"Used" and user-behavior

letter U for udacity
letter U for udacity user user
you you used
letter U for udacity letter U for udacity user letter U for udacity user user used you you used used you

Perhaps more interesting than the clauses related to “termination rights” and “restricted content,” each MOOC provider includes “honor code” statements. Consider Coursera’s honor code, which specifies, “All students participating in the class must agree to abide by the following code of conduct.” In this surprisingly brief agreement, students consent to register for only one account and to not cheat or help others cheat on homework or tests (this directly contradicts some individual syllabi statements about collaboration). Similarly, Udacity’s honor code—they call it a “student conduct policy”—reinforces the more general “anti-harassment” policy, instructing the student not to cheat on homework or tests and to “notify the instructors immediately if he or she becomes aware of any other Student cheating or breaching these Terms of Use.” Although the honor codes possess differences, especially in terms of the amount of surveillance students carry out on one another, the honor codes share an important similarity. If we consider what counts as evidence of honorable participation from the perspective of Critel’s commonplace of assessment, even more significant questions arise:

  • To what extent do these honor codes, as Critel asks, “induce students to participate when they wouldn’t otherwise"?
  • What methods of assessment (apart from student-to-student surveillance) will be used to monitor participation?
  • What other behaviors count as honorable participation in these contexts?

[Go to "You" and community]