As a lawyer who has routinely drafted discipline policies for institutions but also defended students in catastrophic online cheating cases (involving hundreds of students in some cases), I can safely say that online learning created challenges for students who felt they were at a competitive disadvantage if they did not cheat. Does not justify dishonesty! However, this point underscores the need for effective safeguards and the clear articulation of learning outcomes. IMHO, educators have to flip the script from merely getting good grades to mastering the skills and/or course materials.

As an educator, I find it challenging to keep pace with software designed to conceal the use of AI. At the last assembly of the Francophones of Ontario, esteemed guest speaker Hoss Zouali—a professor at Stanford University—suggested that instead of preventing our students from using AI, we should teach them how to craft better prompts. He emphasized that as long as the student presents the work, knowledge is gained, which is the core purpose of education. We can extend this practice by giving credit to the authors during these presentations after conducting more in-depth research.

Yes, by utilizing plagiarism detection tools, proctoring software, and clear guidelines on academic integrity. Additionally, promoting a culture of honesty through discussions and assessments that encourage critical thinking over rote memorization helps maintain academic standards in online learning.

I actually added my insight regarding this matter recently. A friend of mine who is a medical student shared an article regarding students who were ‘falsely’ accused of plagiarism because the instructors only used AI Detectors to draw their conclusions. AI detectors should only be used as an added eye, but certainly NOT a judge. Considering the error in these detectors, accusing a student of being academically dishonest that was not, is not honorable. It simply goes back to traditional ways of grading. Simply pay attention to students’ writing. If one paper’s verbiage is of a high school student but the next paper is of a doctoral level…then question integrity. There’s no short cuts on either side. Invest time in students and you’ll know.