Reference no: EM132441986
Case study :One for All and All for One?
Sandy watched as three of her classmates filed out of the conference room. Then she turned back to the large wooden table and faced her fellow members, a student and three faculty members, of the university's disciplinary committee. The three students, Joe, Brian and Lisa had just concluded their appeal against a plagiarism conviction stemming from a group project for an international marketing course. Sandy, who happened to be in the class with the students on trial, remembered the day the lecturer, Dr. Anis, had asked Joe, Brian and Lisa, along with the group's leader, Paul, to stay after class. She happened to walk by the classroom a half hour later to see four glum students emerge. Even though Paul had a chagrined expression on his face, Joe was the only one who looked completely shattered. It did not take long for word to spread along the ever-active grapevine that Paul had admitted to plagiarising his part of the group paper. At the hearing, the students recounted how they had quickly and unanimously settled on Paul to lead the group. He was by far the most able student among them, someone who managed to maintain a stellar GPA even while taking on a full course load and holding down a part-time job. After the group worked together for weeks analysing the problem and devising a marketing plan,Paul assigned a section of the final paper to each member. With the pressure of all those end- of-the-semester deadlines bearing down on them, everyone was delighted when Paul volunteered to write the company and industry background, the section that typically took the most time to produce. Paul gathered everyone's contributions, assembled them into a paper and handed out the final draft to the other members. They each gave it a quick read. They liked what they saw and thought they had a good chance for an A.
Unfortunately, when Dr Anis confronted them, Paul readily admitted that he had pulled the section he had contributed directly off the Internet. Pointing out the written policy he had distributed at the beginning of the semester stating that each group member was equally responsible for the final product, Dr Anis gave all the four students a zero for the project. The group project and presentation counted for 30 per cent of the course grade. Joe, Brian and Lisa maintained that they were completely unaware that Paul had cheated. "It just never occurred to us Paul would ever need to cheat," Brian said. They were innocent bystanders, the tudents argued. Why should they be penalised? Besides, the consequences were not going to fall on each of them equally. Although Paul was suffering the embarrassment of public exposure, the failing group project grade would only put a dent in his solid GPA. Joe, on the other hand, was already on academic probation. A zero probably meant he would not make the 2.5 GPA he needed to stay in the business programme.
Even though she could see the merits of both sides, Sandy was going to have to choose. If your were Sandy, how would you vote?
Answer the following questions.
1. (a) If you were Sandy, what would you do?
(b) What other possible alternatives does Sandy have, apart from your response above?
2. Do you think it was fair for Dr Anis to give all four students a zero for the project?
3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of assigning group projects to students at tertiary institutions?
(a) Advantages
(b) Disadvantages
4. If a similar situation happened at work where one employee in a group committed plagiarism in a group project, what would be an appropriate action to take against him or her? Why?
5. Provide 3 (THREE) ways on how the issue of plagiarism can be solved at tertiary education.