|
For example, suppose that a student knows, before a test occurs, that some officially correct statement is actually incorrect.
During a test, a student has a number of options, such as:
a) Write what is actually correct, expecting it to be marked as incorrect, and accepting that outcome;
b) Write what is actually correct, expecting it to be marked as incorrect, and hoping to be able to persuade authorities to either justify or abandon the official statement that conflicts with what is actually correct;
c) Write what is actually correct, expecting that when it comes to tests authorities will suddenly see the light and not accept from students the same statements that were taught to students;
d) Write what is actually incorrect, and also officially correct, expecting it to be marked as correct.
In what way is the implementation of option d) different from perpetrating fraud? If a student hopes to gain marks by asserting something that the student knows to be false, then don't we have all the components involved in fraud? The only thing we don't see here that we do see in typical cases of fraud is creativity.
On the other hand, what's the difference between implementing option a) and deliberately providing no answer? If it's acceptable to deliberately provide no answer to some questions, then what prevents a student from writing nothing but his or her name? In a sporting competition, would it be acceptable for a team to deliberately make no effort to win?
In many cases, options b) and c) are based on nothing but wishful thinking. However, as indicated above, option a) and option d) are both problematic. Is there some non-problematic option that should be considered and that wasn't listed above?
|