In recent years, science education has focused on rewarding participation.
Photo illustration: Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Jian Fan, koya79, Satirus/iStock/Getty Images
Online courses have long raised concerns that academic dishonesty is rampant, a situation exacerbated in recent years by the advent of increasingly sophisticated digital technology. But in-person classes may be just as vulnerable, according to an Arizona State University biology professor who conducted an audit of the department’s course offerings.
A preliminary analysis of the syllabi for 21 ASU biology in-person courses in fall 2025 shows that an average of 45 percent of the points in these courses could easily be earned by employing digital cheating, including those powered by artificial intelligence.
“We measured student effort by class attendance or by having them watch a video and answer a series of questions before class. This was before all students at our university had access to ChatGPT,” said Professor Sarah Brownell, who conducted the analysis. Inside higher education. “Now you can simply copy and paste a question and get the answer. We use student performance as a reflection of learning and effort in class, as well as AI and other technologies and the rise of academic fraud.” [are] It spoils it. ”
But ChatGPT and similar large-scale language models aren’t the only digital cheating tools students are using, Brownell said.
A self-described “elder millennial,” she enlisted the help of a graduate student and several undergraduate students to study whether best practices in biology education are still effective, even as cheating becomes easier. Over the past 25 years, science education has moved away from assessing learning primarily through high-stakes tests and toward rewarding active student learning and participation.
Brownell, who has supported the active learning movement, said she noticed last year that many students enrolled in her large in-person biology course were not attending class but were receiving participation points for using electronic clickers, a common tool that allows students to answer questions in class remotely. Some students answer questions from classmates who were absent.
“Yes, I cheated,” one student told Brownell’s research group. “Participation was a huge part of our grades. Even if we did poorly on a test, we weren’t going to sacrifice points that we might need in the future. It’s nice to have that safety blanket, and there’s no reason not to do really well in participation.”
In addition to playing digital clickers and using large-scale language models to generate answers to test and homework questions, Brownell learned that students also share their answers with each other through group chats. Carefully take photos of exam materials with your smartphone, smart glasses, or smart watch and search for answers online. Online courses are also increasingly instructing agent AI browsers to complete all assignments.
“We always expect some level of fraud and we try to monitor for it,” Brownell said. Last year, we conducted an anonymous survey of students to find out how many of them resorted to various dishonest tactics to complete their assignments. “However, I was shocked by the prevalence of student cheating.”
increasing temptation
Brownell said she understands the appeal given how easy digital technology has made fraud.
“It’s easy to blame the student, but when it’s 9:45 p.m., an assignment is due in 15 minutes, you’ve just finished a shift at work and you’re exhausted, it’s too easy and too tempting to feed that question into an AI,” she said. “The temptation to cheat is not only very strong, but if a student is competing with another student who is also cheating, they feel they have to cheat to catch up with the other student.”
Brownell’s research also found that students are devising ways to cheat on some exams as well. They say it’s difficult, but not impossible, to cheat on proctored exams, but they have no problem getting around the locked-down browsers that are supposed to prevent cheating on remotely administered exams.
While these findings may be frustrating and disappointing for teachers, Brownell said they need to confront the escalation of digital fraud tools and address the threat they pose even to in-person learning.
“This is basically the responsibility of the instructor,” she said. “You can’t just award points for cheating, and you can’t just shrug your shoulders and say it’s okay if 50% of your course points are cheating.”
One of the best ways to address these concerns right now is to conduct in-person pencil-and-paper exams and take the time to reaffirm the legitimacy of students’ in-person participation, Brownell said.
“We want to give students participation points for attending class, engaging with the material, and engaging in class. That will help them learn, and we don’t want to base everything on exams,” she added. “However, if instructors are not willing to take the extra time and effort to ensure that students are not cheating on these aspects of the course, they will likely need to take all high-stakes exams in person.”
