To many current students, technology use in education is expected. Gen-Z has grown up in a world full of Google, iPhones, and most recently, artificial intelligence (AI). Although students have been quick to adapt to quickly changing technologies, many schools and colleges have had a harder time trying to change their academic standards to properly account for what students now have access to. As rapid changes in technology have increased access to information and opportunities to learn, they have also allowed some students to avoid learning information in the way that educators might like.
Cheating is often defined broadly by academic institutions, which seek to limit the information and technology a student has access to during tests or assignments. Different professors have different individual expectations of how limited those resources are, some allowing full access to textbooks and the internet, while others seek to grade solely based on a student’s individual knowledge. At Georgia Tech, the Office of Student Integrity (OSI) manages cases of academic misconduct, which are brought forward by any concerned party when they believe a student has cheated. Academic misconduct is a serious allegation that can lead to students taking additional courses, failing the course, having a mark on their academic record, or more serious actions, like expulsion.
Many software companies have tried to help teachers limit the use of technology during assessments, creating software systems that surveil students during exams. These systems became particularly popular during the COVID-19 pandemic when schools moved fully online. The software companies utilize programs that flag students based on noise level, eye contact, and abnormal movements, taking those actions to be signs of cheating. However, the use of this software was unpopular and deemed partially unconstitutional in 2022, with room scans, a required step in the process that involved a 360-degree scan of the room the student was in, being ruled a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s unlawful search and seizure clause.
Working with technology has become so commonplace in society that exam settings completely devoid of technology can be seen as unrealistic.
Test monitoring software is most useful in cases when an instructor wants to limit technology use. Still, some argue that in that case, the cheating occurring is in and of itself a useful skill. Resources like Google or AI are aspects of modern life that are not going anywhere, and being able to successfully navigate them can often be a useful skill. However, not everyone views college simply as a place to learn certain skills. As Dr Jeffery Davis, an electrical and computer engineering professor at Georgia Tech, warned, valuing skill over understanding can be unhelpful, stating, “There is always this tension between teaching skills and teaching knowledge… I’ve found, if you’re constantly trying to develop [a] skill, sometimes it takes away from the fundamental knowledge. If you have fundamental knowledge, I think wherever you go, you can start to adapt and learn whatever skill set.”
However, this can create the attitude among students and staff that many real-world scenarios don’t require the level of individual self-reliance that college exams do. Where a professor may view their test-taking environments as a way to fairly test an individual’s knowledge, a student could view the controlled environment as unfair. Working with technology has become so commonplace in society that exam settings completely devoid of technology can be seen as unrealistic. Some professors recognize the increased dependence and try to accommodate for that in the classroom and testing scenarios. Dr. Caitlin Anderson, an English professor at Georgia Tech, pointed out, “If [students] want to collaborate or Google, you can Google in the real world.” However, this use of technology is only possible due to the structure of her assignments. Anderson stated, “It doesn’t matter to me if my student is talking to another student, Googling something, or looking up quotations. That is a part of understanding because of the way I put my class together.”
Anderson believes in using class structure to make classes more manageable, hoping to center learning over grades. “Ultimately, I want my students to leave this classroom with a set of skills and with an understanding. Students are so much more likely to cheat if they feel the pressure of that passing grade outweighs any desire to learn,” she said. Another way some professors try to make their classes more manageable is to consider outside coursework when assigning material, trying to match the amount of time required to get a good grade in their class with the time they believe the student has. “Most of my students are doing a lot of intense classes. With a five-page paper, it may not be that much writing, but they have to do that with 18 other assignments,” Anderson explained. Cheating can undercut a student’s ability to build knowledge, but students may see the loss of learning as less impactful than a failing grade on an assignment.
Another problem with the shifting definitions of cheating is that test monitoring software, such as Honorlock, have set definitions of cheating, which may or may not align with a student’s or professor’s definition of cheating.
Still, there is a need for all students in a class to abide by the same course expectations, or else the professors can’t quantifiably attest to a student’s learning. Davis extended this, and said, “If I write a recommendation for you, I ask, does this person understand the concept? Then I can look at [a test] and say yes, this person got this certain grade… If some people cheat to get that, and some people don’t, and [the non-cheaters] get a lower grade, then I think there’s a huge fairness issue.” Anderson agreed with this sentiment and added that “your transcripts say I said you learned this subject. Cheating makes it feel like I can’t say that anymore.” Knowing whether or not cheating is occurring is a vital piece of information for educators to confidently vouch for a student’s learning.
When looking at how the navigation of online resources should be structured into classes, though their use during some assessments may be viewed as cheating, Davis said, “I think that’s more critical now. As we start to use these tools, how do you interact with the tools? There traditionally has been a class, or at least as a part of class, to learn how to use those resources.” The line between using your resources to supplement your thought process and using resources to replace your thought process is a thin one, and often a tricky one to navigate, especially for students with a deadline looming over them.
There is an almost limitless amount of information available to anyone with a phone, but even when one can access that information, Davis explained that “Even though this is hard for students, you’d like [accessing resources] to be more like a farmer watering over a period of time as opposed to: I’m going to drink out of this fire hose tonight, and I’m going to get all of this information. It takes time to absorb [knowledge].” The use or potential abuse stems from which method is going to be able to get you a higher grade. Even if this is a short-term view that can have negative outcomes in the future, college students and young adults are not known for their foresight.
Another problem with the shifting definitions of cheating is that test monitoring software, such as Honorlock, have set definitions of cheating, which may or may not align with a student’s or professor’s definition of cheating. For instance, Honorlock, when polling students on cheating, found that collaboration was rarely thought of as cheating. However, Honorlock specifically flags students who have been recorded talking or collaborating with others for cheating, while many students utilize collaboration at every available opportunity without thinking of it as cheating.
For students, there may be a disconnect between how a software or professor wants you to do an assignment and what you think is fair and quickest, given the technologies at your disposal.
Collaboration is a less modern concept, but in some cases is equally discouraged. As Davis added, in a “university setting, what’s happening is an individual effort. Once you get into industry, or wherever you’re going, then you’re plunged into the collaborative.” However, he does view collaboration as an integral aspect of any career, believing that there should be some aspect of collaboration in classes. He argued that many forms of collaboration come “organically”, through study groups and other peer interactions, instead of trying to work it into the class or tests. He said, “It’s a great way to learn. Part of the reason you come to Georgia Tech is for the peers.” Davis views peer collaboration as important to learning, but ultimately believes that college is to build an individual’s knowledge. He points out that collaboration may be important to success and innovation, but there is a level of individual knowledge that has to be taught at some point.“If you’re not known for having a knowledge base, then your success in industry is going to be limited,” he pointed out. Still, many students view collaboration as a basic part of education, rather than cheating, regardless of how it could affect their individual knowledge base.
Collaboration is one of the most important skills students can learn, whether with other people or with technology, given the advancements in AI that have facilitated the use of technology as a collaborator. While some professors and test surveillance software discourage both forms of collaboration, being able to collaborate is a skill that will not be going away. The ‘right’ definition of cheating is not an easy question to answer, forcing professors to balance collaboration versus individual effort. For students, there may be a disconnect between how a software or professor wants you to do an assignment and what you think is fair and quickest, given the technologies at your disposal.
However, there remain very real repercussions for supplanting your knowledge with someone else’s. As Anderson defined, cheating is when “rather than learning a skill, a student bypasses that to just give the right answer.” To potential cheaters, the question remains: will a professor care more about the learning process or the right answer?
