The Opposite of Cheating

"There are actually things I can do and it's empowering I think for academics at a time where it can feel a bit overwhelming — there's actually a range of things that we can do.""The thing you can try and limit is the extent to which opportunity exists within the assessment items and the structure of the things you're doing in your unit."In this 59th episode of The Opposite of Cheating Podcast, David sits down with Professor Joe Clare, a criminologist at the University of Western Australia, for a fascinating conversation about what crime prevention science can teach us about academic integrity. Joe explains how his background in cognitive science and environmental criminology led him to a crucial insight: just as car theft plummeted worldwide not because criminals reformed but because manufacturers built in electronic immobilizers, academic misconduct can be dramatically reduced by redesigning the opportunity structure of assessments rather than trying to change student dispositions. Drawing on Ron Clarke's 25 techniques of situational crime prevention — increasing risk, increasing effort, reducing reward, removing provocation, and reducing excuses — Joe walks through a real case study at Curtin University where a colleague unknowingly applied this entire framework to shut down a contract cheating operation in a business school capstone course. The conversation surfaces a powerful third approach to integrity that sits alongside values-based education and assessment security: choice architecture, or making not cheating the path of least resistance. Joe also draws on the "law of crime concentration at place" to remind us that spikes in misconduct are usually local problems requiring local fixes, and that the data consistently shows most students do the right thing most of the time.You can follow Joe on Linked at https://www.linkedin.com/in/joseph-clare-05098449/ and see his ORCID page (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0444-4189) for more on his research.(Disclaimer: episode quotes and summary were created using YouTube's transcript and Claude and edited by a human. Any errors are the responsibility of the human.)

"Our tendency to deceive and our tendency to make moral judgments — both of these things are bred in the bone. These things live in tension inside of us.""I'm working on what I call a wise model of use — where I want to help students balance outsourcing stuff that's appropriate to outsource versus offloading the stuff I really should be engaging in because learning is difficult."In this 58th episode of The Opposite of Cheating Podcast, David reconnects with longtime friend and collaborator Dr. Jason Stephens, a professor of psychological studies at the University of Auckland, for a deep dive into the moral psychology of cheating.Jason explains why, if he had to pick one variable to understand academic dishonesty, it would be moral disengagement — the rationalizations we use to protect our self-image after doing something we know is wrong. Drawing on Bandura, Freud, and evolutionary psychology, he traces the tension between two tendencies bred into humans: the impulse to deceive (older than morality itself, visible across nearly every species) and the social need to make moral judgments and appear trustworthy. Jason outlines his three-cluster model of why students cheat — under pressure, under interested, and unable — and describes how context and culture determine which tendency wins out. The conversation turns to AI, where Jason shares his "wise model of use," helping students distinguish between outsourcing extraneous cognitive load and offloading the hard thinking that constitutes real learning, using tools like Cogniti and Cadmus to scaffold that process. Both scholars agree that the deeper threat of AI may not be academic integrity at all, but the erosion of human connection as people increasingly turn to machines for social and emotional needs.(Disclaimer: episode quotes and summary were created using Youtube's Transcript and Anthropic's Claude but edited by a human. Any errors are the responsibility of the human).

"The future of the asynchronous online class, I think, is really in jeopardy. The classes are fine, but the assessments are completely cooked.""We're not going to win this on compliance. We're not going to win this with students because we say, 'We told you not to.' We have to win it on the value of learning."In this 57th episode of The Opposite of Cheating Podcast, David is joined by Dr. Kelly Ahuna, Director of the Office of Academic Integrity at the University at Buffalo (SUNY), to discuss the nuts and bolts of running one of the most active academic integrity programs in the country. Kelly shares how UB built its centralized office from scratch in 2019, placing it under academic affairs rather than student affairs — a deliberate choice that shapes their education-first approach. The conversation covers UB's innovative remediation process for first-time offenders, their student integrity ambassador program, and their annual Academic Integrity Awards ceremony held near National Honesty Day. Kelly and David also dig into the practical challenges AI poses — from repeat offenses driven by students' perception that AI-assisted cheating "doesn't feel as bad," to the impossibility of drawing a clear line between brainstorming and writing when the tools keep asking "would you like me to do more?" Throughout, Kelly emphasizes that enforcement alone will never solve the problem — the path forward lies in values-based education, peer-to-peer conversation, and building a culture where integrity is celebrated, not just policed.You can learn more about Kelly and the University of Buffalo's approach to academic integrity at https://www.buffalo.edu/academic-integrity.html(Disclaimer: episode quotes and summary were created using Youtube's Transcript and Anthropic's Claude but edited by a human. Any errors are the responsibility of the human).

"I need to find ways to trust them more and invite them to invest in their learning more at this point.""Are we going to be moving away from writing labs and designing more thinking labs when it comes to the classroom?"In this episode of The Opposite of Cheating Podcast, David sits down with Dr. Emily Perkins, Associate Director of the Writing Center at Le Moyne College, for a wide-ranging conversation about what happens to writing — and thinking — when AI can produce a passable paper with no thought required. Emily brings a unique cross-campus perspective, working daily with writing tutors, first-year students, and faculty across disciplines, and a background that spans academic integrity case management at Syracuse University and a PhD in teaching and curriculum with a certificate in trauma-informed care. The conversation zeroes in on process over product: Emily argues that the real value of a writing assignment isn't the final paper but the brainstorming, drafting, and decision-making that got the student there. She shares results from Le Moyne's student surveys showing that a meaningful number of students are choosing not to use AI because they want to learn by doing, and she advocates for transparent teaching, reflective assignments, and tools like Cursive that make the writing process visible. David and Emily also grapple with a provocative question: if writing is now decoupled from thinking, what does the future of thinking look like?You can follow Emily on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/ecallahanp/(Disclaimer: episode quotes and summary were created using Youtube's Transcript and Anthropic's Claude but edited by a human. Any errors are the responsibility of the human).

"The shift needs to be about internalizing that [ethical] responsibility within the student." "Do you want to go up and upskill and continue focusing on your learning or do you want to go down and downskill and reduce or eliminate your learning?" In this 55th episode of The Opposite of Cheating Podcast, Tricia is joined by her co-authors Mary Davis (Oxford Brookes University) and Zeneeth Khan (University of Wollongong, Dubai) to discuss their forthcoming Cambridge University Press book, Academic Integrity in the Age of AI (https://www.cambridge.org/core/publications/elements/generative-ai-in-education), an element in the GenerativeAI and Education series edited by Tamara Tate & Mark Warschauer. The conversation opens with unforgettable origin stories — Zeneeth's transformation from a teenage cheating ringleader to an integrity champion after a convent school principal's brilliant intervention, and Mary's early battle to use Turnitin as a formative learning tool when the establishment called her "subversive" for doing so. From there, the trio explores their new book's key themes: the historical pattern of moral panic followed by thoughtful integration whenever new technologies disrupt education, the importance of students' ethical agency and moral responsibility, and practical strategies for teaching integrity rather than just policing violations. A standout thread is the insistence that students — even young ones — are fully capable of owning their ethical decisions when educators explain the why behind the guardrails, not just the rules themselves. You can follow Mary on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/professor-mary-davis-a47089167/ and Zeenath at https://www.linkedin.com/in/zeenath-reza-khan-phd-9490a348/. (Disclaimer: episode quotes and summary were created using Youtube's Transcript and Anthropic's Claude but edited by a human. Any errors are the responsibility of the human).

"AI risks becoming that proverbial situation where everything looks like a nail because you've got a hammer in your hand.""The arcane mechanisms of an industrial age model of education that were meant to make human beings who efficiently produced for machines doesn't exist anymore."In this 54th episode of The Opposite of Cheating Podcast, Tricia sits down with Adam Pryor, Senior Advisor for AI Strategy and Engagement at the Council of Independent Colleges, for a lively and surprisingly convergent conversation between two people who assumed they'd disagree. Sparked by Adam's satirical LinkedIn collaboration with Darren Coxon imagining a surveillance-based future for academia (dubbed "the Pinopticon"), the conversation quickly moves beyond AI hype into deeper questions about pedagogy, institutional purpose, and what education is actually for. Adam shares his pastoral care-inspired teaching philosophy, his provocative grading experiments, and his vision for a 2045 university that is more distributed, free of credit hours and majors, and no longer reliant on the essay as its default assessment. Along the way, the two discover they share far more common ground than expected — agreeing that technological solutions alone won't fix education, that faculty need better training and more freedom, and that the real work lies in preserving the human-to-human learning experiences that no chatbot can replace.You can follow Adam on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-pryor/(Disclaimer: episode quotes and summary were created using YouTube's transcript and Claude and edited by a human. Any errors are the responsibility of the human.)

“We're hearing a lot about efficiency and personalization and we're not hearing about things like care, transparency, and, intention.”“Our students are being bombarded with media messages about AI and help and what does help mean? That's such a loaded term.”In this 53rd episode of The Opposite of Cheating Podcast, Tricia talks with Carter Moulton, a faculty developer at Colorado School of Mines, about going “analog” on purpose in the age of generative AI. Carter shares the thinking behind his Analog Inspiration card deck—designed to help educators reconnect with values like care, presence, curiosity, and community, while also offering practical prompts for course and assessment redesign. Together they explore why “why” matters (especially when AI is being shoehorned into learning), how design can be an act of care, and how intentional analog moments can create focus, accountability, and human connection without slipping into nostalgia or reactionary “back to blue books” thinking.You can follow Carter on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/cartermoulton/ and learn more about his Analog Inspiration Card Deck at the Analog Inspiration Website.Show References:"Perceived Anonymity and Cheating in an Online Experiment" (Denisova-Schmidt et al. 2022)"The Analog Sandwich: Teaching Writing With and Without AI" Mark Marino(Disclaimer: episode quotes and summary were created using Youtube's Transcript and ChatGPT and edited by a human. Any errors are the responsibility of the human).

“I am hopeful about is the the increasing degree to which I've encountered students in in this academic year who are thinking more critically about generative AI use.”“I think pessimistically this is going to take a decade to sort out to find an equilibrium of how we proceed here.”In this 52nd episode of The Opposite of Cheating Podcast, Tricia is joined by fellow "hopeful pessimists" Mary-Claire Kennedy (University of Limerick) and Justin Tonra (University of Galway), two national leaders advancing academic integrity across Ireland. Together we discuss how Ireland’s National Academic Integrity Network creates a collaborative infrastructure that supports institutions while preserving local autonomy, allowing universities to share practices, develop guidance, and respond collectively to emerging challenges like generative AI. Mary-Claire and Justin reflect on the evolution from a narrow focus on plagiarism toward a broader culture of integrity grounded in responsibility, transparency, and professional formation. They also explore the opportunities and risks AI presents, expressing cautious optimism that students themselves are beginning to question its impact on their learning. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the power of coordinated leadership, practitioner networks, and shared responsibility in strengthening integrity across an entire higher education system.You can follow Mary-Claire on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-mary-claire-kennedy-0389aa25/ and learn more about Justin's work at https://research.universityofgalway.ie/en/persons/justin-tonra/.You can read up about the HEA framework at Generative AI in Higher Education Teaching & Learning: National Policy Framework - National Resource Hub and the NAIN strategy at national-academic-integrity-network-strategy-2025-2028.pdf(Disclaimer: episode quotes and summary were created using Youtube's Transcript and ChatGPT and edited by a human. Any errors are the responsibility of the human).

“We didn't ask for this, right? We didn't ask for this unregulated, unchecked technology just keep pouring on us every two weeks"“Learning is hard. Learning is work.”In the 51st episode of the podcast, Tricia reconnects with Lew Ludwig (from Episode 27) and welcomes Todd Zakrajsek to discuss their forthcoming book The Science of Learning Meets AI. Instead of spending time chasing tools, Lew and Todd talk about how instructors can ground AI use in learning science—metacognition, memory, spacing, and “desirable difficulties". The episode, and the book, offer a practical, put-into-immediate-action, approach for instructors, instructional designers and teaching and learning centers. They also tackle the realities of rapid AI change (like agents and embedded AI in search), what we risk losing when learning gets too easy, and what gives them hope: smarter assessment design, alternative grading, and a renewed focus on productive struggle and equity.Lew Ludwig is a Professor of Math and previous director of the Center for Learning & Teaching at Denison University. You can learn more about Lew at https://www.lewludwig.com/ and you can follow him on linkedin at https://www.linkedin.com/in/lew-ludwig/.Todd Zakrajšek is Director of the International Teaching Learning Cooperative and you can learn more about Todd at https://www.toddzakrajsek.com/ and follow him on linked in at https://www.linkedin.com/in/todd-zakrajsek-4b3654/(Disclaimer: episode quotes and summary were created using Youtube's Transcript and ChatGPT and edited by a human. Any errors are the responsibility of the human).

“People with integrity aren't perfect. They make mistakes, but the what differentiates them from other folks is that they take accountability for those mistakes and they choose to learn and grow from them.”“Also expect some of the stuff to fail miserably, right? Because nothing nothing complicated or worth doing works. the first time.”This special episode (#50) marks the first anniversary of The Opposite of Cheating (University of Oklahoma Press), published in March 2025! To celebrate the unexpected appeal of the book, Tricia and David hand the mic to returning guest Greer Murphy (Episode 10), who steps in as host. Greer seemed way too excited to “turn the tables” and interview us about how we each found our way into academic integrity work, what surprised us most in writing the book, and what has surprised us since publication. The conversation ranges from the mentors who “dragged" us into the field, to rewriting the manuscript in the wake of generative AI, to what we’ve learned from thousands of faculty, administrators and students through our virtual and physical visits to 100+ campuses and recording over 50 episodes of this cast. We close with a grounded, human message: integrity isn’t perfection—it’s accountability, learning, and growth, and its the privilege we have as educators to help our students work towards that.(Disclaimer: episode quotes and summary were created using Youtube's Transcript and ChatGPT and edited by a human. Any errors are the responsibility of the human).

"You can't have an aha moment unless you go through a period of being stuck or struggling or confused before you get there.”“AI will help you get to the finish line, but it's not going to give you the kind of work related positive impact that you would have by going through that process yourself.”In this 49th episode of The Opposite of Cheating Podcast, David is joined by Professor Jason Lodge (University of Queensland), an educational psychologist and lead author of the Australian Framework for Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education. Together, David and Jason dig into what the learning sciences tell us about “the work of learning”—why meaningful learning is often hard, why confusion can be a productive signal, and how AI can create a “performance without process” trap by helping students reach the finish line without building the underlying capability. Jason argues for moving beyond single snapshot assessments, equipping educators with a toolbox of context-sensitive approaches, and re-centering human relationships in teaching—especially as scale, equity, and the future role of teachers come under pressure. The conversation closes with a clear throughline: know students better to understand their learning better, and keep asking whether we’re doing the things that truly matter.You can follow Jason on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/jasonmlodge/You can access the Australian Framework for Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education at https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/assets.acses.edu.au/app/uploads/2025/12/Lodge-et-al-2025-Australian-Framework-for-Artificial-Intelligence-in-Higher-Education.pdf. (Disclaimer: episode quotes and summary were created using Youtube's Transcript and ChatGPT and edited by a human. Any errors are the responsibility of the human).

“I’m an AI optimist long-term—but it’s creating an enormous problem in the short term around assessment.”“The automation allows us to shift the humans to do those things humans do better—like inspiration and one-on-one interaction.”In this 48th episode of The Opposite of Cheating Podcast, Craig Zilles (Computer Science Professor, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign) shares a compelling case for computer-based testing facilities (CBTF) as essential infrastructure for modern universities—especially in the age of GenAI. Drawing on his background in mechanical, electrical, and computer engineering, Craig explains how scalability, equity, and better pedagogy motivated the University of Illinois’ early shift to computer-based testing long before AI tools like ChatGPT emerged.He outlines how the PrairieLearn platform, developed at UIUC, supports mastery-based learning, randomized assessments, and formative practice at scale, helping faculty focus more on teaching and inspiration and less on logistics and test proctoring. The conversation explores the two-lane approach to assessment, second-chance testing, cognitive offloading, and how secure assessments can support—not hinder—learning.Zilles challenges the notion that exams are inherently stressful or inequitable and offers a vision of assessment that is more human, more supportive, and more meaningful—especially when faculty are freed from the burdens of test administration.You can follow Craig on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/craig-zilles-6b2893/ and see a list of his publications at https://zilles.cs.illinois.edu/.Episode Resources:Every University Should Have a Computer-Based Testing Facilityhttps://zilles.cs.illinois.edu/papers/zilles_csedu_cbtf_2019.pdfIntegrating Diverse Learning Tools using the PrairieLearn Platformhttps://zilles.cs.illinois.edu/papers/paper_pl_splice_2021.pdfHow Much Randomization is Needed to Deter Collaborative Cheating on Asynchronous Exams?https://zilles.cs.illinois.edu/papers/chen_paper_async_randomization_las_2018.pdfInvestigating the Effects of Testing Frequency on Programming Performance and Students’ Behaviorhttps://zilles.cs.illinois.edu/papers/frequent_testing_sigcse23.pdf(Disclaimer: episode quotes and summary were created using Youtube's Transcript and ChatGPT and edited by a human. Any errors are the responsibility of the human).

“We would be doing a disservice to the students if we didn’t at least include AI in the conversation as an institution.”“Digital adaptability — being able to navigate this digital space that’s always changing — is the skill that’s going to be beneficial for anybody in the future.”In this 47th episode of The Opposite of Cheating Podcast, Ronald Lethcoe reflects on what it means to build AI literacy ethically, intentionally, and institutionally. As an instructional design specialist at Clover Park Technical College, Ronald has been at the forefront of helping faculty navigate generative AI—not by jumping on the hype train, but by designing scalable resources, policies, and conversations that meet educators where they are.He shares his team’s approach to scaffolding faculty development through their “AI Essentials” course, discusses their AI usage “stoplight” framework for assignment design, and emphasizes the importance of digital adaptability as a core skill for both students and teachers.Ronald also opens up about parenting in the age of AI—recounting a conversation with his 9-year-old son about when getting help from ChatGPT crosses the line into cheating. The episode closes with a discussion on the limits of graphic infographics, the importance of nuance in course policies, and how infusing values like accessibility and openness into AI strategy can help institutions move forward responsibly.You can follow Ronald on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/rlethcoe/ and listen to his Simon Says: Educate! Podcast at https://open.spotify.com/show/6qwx9B3oNookrZJT8GwHb8Episode Resources:Generative AI in Higher Education Canvas Coursehttps://lor.instructure.com/resources/b385d16a3e36434ebfede2315f585362?sharedApplied AI in College Classroom Canvas Course Crosswalkhttps://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eIRoeKrWqMD4m9dpgeoeulr8a48ku9EoyAuYLxCqu9g/edit?gid=2027822702#gid=2027822702AI Usage Tags for Syllabi (CPTC TLC LibGuide)https://cptc.libguides.com/TLC/SyllabusGutierrez and Lethcoe’s AI Essentials in Education (AI-Ed) overviewhttps://jonigutierrez.com/2025/11/02/gutierrez-lethcoes-ai-essentials-in-education-ai-ed-responsible-ai-literacy-course-for-a-human-centered-future/AEIOU Ethos Framework for Responsible AI Usehttps://jonigutierrez.com/2025/08/02/aeiou-ethos-a-framework-for-responsible-ai/(Disclaimer: episode quotes and summary were created using Youtube's Transcript and ChatGPT and edited by a human. Any errors are the responsibility of the human).e the responsibility of the human).

“Every time you engage with these systems, you gain something—but you also lose something.”“Human agency is your capability to make informed decisions, to act with intention, and to exercise judgment.”What happens when the red lines we draw around generative AI start to blur? In this 46th episode of The Opposite of Cheating, Dr. Soroush Sabbaghan reflects on how he’s crossed the lines he once swore he wouldn’t—assigning AI-generated readings and using AI in student feedback—not out of compromise, but in service of integrity, transparency, and pedagogy.As the first GenAI Educational Leader-in-Residence at the Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning at the University of Calgary, Soroush has developed tools and frameworks to support educators and students navigating GenAI with nuance. He argues for assignment-level AI policies, aligned with specific learning outcomes and ethical goals—not blanket rules—and introduces his system that distinguishes between AI-free, AI-scaffolded, and AI-integrated tasks.Soroush shares his deep concern for student agency, the asymmetry between human and machine learning, and the risks of a purely transactional approach to education. He invites us to live, teach, and design with a mindset of intellectual humility and epistemic integrity—recognizing that every AI interaction has tradeoffs.You can follow Soroush and his work on LInkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/soroush-sabbaghan/) and at https://soroushsabbaghan.com/Episode Resources:Communicating Generative AI Use: https://teaching-learning.ucalgary.ca/resources-educators/course-outlines/communicating-generative-ai-use-your-studentsAI Bot for Designing Courses: https://www.smartie.dev/AI Bot for making AI Policy: https://ai-policy-mumf.onrender.com(Disclaimer: episode quotes and summary were created using Youtube's Transcript and ChatGPT and edited by a human. Any errors are the responsibility of the human).e the responsibility of the human).

“We missed the mark with social media. We can’t miss it with AI.”“College has to reach down and figure out what students are actually learning instead of just existing in this gap space and resenting K–12.”In this episode, Nick Potkalitsky offers a K–12 lens on AI Literacy, reflecting on how schools, students, and parents are navigating this moment of rapid change—without repeating the mistakes made with social media. Drawing from over 20 years in education, Nick shares how his work with school districts across Ohio is building more intentional, discipline-specific, and developmental approaches to GenAI in education.Nick outlines a framework that includes policy development, infrastructure security, teacher capacity-building, and student-centered instructional redesign. At the core is the belief that AI Literacy must be more than prompt engineering—it must foster agency, ethical reasoning, critical thinking, and metacognitive awareness.Nick also warns of the dangerous asymmetry between how fast tech companies are moving and how fractured K–12 systems are. He calls for AI-free zones, authentic process-based writing, and more parent-facing AI education, especially to combat risks of AI misuse and companionship tools that are quietly shaping student behavior.You can follow Nick on LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/nick-potkalitsky-phd-0313ba126/) and at Substack (https://nickpotkalitsky.substack.com/).(Disclaimer: episode quotes and summary were created using Youtube's Transcript and ChatGPT and edited by a human. Any errors are the responsibility of the human).

“I have many conflicted feelings about AI, but talking to kind, curious people seems to help.”“What does academic integrity mean when there are multi-billion dollar companies with armies of people whose job it is to make cheating irresistible?”In this deeply personal and reflective episode of The Opposite of Cheating Podcast (44), Karen Costa shares what it means to teach for integrity in asynchronous, online learning environments in the age of GenAI. With nearly two decades of experience across multiple institutions, Karen highlights the role of relationships, care, and relevance in shaping learning spaces that foster integrity—not through surveillance, but through trust. She opens up about the tension between access and academic integrity, especially for adult learners, neurodivergent students, and working parents—populations whose educational opportunities often depend on online formats. Karen also discusses how the rise of agentic AI has forced educators to confront not just cheating, but the erosion of attention, motivation, and self-belief. She explores her shifting role as an instructor, her experiments with Google Docs version history, and her creative coping strategies—from AI command centers to faculty self-care. Most importantly, she challenges institutions and edtech companies to do more than outsource ethical decision-making to underpaid adjuncts.You can follow Karen on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/karen-costa-380280a7/ and you can learn more about her book at https://www.amazon.com/Educators-Guide-ADHD-Designing-Teaching/dp/1421453509(Disclaimer: episode quotes and summary were created using Youtube's Transcript and ChatGPT and edited by a human. Any errors are the responsibility of the human).

“We need to be a little bit careful—if we put all our eggs in the assurance and academic integrity basket, then we’re at risk of forgetting some of the other really important parts of education.”“Some of the ways in which we deal with academic integrity actually do the opposite of cultivating integrity.”What is academic integrity in 2025—and how do we build learning environments that support it? In this 43rd episode of The Opposite of Cheating Podcast, Australian educator and researcher Tim Fawns shares his expertise at the intersection of digital education, assessment design, and values-based teaching.Together, Tricia and Tim challenge simple binaries like online vs. in-person or authentic vs. secure. They explore how assessment security and human development can coexist, and why truly authentic assessment isn’t a panacea—it’s a complex design challenge requiring intentional trade-offs.Tim also reflects on the unintended effects of AI Detectors, which may shift the locus of trust away from students and instructors, and on how educational design can better engage the “whole person.” Drawing on research from the AI in Higher Education project (https://aiinhe.org/), he explains how student integrity decisions are shaped by intersecting identities, pressures, and realities—not just individual morals.You can follow Tim and/or learn more about him and his work on LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/tim-fawns-4aba225/) and on his website (https://timfawns.com/).(Disclaimer: episode quotes and summary were created using Youtube's Transcript and ChatGPT and edited by a human. Any errors are the responsibility of the human).

“It was the first time I was introduced to the idea of academic integrity—because I had done something.”“Assessment is broken now that AI’s here. It probably wasn’t in great shape beforehand.”In this 42nd episode of The Opposite of Cheating Podcast, Tricia speaks with Marc Watkins, Assistant Director of Academic Innovation and Lecturer of Writing & Rhetoric at the University of Mississippi, and author of the popular Substack - Rhetorica. After revealing that he learned about academic integrity from his fourth grade teacher, Marc and Tricia explore the challenging and nuanced middle ground between AI hype and AI resistance. How we both teach students (and faculty) about the harms and downsides of AI relianceharms of the AI hype, the moral compromises baked into edtech, and the challenges . Watkins calls for nuanced discernment rather than blind resistance or enthusiastic adoption and advocates for teaching critical AI literacy and AI fluency as essential durable human skills.From handwritten journals in hybrid courses to AI-fueled loneliness and student mental health, this episode ranges widely—and offers practical strategies to bring students back into relationship with learning, and each other.You can follow Marc on LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/marc-watkins-7a760356/) and keep up with his writing, thinking and teaching at https://marcwatkins.substack.com/ and https://marcwatkins.org/. (Disclaimer: episode quotes and summary were created using Youtube's Transcript and ChatGPT and edited by a human. Any errors are the responsibility of the human).e the responsibility of the human).

“I started out as an academic integrity prescriptivist. I was the hard-nosed.”“There’s really only three main ways that we can ask students to demonstrate academic integrity: Trust, Verification, Observation.”In this 41st episode of The Opposite of Cheating Podcast, David talks with Thomas J. Tobin, an educational developer and consultant with decades of experience, to challenge the punitive paradigms that dominate academic integrity conversations. Sharing his personal transformation from “academic integrity prescriptivist” to UDL champion, Tom walks listeners through a powerful framework for promoting honesty in learning environments: Trust, Verification, and Observation.He emphasizes how lowering barriers—around time, grades, due dates, and communication—can dramatically reduce student pressure and cheating behavior. Rather than defaulting to surveillance and restriction, Tom calls on instructors to make design choices that respect learner variability and build integrity by default.Listeners will learn how Universal Design for Learning intersects with academic integrity, and how reframing our goals around student agency and flexibility not only preserves rigor, but reduces workload for faculty and increases authentic learning for students.You can follow Tom's work at https://thomasjtobin.com/ and on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/drtomtobin/, and find his writings about UDL at https://www.ahead.ie/udlforfet-guidance and http://wvupressonline.com/node/757(Disclaimer: episode quotes and summary were created using Youtube's Transcript and ChatGPT and edited by a human. Any errors are the responsibility of the human).

“It’s not: do you have integrity or do you not. It’s: are there conditions in place that allow people to act with integrity?”“One of the things that alternative grading can do is to help shift students’ focus from getting grades and generating products to learning and engaging in a learning process.”In this episode, educational developer and writing instructor Emily Pitts Donahoe of the Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETL) of the University of Mississippi, shares how collaborative grading and inclusive pedagogy can transform how we think about academic integrity in the age of AI. Drawing from her work with graduate instructors and first-year writing students, Emily discusses how alternative grading shifts the focus from polished products to meaningful engagement and growth. She reflects on formative moments in her own educational journey, including a high school ethical dilemma, and examines how systemic inequities shape integrity choices. This episode invites listeners to rethink what learning looks like—and how we might redesign our courses to better support integrity, equity, and motivation in a rapidly changing world.You can follow Emily's work on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/emily-pitts-donahoe-54093a242/, on her Unmaking the Grade Substack at https://emilypittsdonahoe.substack.com/, and on the CETL website at https://olemiss.edu/profiles/ejdonaho.php. For specific links to the Progress Tracker Emily gives to students, a sample rubric, and her current AI Policy document, see this blog post - https://emilypittsdonahoe.substack.com/p/sharing-my-course-documents. Episode Resources Leonard Cassuto's The New PhD (https://www.press.jhu.edu/books/title/12093/new-phd?srsltid=AfmBOorgiP2uw_IKt47yzNA5sX1-dIHQyZ8YKS4aWg0-hbTKFT_7g5R5) and his appearance on Dead Ideas in Teaching and Learning (https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/why-is-there-no-training-on-how-to-teach-graduate-students/id1535499508?i=1000646374045&l=es-MX)(Disclaimer: episode quotes and summary were created using Youtube's Transcript and ChatGPT and edited by a human. Any errors are the responsibility of the human).

"We've been loathed to change and evaluate ourselves, make sure that we're addressing these fundamental issues and we need to own it.""These are wicked problems and we have the knowledge and the ability, but we are headbutting not willing to come together and come up with a path forward."In this 39th episode of The Opposite of Cheating Podcast, Tricia speaks with Sonny Ramaswamy, former President of the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU), about the intersections of accreditation, academic integrity, and systemic reform in higher education. Drawing from his expansive career in science, public service, and accreditation, Sonny reflects on the evolution—and shortcomings—of U.S. quality assurance models, especially in light of new challenges posed by AI and persistent pressures around access, funding, and equity. Together, they tackle the validity of the credit hour, the need to move toward competency-based education, and how accreditors like NWCCU must move to centering learning outcomes, professional ethics, and durable human skills in their evaluation processes.You can learn more about Sonny on his Wikipedia page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Ramaswamy - and by following him on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/sonnyramaswamy/(Disclaimer: episode quotes and summary were created using Youtube's Transcript and ChatGPT and edited by a human. Any errors are the responsibility of the human).Episode ResourcesBeing There (Movie): https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078841/?ref_=nm_flmg_job_1_accord_1_cdt_t_2Carnegie Credit Hour: https://nwccu.org/news/v6i4-letter-from-the-president/Math Education in Crisis: https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/wa-math-education-is-in-crisis-heres-what-could-help/WASC's KIDS (Key Indicator Dashboard) - https://www.wscuc.org/resources/kid/

"The issue I have is honestly that AI itself is a thief of ideas and doesn't really attribute where it got it from." "When you disclose, you're unpacking your thinking and you're making your thinking visible." In this 38th episode, Dr. Tricia Bertram Gallant is joined by Hoda Mostafa and Maha Bali from the Center for Learning and Teaching at the American University in Cairo (AUC). They explore how academic integrity is shaped by culture, language, and historical context, like how ideas of "helping" can blur lines in collectivist cultures and why Western-centric frameworks for integrity can create pitfalls. Hoda and Maha explain how AUC co-created guidelines for generative AI use with faculty and students to reframe originality, attribution, and collaboration in empowering ways. They also critique AI tools' biases, the dangers of outsourcing feedback to machines, and the need to preserve students' voices and relationships in learning. You can follow Hoda and Maha on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/hodamostafa/ and https://www.linkedin.com/in/maha-bali-3b51615/ respectfully. And for more on the Center for Learning and Teaching at The American University in Cairo go to https://www.aucegypt.edu/academics/center-learning-and-teaching (Disclaimer: episode quotes and summary were created using Youtube's Transcript and ChatGPT and edited by a human. Any errors are the responsibility of the human).Episode Resources"AI shaming":https://blog.mahabali.me/educational-technology-2/against-ai-shaming/https://blog.mahabali.me/uncategorized/an-invitation-to-extend-grace-and-openness-instead-of-no-ai-shaming/Peter Feltern's work: Connections Are Everything https://www.press.jhu.edu/books/title/12845/connections-are-everything?srsltid=AfmBOooLKOLIxxe13qUi1ZXM88EQYMBltzX6SRbQ54sk1MzTd6T6HfTICompassionate Learning DesignGachago, D., Bali, M., & Pallitt, N. (2022). Compassionate learning design as a critical approach to instructional design. In J. Quinn, M Burtis, & S. Jhangiani (eds). Critical Instructional Design. Hybrid Pedagogy publishing. https://criticalinstructionaldesign.pressbooks.com/chapter/compassionate-learning-design-as-a-critical-approach-to-instructional-design/Bali, M. & Tamer Atef, Y. (2024). https://blog.mahabali.me/pedagogy/cultivating-compassionate-community-to-foster-academic-integrity-with-yasser_tammer/

“Nobody’s brain wants to work overtime on something that seems pointless.”“Transparency full stop… you really you you cannot be too clear and transparent.”In this 37th episode of The Opposite of Cheating Podcast, David speaks with Syracuse University's Jessamyn Neuhaus (Director of the Center for Teaching & Learning Excellence) and Kate Marzen (Director of Academic Integrity) about using joy, trust, and proactive communication to reshape how academic integrity is approached.Jessamine shares her journey from content-focused historian to pedagogy-centered faculty leader, reframing academic integrity as a teachable skill embedded within good teaching. Kate, drawing on her background in K–12 and student conduct, emphasizes developmental approaches to misconduct and shares Syracuse’s standout initiative: a low-tech academic integrity escape room designed for first-year students.The episode dives into the power of transparency, the importance of giving students voice and agency, and how faculty can create learning environments that reduce misconduct by design—not policing.Listeners will come away with actionable strategies for humanizing integrity conversations, making teaching joyful again, and building campus cultures where students are seen as partners—not problems.You can follow Jessamyn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/jessamyn-neuhaus-975b00168/ and Kate at https://www.linkedin.com/in/kate-bussell/. You can learn more about Syracuse University's Center for Teaching & Learning Excellence (CTLE) at https://teachingexcellence.syr.edu/ (Disclaimer: episode quotes and summary were created using Youtube's Transcript and ChatGPT and edited by a human. Any errors are the responsibility of the human).

"Assessment and feedback inspires and assures student learning""Formative, instant feedback, repeatable, and evaluative judgement - that's FIRE"In this 36th episode of The Opposite of Cheating Podcast, Pro Vice-Chancellor of Quality & Integrity at Western Sydney University Cath Ellis discusses the evolution of educational integrity in Australia, the role of regulatory frameworks like TEQSA, and how scandal and data paved the way for institutional change. She introduces Western Sydney's Inspire and Assure (IA) Approach to assessment, which is their refinement of the “two-lane” model talked about by Danny Liu in Episode 28, to center faculty on the importance of inspiring learning and assuring assessment validity. Cath shares practical strategies for identifying “enrolled persons” who may not be doing their own work, like oral assessments, and the need to build student capacity while holding institutions accountable for fairness and transparency. She also unpacks the matrix model for assessment reform and makes a compelling argument for replacing “sour” assessments with “FIRE” ones.You can follow Cath on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/cath-ellis-8162581b/(Disclaimer: episode quotes and summary were created using Youtube's Transcript and ChatGPT and edited by a human. Any errors are the responsibility of the human).

“AI is helping a lot of students to find a voice and at the same time though AI can also completely overtake the student voice.”“Critical thinking, communication, and relationship building… those are pieces of the AI puzzle that AI cannot solve on its own.” In this 35th episode of The Opposite of Cheating Podcast, David speaks with Aviva Legatt about the growing role of GenAI in higher education—from its use in admissions processes to course design, and institutional governance. Drawing from her background in admissions at Wharton, work with families through her company Ivy Insight, and policy consulting via EdGenerative, Dr. Legatt emphasizes the dual nature of AI: as both a powerful enabler and a source of ethical complexity. She highlights how institutions can build AI literacy, the tension between academic integrity and AI-driven futures, and why relationship-building, communication, and critical thinking remain irreplaceable human skills. You can learn more about and follow Aviva on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/avivalegatt/ (Disclaimer: episode quotes and summary were created using Youtube's Transcript and ChatGPT and edited by a human. Any errors are the responsibility of the human).

"AI can do this. Why am I asking them to do this?” "We've lost these opportunities where students fail and then learn through failure" In this 34th episode of The Opposite of Cheating Podcast, Tricia sits down with Torrey Trust, professor of learning technology at UMass Amherst, to explore how Generative AI is reshaping how students learn and how educators teach. Torrey shares insights from her popular courses on edtech and digital tools, her pioneering seminar “AI for College Success,” and her research-based “TRUST Model” for teaching and learning. She reflects on academic integrity from her own student days, expresses concern about AI’s emotional manipulation, and champions new assignment designs that prioritize transparency, real-world relevance, and process over product. You can follow Torrey on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/torreytrust/ and learn more about her at http://www.torreytrust.com/Resources Mentioned in Episode:Hallucination Board: https://github.com/vectara/hallucination-leaderboard?tab=readme-ov-fileDavid Wiley - https://opencontent.org/blog/archives/4691Trust model: https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/teaching-with-technology-articles/essential-considerations-for-addressing-the-possibility-of-ai-driven-cheating-part-2/(Disclaimer: episode quotes and summary were created using Youtube's Transcript and ChatGPT and edited by a human. Any errors are the responsibility of the human)."AI can do this. Why am I asking them to do this?”

“Students are human and humans cheat.”"If you make it easy for people to do, then it's more likely to happen."In this thought-provoking 33rd episode of The Opposite of Cheating, David speaks with Phil Newton, neuroscientist and academic integrity researcher at Swansea University in Wales. Phil brings a rare blend of scientific rigor and pedagogical insight to the conversation, reflecting on how memory, motivation, and fairness intersect with cheating, assessment, and the rise of AI in education.Together, they explore:* the neuroscience behind why facts matter—and why offloading them to AI could erode critical thinking* the ethics of unsupervised exams and why “please don’t cheat” is not enough* what it means to “certify” learning in a world where students—and machines—can do so much unseen* why foundational knowledge is still essential in medicine, democracy, and education* how universities might be failing students by making cheating the easiest optionYou can follow Phil on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/prof-phil-newton-21966b8a/ (Disclaimer: episode quotes and summary were created using Youtube's Transcript and ChatGPT and edited by a human. Any errors are the responsibility of the human).

“At some point, you have to decide which parts of your course are essential, and which you can let go of.”“Agents aren’t coming—they’re here. And they’re going to make academic dishonesty invisible.”In the 32nd Episode of The Opposite of Cheating, Tricia talks with Dr. Joseph Brown, Director of the Academic Integrity Program at Colorado State University. A long-time member of the International Center for Academic Integrity, Joseph brings a faculty perspective—rooted in his background as an English professor—and bridges it with deep administrative experience in both student conduct and faculty development.Listen to Joseph's thoughts on how institutional structure impacts academic integrity, what faculty exhaustion reveals about the limits of 20th-century assessment models, and why “authentic assessment” must become more than a buzzword in the age of agents, smart wearables, and constant disruption.Through personal stories, cultural reflections, and institutional insights, this episode captures the complexity—and possibility—of teaching for integrity in today’s higher education landscape.You can follow Joseph Brown on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/josephfbrown/(Disclaimer: episode quotes and summary were created using Youtube's Transcript and ChatGPT and edited by a human. Any errors are the responsibility of the human).

“Abstinence doesn’t work. Not for drugs, not for alcohol, and not for AI.”“There’s something deeply dehumanizing about massive lecture halls. If we want human-to-human learning, we need to rethink the model.”In this Episode 31 of The Opposite of Cheating, Tricia talks with Lance Eaton, Senior Associate Director of AI in Teaching and Learning at Northeastern University and a prominent voice in the ethical use of AI in education. Lance shares his journey from being an open education advocate and adjunct instructor, to one of the first educators to co-develop institutional AI policies with students.The conversation weaves together personal stories (chicken nuggets, Blockbuster, and fairness), reflections on power and pedagogy, and a deep dive into what it means to “start with trust” in a tech-saturated world. Together, we explore AI literacy, course design, relational learning, institutional policy development, and the hard truths about equity, workload, and educational culture.You can follow Lance on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/leaton01/For more on the AI Course Policies he's been crowdsourcing, go to https://aiedusimplified.substack.com/p/ai-syllabi-policies-a-look-at-theAnd subscribe to Lance's Substack (AI + Education = Simplified) at https://aiedusimplified.substack.com/(Disclaimer: episode quotes and summary were created using Youtube's Transcript and ChatGPT and edited by a human. Any errors are the responsibility of the human).

“Students cheat for different reasons. It’s not one-size-fits-all—and our responses shouldn’t be either.”“We have to teach students what ethical use of AI looks like. If we don’t, how can we blame them for getting it wrong?”In this 30th episode of The Opposite of Cheating Podcast, David talks with Dr. Eric Anderman, a pioneer in studying academic integrity and motivation. Eric shares his journey from a high school teacher surprised by widespread cheating to a leading researcher on how assessment practices, classroom language, and institutional culture shape student behavior. Together, they discuss what practices drive cheating, how AI impacts that, and how to respond to cheating with understanding and learning.Eric Anderman is Vice-Provost and Professor of Educational Psychology and Quantitative Research, Evaluation, and Measurement at The Ohio State University, USA. You can follow Eric on LinkedIn and read more about his work in Classroom Motivation: Linking Research to Teacher Practice and Sparking Student Motivation.(Disclaimer: episode quotes and summary were created using Youtube's Transcript and ChatGPT and edited by a human. Any errors are the responsibility of the human).

“Integrity isn’t about catching cheaters—it’s about creating a culture where shortcuts don’t make sense.”“First-year writing isn’t just a requirement—it’s where students discover how to think independently.”In this 29th episode of The Opposite of Cheating Podcast, Shane and Tricia explore the pressures students face in foundational writing courses and the challenges of maintaining academic integrity in the face of ever-changing AI tech. The keys, they conclude, are to amplify human connection, develop new ideas of authorship versus assistance, and cultivating critical thinking through genuine engagement.Shane Shukis is a Continuing Lecturer in the University Writing Program at the University of California, RiversideResourceMahowald, Kyle, Ivanova, Anna, et al. "Dissociating Language and Thought in Large Language Models," 23 March 2024, arXiv, 2023, arxiv.org/abs/2301.06627.(Disclaimer: episode quotes and summary were created using Youtube's Transcript and ChatGPT and edited by a human. Any errors are the responsibility of the human).

“Faculty development isn’t about tools; it’s about changing how we teach.”“Academic integrity is more than catching misconduct—it’s about designing courses that make learning worth doing.”In this 28th episode of The Opposite of Cheating Podcast (Season 2), Tricia sits down with Danny to explore the two-lane assessment approach, the Australian national efforts to respond to the impact of GenAI on higher education, and that age-old question - should we just trust students? We think you'll find this to be a candid and practical discussion of the changes that colleges and universities need to make to help students learn with integrity in the age of AI.Danny Liu is a Professor in Educational Technologies at the University of Sidney and his work is centered on helping faculty redesign their pedagogies and assessments to match our current reality and our student populations.You can follow Danny on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/dannydotliu/ (Disclaimer: episode quotes and summary were created using Youtube's Transcript and ChatGPT and edited by a human. Any errors are the responsibility of the human).

"You can’t ask AI to do what you don’t understand.""I once thought an epsilon-delta proof was just busy work… until years later I saw why it mattered."Join Tricia's discussion with Lew Ludwig in the 27th episode of The Opposite of Cheating Podcast. Lew, a math professor and former teaching center director at Denison University, helps us think about how STEM faculty can teach for integrity in the age of AI and what faculty can do to build trust, foster critical thinking, and meaningfully integrate AI into teaching. Tricia and Lew also touch on how institutions can better support faculty adapting to this rapidly changing landscape.You can follow Lew on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/lew-ludwig/Resources:Marc Watkins Rhetorica Newsletter (https://marcwatkins.substack.com/) and Chronicle of Higher Education columns (https://www.chronicle.com/author/marc-watkins?sra=true)The TILT Framework (Mary-Ann Wilkelmes)https://www.tilthighered.com/resources (navigate to Example Assignment Prompts for STEM examples)Backwards Design (Dee Fink)https://ceils.ucla.edu/map-your-course-with-backward-design/Expert Blindspothttps://blogs.iu.edu/citl/2023/04/10/reflecting-on-expert-blind-spots-to-improve-skills-based-teaching/Todd Zakrajsek's The New Science of Learning and Dynamic Lecturing (https://www.toddzakrajsek.com/publications)Ezra Klein's Podcast Episode: We have to really rethink the purpose of education (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/13/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-rebecca-winthrop.html)(Disclaimer: episode quotes and summary were created using Youtube's Transcript and ChatGPT and edited by a human. Any errors are the responsibility of the human).

“The most horrifying student question I see in ChatGPT is: What should I think about this?” "Students don’t care about privacy like we do. As one said: My mom’s ultrasound pictures are on Facebook.” In this 25th episode of The Opposite of Cheating Podcast, Tricia (after mistakenly saying Chris got a shout out on Hard Fork when it really was on Uncanny Valley!) delves into the grey area with Chris Ostro on how GenAI shapes student engagement with course learning outcomes, whether using AI Detection undermines student-faculty relationships, and what many get wrong about trust, punishment and the “I can tell” fallacy. With candid nuance, Chris challenges to rethink our responsibility for integrity not as "surveillance" but as a commitment to intentional course/assessment design, speaking with students, and figuring this out together. Christopher Ostro is an AI-Focused Assistant Teaching Professor and Course Designer at the University of Colorado Boulder. You can follow Chris on LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/ochristo/) and BlueSky (https://bsky.app/profile/ochristo.bsky.social) You can listen to the shout-out Chris got on an Uncanny Valley episode -ttps://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/uncanny-valley-wired/id266391367 - and learn more about his approach to teaching for integrity with GenAT at https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1lEHRQv8b3DEF9B2MVemoA5F5MHFSjl42 (You can find the Kofinas article referenced in the episode at https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjet.13585?af=R)(Disclaimer: episode quotes and summary were created using Youtube's Transcript and ChatGPT and edited by a human. Any errors are the responsibility of the human).

“Integrity isn’t just for students—it’s about the culture we create in learning, teaching, and working.”“Trust is essential, but it’s not an assurance technique—we still need ways to validate learning.”In the 25th episode of The Opposite of Cheating Podcast, David speaks with Amanda McKenzie, Director of Academic Integrity at the University of Waterloo, Canada. With over a decade of experience in academic integrity and quality assurance, Amanda shares insights on fostering a culture of integrity across institutions, the role of remediation and education in supporting students, and the evolving challenges posed by GenAI.Amanda McKenzie is the Director of Academic Integrity at the University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada and Board Emeritus Member of the International Center for Academic Integrity.You can learn more about Amanda's work at https://uwaterloo.ca/academic-integrity/ and follow her on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/amanda-mckenzie-924b4512/.(Disclaimer: episode quotes and summary were created using Youtube's Transcript and ChatGPT and edited by a human. Any errors are the responsibility of the human).

"Some of the best learning happens when you fail upwards.""I have probably never saved any time from using AI."In this 24th episode of The Opposite of Cheating Podcast, Tricia speaks again with Laura Dumin (for previous conversation, see Episode 3) to check in on how her teaching asynchronous online classes are going with the latest GenAI developments. We explore why developing meaningful relationships with students (when possible) can help minimize cheating, the dangers of overhyping GenAI in education, and how she has found that emphasizing trust, relationships, and thoughtful course design is a better approach to teaching for integrity. Tricia and Laura also ruminate on whether it is possible to have integrity in asynchronous, online assessments in an AI powered world.Laura Dumin is an award-winning Professor at the University of Central Oklahoma and a popular voice for speaking to how we might integrate GenAI into writing courses. You can learn more about Laura and her work on LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/laura-dumin157/) and at her website (https://ldumin157.com/).If you want to connect with Laura and others thinking about GenAI in education, you can join the Facebook Group she founded at  https://m.facebook.com/groups/632930835501841(Disclaimer: episode quotes and summary were created using Youtube's Transcript and ChatGPT and edited by a human. Any errors are the responsibility of the human).

“I think it's important to trust students first. And if there's a reason not to trust, I get that. But embracing the idea of trust and empathy first is important.”“When students value not just the process but what they’re doing, they’re engaged. And engaged students are far less likely to cheat.”In this 22nd episode of The Opposite of Cheating Podcast, Tricia and Jeanne talk about choosing to assume "confusion over corruption" as a writing educator, integrating AI into first year writing courses, and how alternative grading practices can help engender trust and empathy while teaching for integrity.Jeanne Beatrix Law is a Professor of English, Coordinator of the graduate certificate in AI & Writing Technologies, and past Director of First-Year Writing at Kennesaw State University in Georgia. Learn more about Jeanne and her work at https://facultyweb.kennesaw.edu/jlaw29/index.php and read a The Conversation piece she wrote at https://theconversation.com/ai-isnt-replacing-student-writing-but-it-is-reshaping-it-254878You can follow Jeanne on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeanne-beatrix-law-phd-a05b2391/(Disclaimer: episode quotes and summary were created using Youtube's Transcript and ChatGPT and edited by a human. Any errors are the responsibility of the human).

“Kids are born curious. The structure of schooling—standardized tests, boxed curricula—often kills that curiosity.” “There are no shortcuts. We must design learning experiences that are meaningful, relevant, and worth doing.” In this 22nd episode of The Opposite of Cheating Podcast, Joshua talks to Tricia about how our 20th century systems of grading can harm student learning, exacerbate structural inequalities, and erode intrinsic motivation. Together, they wrestle with this notion of "harm", lament that removing grades isn't the "magic bullet" solution to stopping cheating, and challenge the myth that its the job of colleges and universities to prepare students for work. Joshua Eyler is Senior Director of the Center for Excellence in Teaching & Learning and Director of the ThinkForward Quality Enhancement Plan at the University of Mississippi, where he is also on the faculty in the Department of Teacher Education. Josh is the author of Failing Our Future: How Grades Harm Students and What We Can Do about It (John Hopkins University Press, 2024) and How Humans Learn: The Science and Stories behind Effective College Teaching (WVU, 2018). You can follow Josh at https://www.linkedin.com/in/joshua-eyler-88583338/ and Josh would like to recommend that you check out his colleague Emily Pitts Donahoe's newsletter "Unmaking the Grade" at https://emilypittsdonahoe.substack.com/(Disclaimer: episode quotes and summary were created using Youtube's Transcript and ChatGPT and edited by a human. Any errors are the responsibility of the human).

“Before you drive a car, you need to know where the brakes are. That’s how I see AI literacy—AI safety comes first.” “AI speaks with confidence. That can be seductive for students who aren’t confident in their own thinking.” The Opposite of Cheating Podcast kicks off Season 2 with a conversation with Tina Austin. In this episode, we learn about Tina's first encounter with contract cheating and then Tina and Tricia tackle the concept of "AI Literacy" (is it a thing and can it be taught?) vs AI Safety and explore a timely debate about whether individual educators can or should resist GenAI. Tina Austin is an educator in computational biology and biological/medical ethics at multiple California colleges and universities, and has been integrating GenAI into her teaching since 2022 and helping other faculty do the same. You can follow Tina on Linkedin at https://www.linkedin.com/in/tinaaustin. You can also bookmark her website at https://tinaaustin.com/(Disclaimer: episode quotes and summary were created using Youtube's Transcript and ChatGPT and edited by a human. Any errors are the responsibility of the human).