Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!husc6!cs.utexas.edu!utastro!nather
From: nather@utastro.UUCP (Ed Nather)
Newsgroups: comp.edu
Subject: Re: looking for cheating detectors
Message-ID: <2950@utastro.UUCP>
Date: 27 Jul 88 17:04:46 GMT
References: <1403@sbcs.sunysb.edu> <2920@utastro.UUCP> <3666@bnrmtv.UUCP>
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 29

In article <3666@bnrmtv.UUCP>, shea@bnrmtv.UUCP (Ray Shea) writes:
> In article <2920@utastro.UUCP>, nather@utastro.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes:
> > In article <1403@sbcs.sunysb.edu>, paco@sbcs.sunysb.edu (Francisco J Romero) writes:
> > > ...about cheating...
> > 
> > What on earth are you teaching?  A class on re-inventing the wheel?  
> 
> Then again, maybe you were kidding?

No, I wasn't kidding.  I was suggesting (in a deliberately provocative way) that
rote programming assignments, re-doing what has been done thousands of times
before, might not be the best way to teach programming.  It makes life easier
for the teacher, of course, both in making up useful assignments and in the
grading process -- but actually encourages cheating, since the student knows
he will learn nothing whatever about the feasibility of doing the assignment;
he *knows* it's been done before so it must be possible.  If he is diligent,
and doesn't confuse "getting a grade" with "learning to program" he will do
the assignment just to gain the experience.  If, like most students and many
professors, he confuses the two, the temptation to cheat will be very great.


As an alternative, give a few assignments 
that 

-- 
Ed Nather
Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin
{backbones}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!nather
nather@astro.as.utexas.edu