holding a piece of pizza in one hand and
casually looking at the guide in the other, not using it to cheat. He stated that he was relaxing by walking
around the back of the room, where students had been told to place all their
materials, and inadvertently came upon the study guide that had been inserted
in another student’s book for a different class. He claimed he was curious about the book because he would have to
take the same course prior to graduation.
Jennifer Feldman, the Dean of Social Sciences, chaired the committee
that was to recommend what action should be taken after determining if Leo
cheated or not.
Did Leo cheat?
According to the committee that reviewed the incident and the academic
administrators above Eric, Leo did not cheat, as was discussed in case B.
Contact Person: Asbjorn Osland, George Fox University, 414
N. Meridian St., Newberg, OR 97132-2697.
Phone (503)554-2817, FAX
(503)554-2829, E-mail: osland@georgefox.edu
SARAH DAVIS
Glenda
Short, University of South Carolina
Case Objectives and Use
This case describes the conflict between two doctoral students preparing for careers as university professors. The conflict involves a difference of opinion on how a group of graduate students should approach the university administration regarding the refund of a student enrichment fee. Based on field research this case would be useful in graduate courses in higher education administration, specifically in an organization and administration of higher education course that deals with the political workings of institutions or, alternatively, a financial aspects of higher education course.
Case Synopsis
Sarah Davis and Samantha Jones were participants in a meeting of doctoral students all of whom wanted the university to refund a student enrichment fee. Sarah suggested an approach that she thought to be strategically sound and supportive of the various parties involved. Samantha objected and attacked Sarah rather than the idea she had proposed. Sarah was astounded at the politics of the situation and their similarity to those she had witnessed in meetings of the department faculty. She wondered if educators only had in their minds to get their personal needs met rather than to collaborate for the good of the larger community. Samantha’s attack was personal and Sarah was at a loss as to how she should respond and move the group’s attention to formulating a successful recommendation for the refund of student fees.
Contact Person: Glenda Short, College of Social Work,
University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina 29208. Phone:
(803) 632-2208, E-mail gshort@duesouth.net.
ISSUES IN MATHEMATICS EDUCATION REFORM
Judith
McVarish, Bloomsburg University
Walter
E. Stone, Jr., University of Massachusetts
Leslie
A. Daly, Lesley College
Michael
F. Welsh, University of South Carolina
Case Objectives and Use
This is a series of eight cases regarding different aspects of mathematics education reform. Based on field research, these cases are intended primarily for preservice or inservice teachers. However, individual case studies can also be presented to parents of elementary school children, school administrators, or mathematics educators involved in mathematics education reform. The teaching objectives for these case studies are to offer a format for collaborative learning and dialogue that is both inter-active and problem based; to allow teachers to experience multiple layers of teaching complexity; to provide opportunities for collaboration for all stakeholders involved in math reform; to foster reflective practice through individual and collaborative reflection; and to raise differing perspectives and alternatives solutions to difficult reform issues.
Case Synopsis
A brief synopsis of each case follows: 1) Fuzzy Math. A fourth grade teacher intercepts copies of an article entitled, “Fuzzy Math” sent by a disgruntled parent with her daughter for distribution to other parents. 2) De-leveling. An elementary school principal confronts a negative response by a teacher who is opposed to the new mathematics “de-leveling” policy. 3) Speed is the Key. A mother is conflicted when her daughter does not want to go to school because she is not reciting her math facts fast enough but also feels that memorization of math facts is important. 4) They Really Ought to Have Books. Mothers at the bus stop discuss their dismay at the lack of textbooks in the mathematics classroom. One of the mothers decides to confront the principal and the assistant superintendent about this issue. 5) What Happens Next? A principal considers his leadership role in transitioning students from a standards-based mathematics curricula to sixth grade, where teachers are tracking students in a traditional mathematics program. 6) Getting Started. A teacher new to the system and unfamiliar with the standards-based curriculum, faces a classroom without any materials or experience to implement the program. 7) I Don’t have Math. An active knowledgeable and involved parent expresses concern when her son responds to her question: “What did you do in math class today?” with the answer, “I don’t have math”. 8) Principal for the Opposition. A large school district has adopted a standards-based mathematics curriculum and has provided professional development for its teachers to learn the new curricula. One elementary school principal does not embrace the changes.
Contact Person: Judith McVarish, Bloomsburg University,
Bloomsburg, PA 17815. Phone: (570) 389-2776. E-mail
jmcvaris@husky.bloomu.edu