你/妳的「作弊」定義，跟我想像的一樣嗎?
5月3號看到這一篇由聯合報系陳嘉恩記者所作的報導《教育真失敗 7成大學生承認作弊》，還真是…..哎呀，專有名詞我不會講，用「標題與內容物不符」好了。
首先，內文是說 “有七成大學生承認在近一年內有作弊、抄襲、造假等「學業不誠實」行為”，後面也有提到”國外研究所說的作弊（cheat）比較廣義，只要是以不誠實、欺騙方式獲取分數就算是「學業不誠實」”。
簡單地說，這七成指的是「學業不誠實」行為，而學業不誠實，國外以cheat稱之，然後再翻譯回中文成「作弊」，最後放在標題裡變成「7成大學生承認作弊」。
但是讀者心目中的作弊，主要指的是考試作弊。於是可憐的讀者，接收到的不是「7成大學生承認學業不誠實」，而是「7成大學生承認考試作弊」。
如果標題改成「7成大學生承認學業不誠實」，那個酸辣度就弱多了。而且一般閱聽人直覺也反應不過來，因為「學業不誠實」是一個比較不白話的詞。
那麼，會不會是因為(我們理解中的)作弊占了學業不誠實的大多數，所以記者下標的時候簡化呢? 報導內容沒有提到。而就常理來看，在報導裡頭所提到的學業不誠實行為，包括「作弊、抄襲、造假等」，如果抄作業算是抄襲，不管是抄別人的還是抄網路上查到的，就常理、發生次數、風險、及個人經驗來看，應該都比作弊的比例來得高很多。那麼，就算要簡化，也應該要簡化成「7成大學生承認抄襲」，只是這樣「氣勢」一樣弱。拿這七成裡的不知幾成(也許只有二成)的「作弊」來代表七成，標題看起來好吃多了 。
然後標題的前半句「教育真失敗」，更是把記者/編輯把報導的內容自行作過度的推論。報導的內容取自一項尚未公開的研究，內文也大多數繞在調查統計的結果數字和值得注意的現象。但是記者(或編輯)在標題下了「教育真失敗」這種推論和判斷，內文卻沒提到「學業不誠實」與「教育真失敗」的關聯性。不過就讀者而言，這件事不難。想一想，如果看到這個標題，第一個想法是什麼? 比方當我自己看到時，我的心裡頭是這樣子想的：
「七成」大學生「承認作弊」耶，再加上「不敢承認」的，哇，那「真正作弊」的比例更高，加個一兩成好了，那就是「九成」了。九成大學生作弊，五十個人考試有四十五個人作弊，難怪說教育真失敗。
下次當我跟朋友聊天時，講到教育，我可能就會說：「教育真失敗，你知道嗎? 有七成大學生承認作弊耶」
這則報導的標題這樣處理，算過份嗎? 別急，還有更過份的。
另一篇由 ETtoday(東森新聞)記者吳昱曄、劉秉家報導的《教育失敗？！7成大學生曾作弊 工學院較嚴重，在「教育失敗」的後面加上了問號，這樣子既能達到暗示效果又不用負責任，看起來有技巧多了。標題一樣是用「7成大學生曾作弊」，跟前面那則一樣。那麼，為什麼我說更糟呢?
他的內文，完全沒提到「學業不誠實」，全部用「作弊」取代了：
大學生作弊比例有多高，根據一份最新的研究調查結果指出，有7成的大學生坦承自己曾經做弊，其中有5成學生表示自己經常作弊，而且做弊花招翻新，作弊道具更是推陳出新。
而且最後一段就跟以前寫作文要「三民主義，統一中國」一樣，加了個政治正確的結尾：
作弊風盛行，連大學龍頭台大都得發起四不運動，要學生們考試不作弊，看來大學生們真的得好好反省思考。
由於這篇文章的內文通篇都用「作弊」，身為讀者的我，如果只看這一篇，根本不會發現不對勁的地方，也更不會想要寫下這一篇blog。而且，如果我懷疑這篇所謂「七成」的正確性，我會把疑問丟到進行研究者(也就是台大謝尚旻先生)的頭上，懷疑是他作的調查有問題。可是因為我先看到上一篇，我反而會懷疑是記者在採訪後，片面引用了受訪者的話語和資料，把cheat翻譯成作弊，讓讀者認為是考試作弊，最後加上自己的片面推論(標題裡的「教育失敗」)，變成一篇報導。也許謝尚旻說的是「七成學業不誠實」，但是卻被報導成「七成作弊」。
怎麼查證? 如果研究結果有公開的話，去找出論文來看就可以。不過報導上說現在論文尚未公開，所以我試著直接求證於台大謝尚旻先生，詢問他當初跟記者的說法是什麼。
在去信詢問謝先生之後，很快地便接到了他的回信，他透露其實這篇研究已經發表在高等教育期刊創刊號 (今年二月)，也鼓勵我直接去找來看。不過我這邊的圖書館似乎沒有，得再花點時間找找才行。他也透露國外的cheat指的是學業不誠實，和國內指的考試作弊是不同的。
也就是說，聯合報陳嘉恩的報導內文是正確的，但標題誤導了讀者，兇手可能是下標的編輯。而東森的吳昱曄、劉秉家那則報導則從標題到內文都是誤導。
一邊看新聞，一邊懷疑，然後還得想辦法去求證。這樣看新聞，真是辛苦。
ps. PTT 上有人用幫標題下新解「7成大學生」指的是「7個成大學生」…. 所以…. 不多啦 XD
「讀者心目中的作弊，主要指的是考試作弊。」在邏輯上是有問題的，也有些主觀。因為東西方文化上的差異，也許中國人對不誠實，並不看得很重，非得考試作弊被抓到的現行犯才算，但其實不管是不誠實或者考試作弊，都是不對的，就算是把新聞標題改正成「7成大學生承認不誠實」，我也並不會覺得對現在的教育現狀高興。
不知道那位寫報導的記者
大學報告又如何
質疑記者或別人的動機，也是一種台灣社會普徧存在的被害妄想邏輯。就算這個記者的大學報告亂七八糟，與這篇報導試著點出的問題其實並無關聯，因為報導者是要反映社會現象的，並不必當個道德聖人才能當記者。
就如同我在開始所說的「你/妳的「作弊」定義，跟我想像的一樣嗎?」，當大部份讀者在閱讀這則新聞時，心裡所想到的大學生作弊，會是什麼作弊呢? 我的確主觀地將我個人的經驗及我對於作弊的理解，套用在我閱讀時的認知上。但「作弊」在東方(如果以東西方來分的話)定義上，與西方的「作弊/學業不誠實」這兩件事，的確是不同的。
不管是學業不誠實或是考試作弊，都是不對的。東西方對於學業不誠實的態度也值得再進一步討論。不過這不代表兩者相等，也不代表新聞在呈現時，有必要以作弊來代換學業不誠實。
「就算這個記者的大學報告亂七八糟，與這篇報導試著點出的問題其實並無關聯，因為報導者是要反映社會現象的，並不必當個道德聖人才能當記者。」這點我同意 Frey 的說法。
讀者來函照登：
I want to argue a point on the comment posed under the title ‘你/妳的「作弊」定義，跟我想像的一樣嗎?’.
I do agree that ‘就算這個記者的大學報告亂七八糟，與這篇報導試著點出的問題其實並無關聯’. However, I dobut the word ‘反映’ (reflect) in the comment. Media/ Journalists has been proved that they never refelct the event/phenomenon per se, but construct a news text (do you realize I say event/phenmenon for ‘refelct’, news text for ‘construct’). For this news, I dont dare to judge personalities of these journalists (OK..I am very colse to one of them), but I have to say, according to the news, college students are labelled. The event and its raw materials has been selected, excluded and emphasized on certain foci. After the process, it is what you see and make comments here. How can us readers simple say the news refelct the social phenomenon?
By the way to mention, the news even dont touch the main point of the phenomenon -why do they want to cheat? Again, what I can get from the news is the phenomenon approved by research, but in what way and how did not be mentioned.
Well, even though those news reporters or journalists don’t do their job well, but to reflect the truth, even though it may be partial, is still their most important responsibility.
Try to imagine a society without those journalists and news reporters. What kind of truth you may know from that? Don’t you think it is only a happy soil land for a police country?
We need to push them to do better job, not to destroy them. Always keep faith to the truth. That’s all I can tell.
繼續讀者來函照登。
Having studied media for almost ten year, I am trained to use certain terms, such as reflect I mentioned in the previous comment, in a very demanding way to describe media phenomena I watch. That’s the reason for writing the comment.
It has been proved that media is not a mirror simply and passively refecting an event. However, media actively constrcuts news. As I have mentioned, ‘construct’ means news practitinors (journalists, editors etc) select, exculde and emphasize raw materials to compose news text ( N.B. text including words, sentences, and pictures ect) we read. Constructing news is absolutely not the same as making up news . In this vein, I dont mean to presuppose news practitinors who have certain intenions to report a phenomenon. Actually, they just do their daily routine according to so-called professional principles.The professional principles, however, are strategical rituals which could make their report be claimed as objectivity. In the process of contructing news, they unconsciously lead the issue to the way(s).
Taking ‘教育真失敗 7成大學生承認作弊 ‘ and ‘ 教育失敗？！7成大學生曾作弊 工學院較嚴重 ‘ as samples, both of them quote the survey to support their ideas of the reports preventing from personal opinions (or say subjective if you like). As PipperL writes in his post, the former one at least mentions the definition of ‘cheat’ in the survey but still leads the issue to failure of higher education in the end. The later one directly leads the survey to cheating strategies in exams and also concludes with failure of higher education. They do quote the suvey as testimony to headlines and main texts. However, it is not the survey intending to present- cheating in studies including exams and reports and any other dishonety to school work. To be worse, the reports only balme college stuendts and higer education, but ignore that to go behind the phenomenon the survey indicates, which is the responsibility of what a journalist should do. Therefore, I dont dare to say jouralists/media/reports ‘refelct’ phenomenon, not to mention ‘truth’.
Journalists are important, because audiences do not have personal experiences or contact with happenings around the world which they need to know. In the sense, audiences delegate a privilege journalists/media to mediate the world to them. Media is definitely not a mirror, as I have argued above. Audiences have to read news more critically. Critical reaing does not mean ‘質疑記者或別人的動機，也是一種台灣社會普徧存在的被害妄想邏輯’ or predetermine a conspiracy to news. It is the same as what bloggers doing – media watch, in the way that makes journalists/media do their job more deliberate (less taken for grated ) and better.
This long comment might be off-topic. However, I’d like to say here is the importance of media literacy education – always to read news critically. Again, it’s not conspiratorial reading, but do think about what does the news want to tell you.
I’m absolutely agree on your point. Readers need to use his/her own wisdom to judge from what he/she reads from the media.
Perhaps my conclusion on this news report is happen to be the same as the reporter. I do have the feeling and impression that our college education is generally worse than 10 years before. This is not the fault of those students, but the system goes wrong. You may argue on the rush conclusion of the reporter or the partial fact, but readers as me do have our own judgement. Our coclusion is simply not from that single piece of news, but from many things around us. Life experience, you may say so.
This debate may go on and on and leads to nowhere. Everyone may have different opinion on this. The point is simply what do you believe.
In this case, I do believe on my own judgement.
新聞當然是要邊看邊找是否有啥問題…也因此累當然是很累啦…
只是這新聞就算拿標題來說也應該沒太多可爭議的吧…
畢竟就算國外報告 是以CHEAT代替作弊
當初調查時 並不會是整篇的英文 而會是中文吧
至於如果要硬是說”考試作弊”才算”中文中的” “作弊”
那應該也是….
抄報告.抄筆記.從網路找文章當報告 甚至找槍手等…
國外定義為”CHEAT” 而所不容許的事情 我們如此輕易放過
這才是問題根本…