Case 1.10 The Little teacher Who Could: Piper, Kansas, and Term Papers

Case 1.10: The Little teacher Who Could: Piper, Kansas, and Term Papers
Name
Institutional Affiliation
Abstract
One of the tenets of any form of learning is the capacity to demonstrate truthfulness. Academic honesty embodies the principle that students are expected to produce their original and authentic work. Students should adhere to the set guidelines governing the completion of assignments and assessments. Particularly, it is expected that students acknowledge the works and ideas of other scholars when documenting their works. Failure to adhere to the governing principles may be detrimental to the outcomes of the performance of the students. In fact, plagiarism and academic dishonesty only amount to unfair academic advantage at the expense of the student. The following case offers a comprehensive analysis of an ethical dilemma that Ms. Pelton had to undergo after prompting her students to remain truthful to their works. It answers the questions on the case study which illuminate the importance of ensuring that institutions have relevant guidelines to ensure that their students produce their original works and hence preserve academic integrity.

Case 1.10: The Little teacher Who Could: Piper, Kansas, and Term Papers
Ms. Pelton’s students were aware of the repercussions of failing to adhere to the instructions that their teacher gave. While the school did not run any policy concerning academic dishonesty, it is evident that the teacher had already informed the students of her expectations.

As a result, it was imperative that the students comply with the instructions that their instructor had given them. Moreover, none of the students approached their instructor for confirmation regarding the new instructions given to them. Instead, they all chose to use the internet, which their teacher had already forbidden them to use in completing their work. Understanding whether the students had understood the repercussions of their actions is critical because it determines their attitude towards academic dishonesty (Bretag, Mahmud, Wallace, Walker, McGowan, East & James, 2014). Moreover, it plays a vital role in gauging whether the institution had put in place viable structures to ensure that its students were truthful in their academic work.
The penalty given by Ms. Pelton was appropriate for a variety of reasons. Firstly, the teacher had already informed the students that the assessment was worth 50% of their marks (Jennings, 2011). As a result, it was imperative that the students demonstrate professionalism and honesty while conducting their research. Additionally, there are students who chose to follow the instructions of the teacher, which implies that those that ignored deserved the punishment. Failing to implement the penalty as had been declared would diminish the willingness of the students to adhere to laws and policies calling for their responsibility while handling class work. Thus, the penalty would set a good precedence in ensuring that all students were responsible for their actions when it came to academic work. Moreover, if the teacher pardoned those that had not adhered to the policy of dishonesty, it is likely that the others who complied with the policy would be demoralized and hence fail to demonstrate honesty even in the subsequent assignments.
The grading modifications called for by the board were inappropriate. Firstly, the board had not consulted the teacher to identify why she used such an approach in the grading. The board mostly relied on the reports given by the students and their parents regarding the said work. A majority of the students had complied with the policy of ensuring that they did not plagiarize their work. Only 28 out of 118 students failed to adhere to their instructor’s instructions (Jennings, 2011). The modifications of the results affected those that did not plagiarize because 27 students out of the 28 that had plagiarized their work received elevated results than was expected. 20 of the students suffered from the decision to modify the results whereby their grades were even lowered (Jennings, 2011). The ramifications of the decision were that hardworking students were denied the chance to receive higher grades yet they had shown the commitment to adhere to the teacher’s policies concerning plagiarism.
The parents played a major role in the decisions that were undertaken to modify the grading. It is evident that the parents were in support of the cheating tendencies of the students. The parents failed to demonstrate their commitment to ensuring that they supported academic honesty. It was evident that the parents wanted to see their children pass at all costs irrespective of the methods that they used. The parents did not also consider the effects of their decision to the students who had complied with the instructions given by the instructor regarding academic honesty. To this effect, they failed to demonstrate their commitment to helping their children pass while at the same time preserve their integrity as students.
The statement “cheating is almost not wrong” is attributed to the findings that a majority of the students were unaware of the implications of copying text from the internet yet fail to acknowledge the source of such data. The decisions undertaken by the school in defense of the students is also evidence that even some institutions condone cheating. Moreover, the fact that statistics indicate that most students would still copy ideas and texts from the internet without acknowledging them is evidence that the society regards academic dishonesty as a norm (McCabe, Butterfield & Treviño, 2012). The same can also be applied to the manner in which the parents reacted to the matter. Instead of supporting the teachers, the parents wanted their children graded unfairly yet they had failed to demonstrate competence in their submissions. The society’s attitude towards academic dishonesty plays a vital role in setting the ideal precedence for students to follow. If the society fails to condemn such actions, then it is likely that the students would also be comfortable with academic dishonesty and vice versa. As a result, the society condones cheating as if it is a trend that should be admired.
The consequences of academic cheating are diverse. Several institutions have laws and policies governing student’s conducts regarding plagiarized work. Some of the students are forced to re-sit papers while others receive a suspension or even expulsion form school (Bretag et al. 2014). Piper school suffered the effects of failing to support its teacher when its students failed to demonstrate their concern regarding cheating. In this regard, the students from the institution were highly discriminated even in the external realm. For instance, tough policies were set regarding joining several universities in the region. A majority of the universities cited that Piper School students had to demonstrate academic honesty and adhere to their rules and policies concerning cheating (Jennings, 2011). There were incidences when the students were also mocked for even in sporting events. They were labeled as plagiarists to the detriment of their performance, which did not even involve academic submission. There was also greater scrutiny for all students from the school even when they applied for consideration in a variety of institution. All the alumni of the school had to suffer the implications of cheating just because of the few 28 that had failed to adhere to the instructor’s instructions.
The implications of academic dishonesty may not necessarily be the ones that Piper School students faced. However, it is imperative that institutions set laws and policies governing the use of internet resources for their students. Students should be taught the importance of acknowledging other people’s ideas and works when completing assignments. Similarly, it is imperative that institutions support instructors who are committed to ensuring that academic honesty is upheld irrespective of the dimension concerned. Parents, board members and students should also understand the detrimental effects of plagiarism on their learning. Academic dishonesty has serious ramifications on the career and future of a student. Thus, it would be ideal to seek clarification from relevant authorities in the event that an individual is not well versed with how to avoid plagiarism.

References
Bretag, T., Mahmud, S., Wallace, M., Walker, R., McGowan, U., East, J., … & James, C. (2014). ‘Teach us how to do it properly!’ An Australian academic integrity student survey. Studies in Higher Education, 39(7), 1150-1169.
Jennings, M., M. (2011). Business Ethics: Case Studies and Selected Readings. Boston. Massachusetts: Cengage Learning
McCabe, D. L., Butterfield, K. D., & Treviño, L. K. (2012). Promoting Academic Honesty: Students, Cheating, and a Culture Of Integrity. Johns Hopkins University Press.