Flag

We stand with Ukraine and our team members from Ukraine. Here are ways you can help

Get exclusive access to thought-provoking articles, bonus podcast content, and cutting-edge whitepapers. Become a member of the UX Magazine community today!

Home ›› Education ›› On the Question of Cheating and Dishonesty in Education in the Age of AI

On the Question of Cheating and Dishonesty in Education in the Age of AI

by Enrique Dans
4 min read
Share this post on
Tweet
Share
Post
Share
Email
Print

Save

As AI rapidly enters the educational landscape, concerns over cheating and dishonesty have led many institutions to impose strict prohibitions on its use. But is banning AI really the answer, or does it overlook a deeper issue? This article challenges traditional views on academic dishonesty, arguing that outdated grading systems and rigid rules may be doing more harm than good. Focusing on true learning potential instead of simplistic metrics suggests a path where AI becomes a valuable tool in students’ development — enhancing learning rather than hindering it. Could this shift in perspective transform how we educate and prepare students for a future shaped by technology?

Much of the academic world is deeply worried about whether AI is leading to more cheating, although academic dishonesty, which covers a broader range of practices, might be a more accurate way of describing the problem. Either way, academic institutions’ tendency to impose rigid rules may well end up sanctioning some students unfairly.

The president of the academic institution where I have been working for thirty-five years, Santiago Íñiguez, has recently written about the subject on LinkedIn, taking an interesting approach, albeit one that in my opinion doesn’t fully get to the root of the problem. From my experience, I think it is essential to see academic dishonesty in terms of the institution rather than the students because in many ways, students’ behavior reflects the way we measure learning.

This is not a new problem: trying to measure a student’s performance through a grade, no matter how average it may be, is reductionism. We live in a world in which eleven-axis multidimensional graphs are used to evaluate a soccer player’s performance, but students simply get a grade point average that not only provides little or no relevant information but often distorts reality. Laszlo Bock was senior VP of People Operations at Google and concluded that there is no correlation between a person’s average grade and their professional ability. Centuries of development of educational methodologies have helped us to end up focusing on the variable that tells us nothing about someone’s abilities.

The root of the problem lies in what is known as Goodhart’s Law: “When a metric becomes a goal, it ceases to be a good metric.” If institutions and society make a student’s average grade the be-all and end-all, then instead of maximizing their learning, students will make their objective maximizing their average grade, and academic dishonesty is the best way to achieve that goal.

The focus therefore should not be on how to reduce academic dishonesty, but on creating a system that assesses students less simplistically, that properly assesses their potential. As Einstein said, if you judge a fish on its ability to climb a tree, it will believe it is stupid.

Punishing students for using AI runs the risk of destroying their chances of being accepted into a top-tier institution. Sure, there are rules, but do those rules make sense? Why simply prohibit the use of AI? Are we talking about dull students who try to cheat the system or very bright ones who simply question the rules? Is it worth clinging to “the rules are the rules” in such a case? It should be clear by now that traditional rule systems no longer work: to deal with the current scenario, we need a drastic overhaul of the ethics that govern education.

Institutions that prohibit the use of AI are depriving their students of the competitive advantage of knowing how to use the technology properly. Instead, they need to assess students on how well they have used AI; if they have simply copied and pasted, without checking, then they deserve a low grade. But if they can show that they have maximized their performance and can verify the results properly, then punishing them is no different from doing the same for using Google or going to a library. Let’s face it, cheaters are always going to cheat, and there are a number of ways of doing so already.

The long and short of it is that students are going to use generative algorithms, and if a single grade depends on it, in which their future is at stake, even more so. And as with all new technology, they’re going to misuse them, ask simplistic questions, and copy and paste, unless we train them on how to use it properly. The objective is to use technology to maximize the possibilities of learning, which is a perfectly compatible objective if it is well-planned. Or should we go back to using pencil and paper to prevent students from using AI?

In fact, I am completely sure that for the vast majority of so-called hard skills, students will increasingly use AI assistants that have adapted to their learning style. AI isn’t going to destroy education, but to change it. And that’s a good thing because we’re still largely teaching in the same way we did back in the 19th century. AI is the future of education, and no, it’s not necessarily dishonest.

The moment has come to rethink many things in education, and failure to do so may mean the loss of a great opportunity to reform an outdated system that, moreover, has long since ceased to deliver the results we need.

The article originally appeared on Enrique Dans (Spanish).

Featured image courtesy: Hariadhi.

post authorEnrique Dans

Enrique Dans
Enrique Dans (La Coruña - Spain, 1965) is Professor of Innovation at IE University since 1990. He holds a Ph.D. (Anderson School, UCLA), a MBA (IE University) and a B.Sc. (Universidade de Santiago de Compostela). He writes daily about technology and innovation in Spanish on enriquedans.com since 2003, and in English on Medium. He has published three books, Todo va a cambiar (2010), Living in the Future (2019), and Todo vuelve a cambiar (2022). Since 2024, he is also hacking education as Director of Innovation at Turing Dream.

Tweet
Share
Post
Share
Email
Print
Ideas In Brief
  • The article challenges the view that cheating is solely a student issue, suggesting assessment reform to address deeper causes of dishonesty.
  • It advocates for evaluating AI use in education instead of banning it, encouraging responsible use to boost learning.
  • The piece critiques GPA as a limiting metric, proposing more meaningful ways to assess student capabilities.
  • The article calls for updated ethics that reward effective AI use instead of punishing adaptation.
  • It envisions AI as a transformative tool to modernize and enhance learning practices.

Related Articles

Imagine a world where coding is no longer reserved for the tech elite. In his latest article, Chris Heilmann explores how AI is revolutionizing software development, enabling a new generation of creators to build applications without needing deep technical knowledge. Discover how AI tools are breaking barriers, empowering millions to shape the digital world, and what this means for the future of coding and innovation.

Article by Christian Heilmann
A Billion New Developers Thanks to AI?
  • The article explores how AI is poised to empower a billion new developers by simplifying the coding process for non-technical users, allowing more people to build applications with ease.
  • It analyzes how AI-assisted development can bridge the global developer gap by enabling faster code generation, reducing the complexity of software development, and expanding access to tech careers.
Share:A Billion New Developers Thanks to AI?
15 min read

Discover the hidden costs of AI-driven connectivity, from environmental impacts to privacy risks. Explore how our increasing reliance on AI is reshaping personal relationships and raising ethical challenges in the digital age.

Article by Louis Byrd
The Hidden Cost of Being Connected in the Age of AI
  • The article discusses the hidden costs of AI-driven connectivity, focusing on its environmental and energy demands.
  • It examines how increased connectivity exposes users to privacy risks and weakens personal relationships.
  • The article also highlights the need for ethical considerations to ensure responsible AI development and usage.
Share:The Hidden Cost of Being Connected in the Age of AI
9 min read

Is AI reshaping creativity as we know it? This thought-provoking article delves into the rise of artificial intelligence in various creative fields, exploring its impact on innovation and the essence of human artistry. Discover whether AI is a collaborator or a competitor in the creative landscape.

Article by Oliver Inderwildi
The Ascent of AI: Is It Already Shaping Every Breakthrough and Even Taking Over Creativity?
  • The article explores the transformative impact of AI on creativity, questioning whether it is enhancing or overshadowing human ingenuity.
  • It discusses the implications of AI-generated content across various fields, including art, music, and writing, and its potential to redefine traditional creative processes.
  • The piece emphasizes the need for a balanced approach that values human creativity while leveraging AI’s capabilities, advocating for a collaborative rather than competitive relationship between the two.
Share:The Ascent of AI: Is It Already Shaping Every Breakthrough and Even Taking Over Creativity?
6 min read

Join the UX Magazine community!

Stay informed with exclusive content on the intersection of UX, AI agents, and agentic automation—essential reading for future-focused professionals.

Hello!

You're officially a member of the UX Magazine Community.
We're excited to have you with us!

Thank you!

To begin viewing member content, please verify your email.

Tell us about you. Enroll in the course.

    This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Check our privacy policy and