AI Prompting Examples, Templates, and Tips For Educators

Text says AI Prompting 101 For Education. Examples and Templates

Prompt engineering is a complex, delicate art form that requires sophisticated training and ongoing, dedicated effort. Even then, only a prestigious few can hope to master advanced AI prompting techniques… Sike.

Writing effective prompts is actually pretty simple if you’re clear, specific, and provide the chatbot with context.We cover the basics below and reveal the latest prompting technique, Quad-shotting, and you can skip to the prompt examples, templates, and tips.

What is a prompt?

A prompt is the message you type into a chatbot or other generative AI to tell it what you want. Prompts can be a question, requesting help, or giving it a task like summarizing text, generating code, and even translating text to other languages.

What is prompt engineering?

Prompt engineering is just how to write your requests to get the response you’re looking for from a chatbot. “Engineering” makes it sound like a really technical (sometimes it can be), but for most educators’ use cases, you just need to be clear and specific about what you want and provide details to help the chatbot tailor its response.

What is the best AI chatbot?

The best AI chatbot really depends on what you’re doing. If it’s a general writing task, ChatGPT and Claude are likely your best bet. If it’s technical writing, Gemini and DeepSeek Chat are solid options. You can compare AI chatbots here.

Types of prompting techniques + unnecessary terms

There are a ton of terms that make prompting seem like an extremely complex and technical process, but they mostly just describe things people naturally do when they use AI.

Take shot prompting, for example. It includes Zero-shot, One-shot, and Few-shot. It just refers to the number of examples you provide in your prompt that show the chatbot what you want.

  • Zero-shot = 0 examples
  • One-shot = 1 example
  • Few-shot = a few examples

Then there’s prompt chaining and chain of thought prompting, which sound similar but are different, and neither is overly technical.

  • Prompt chaining means giving the chatbot one prompt at a time instead of everything at once. The idea is that each answer helps with the next step/response.
  • Chain of Thought (CoT) prompting asks a chatbot to show its reasoning before answering. It can be as simple as adding, “Explain your steps before answering,” to the end of a prompt.

Not so daunting, right? Not so fast. Here’s the real expert revealer…

Have you heard of Quadrillion-shot prompting, which is the latest and greatest prompting technique? Quadrillion-shot prompting, also called Quad-shotting, is when you use a quadrillion examples in your prompt. We just made it up to show how unnecessary some prompting terms are, especially the ones in the dropdown below.

Unnecessary prompting terms

Thread of Thought (ToT) prompts just include something like, “Walk me through how [topic/subject] works in a step-by-step manner while summarizing each one.”

Contrastive Chain of Thought (CCoT) prompting gives the chatbot correct and incorrect examples/reasoning.

Generated Knowledge prompting is when you ask the chatbot about a topic and then ask it to answer a question based on its response. 

  • Prompt 1: Explain how [topic/subject] works and create a list of key concepts.
  • Prompt 2: Using the information you provided, explain the steps to [related aspect of topic/subject].

Meta-prompting is basically just asking the chatbot to create its own prompt (or improve the one you provided), then following up with another prompt asking it to answer the prompt it created or improved.

Chatbot prompting tips for educators:

Provide specific context and clear instructions

Providing specific, relevant details can improve the chances of getting the response you want.

Think of writing a prompt like writing a grocery list for someone who’s shopping for you. The chatbot will usually get the items on your list, but if you want something specific—like a brand, flavor, or amount—you have to say so.

If you want vanilla ice cream, adding “snacks” to your list doesn’t really help. Even adding “ice cream” might get you the wrong flavor. Be specific: ½ gallon of Haagen-Dazs Vanilla Ice Cream.

Details to consider providing when writing prompts for AI chatbots:

  • Voice: Who should it write like? e.g., “Write as a historian” or “Write like [specific person]
  • Tone: Casual, formal, humorous, academic, dramatic?
  • Audience: Who’s reading this? Students? What kind—third graders, college freshmen, PhD researchers? What’s their major? How much do they already know?
  • Format: How should the response be provided to you? Paragraphs or bullet points? If you want a chart or table, be specific about the type, how many rows and columns, titles, etc.
  • Length: How many words, sentences, paragraphs, bullet points, etc.?
  • Context: Any key details? What information and nuances are needed?
  • Examples: Provide good and bad examples so the chatbot understands what you want.

AI prompt examples and templates

Use these prompting examples and templates as a starting point, and tailor your prompt with information specific to your assignments and assessments.

Template: Based on the text I provided, create [number] [question type] questions to assess [audience] on their understanding of [topic(s)]. [Q&A requirements and specifications.]

Example: Based on the text I provided, create 30 multiple-choice questions to assess participants preparing for a Food Safety Manager Certification exam on their understanding of methods to prevent cross-contamination. Each question should be objective, concise, and written in plain language. Provide four answer choices per question, with only one correct answer.

More tips on how to write better exam questions.

Template: Based on the following [question type] questions, create a [alternative question type] question(s) that assesses the same underlying concepts or skills. The new question should encourage [objective/outcomes (e.g., critical thinking and practical application rather than recall)]. [Add questions here.]

Provide a clear explanation of your reasoning for how you adapted the original questions into this format. Then, include a concise description of what an appropriate student response should contain.

Example of the 1st paragraph from above: Based on the following multiple-choice questions, create an essay question that assesses the same underlying concepts or skills. The new essay question should encourage critical thinking and practical application rather than recall. [Add questions here.]

Note: If you’re repurposing the question for a different audience or subject, briefly describe them so the chatbot can adapt its response. 

Learn more about writing better exam questions.

Writing objective exam rules is waaaay trickier than it seems. Many times, rules that seem crystal clear can still be misinterpreted by test takers. Here’s a complete guide with examples of objective exam rules, and you can give the prompt below to a chatbot.

Prompt to use: Create objective online rules for test takers. The rules should comprehensively address:
*Behavior (e.g., no talking or using cell phones to look up answers)
*System requirements (e.g., computer with a functioning webcam and microphone)
*Test environment (e.g., quiet room, clear desk/surface, no other people present)

Use direct, unambiguous language that leaves no room for misinterpretation. Provide the rules in a numbered list that can be copied and pasted into the assessment platform/LMS. 

Here are two examples of basic test rules followed by improved versions. Use the improved versions as examples of the level of clarity and specificity expected as you create the set of rules:

*Rule 1 (basic): No talking during the test.
*Rule 1 (improved): No communicating with other individuals by any means, whether verbal, non-verbal, or electronic.

*Rule 2 (basic): Your desk must be clear of all items except for the device you use to take the test.
*Rule 2 (improved): The testing area and any surface your device is placed on must be clear of all items except the device used to complete the test. This includes books, papers, electronics, and other personal belongings.

Note: When you type an asterisk (*) at the start of a line, chatbots, generally speaking, get the gist that you’re trying to create a bullet point. 

Template: Based on the project instructions I provided below, create a rubric that evaluates [add what’s being assessed, e.g., specific skills and competencies]. Each item should include [type of performance scale, e.g., a five-point numeric scale from 1 to 5 (1 = Novice, 5 = Excellent) or a three-point scale with the levels: Excellent, Developing, and Needs Improvement].
Format the rubric in a [type, e.g., table or chart] to use in [format, e.g., Word Doc, Google Sheets, LMS, etc.]. Here are the assignment details and instructions: [add information]

Example: Based on the project instructions I provided below, create a rubric that evaluates practical application skills. Each item should include five performance levels using a numeric scale from 1 to 5 (1 = Novice, 5 = Excellent).

Format the rubric in a table to use in a Word Doc and include a column for written feedback. Here are the assignment details and instructions: [add information]

Note: This prompt template is just that: a template—a starting point. You’ll really need to fill in the blanks with as much information and context as possible—learning goals, topics/subjects, specific characters, realistic issues and scenarios—to help the chatbot tailor the case study to your course needs.

Create a [length]-word case study about [specific scenario/situation] for [audience, e.g., undergraduate business students, professionals in a certification program, etc.].

The case study should include:

*Comprehensive, realistic background information about [scenario/situation]

*Key characters, stakeholders, and/or groups involved

*Specific opportunities, challenges, and decision points for the learner to evaluate

*Five short-answer questions that require in-depth problem-solving and a proposed plan to address the situation

Write an engaging two-part discussion prompt for [audience, e.g., undergraduate business majors, adult learners in professional development programs, etc.] focused on [topic/subject/situation].

Part 1 (initial response): Prompt learners to connect their real-world experiences and/or prior knowledge to [topic/subject/situation] by sharing specific examples or situations that highlight how the topic applies to their personal, academic, or professional life.

Part 2 (respond to peers): Ask learners to review and analyze at least two of their peers’ posts and respond with [e.g., thoughtful questions, alternative viewpoints, etc.] to extend the discussion.

Prompts that summarize text—whether it’s an entire research paper or a paragraph from an article—can be as simple as, “Summarize this.”

But you can also ask the chatbot to summarize it in specific formats or focus on certain topics. Just copy and paste the text into the chatbot or upload the document, then start the prompt with something like “summarize” or “simplify” (or any other related terms), and then include details on the length, format, and focus. 

Here are a few example prompts you can try:

  • Summarize this research study into 2-3 concise sentences, then provide bullet points on the important information in each section, especially the sections about data collection methods and results. 
  • Simplify this text and explain it in practical, easy-to-understand language.
  • Explain what this text is saying in simple terms that [audience] can understand.
  • Shorten this text into a [resource type, e.g., study guide, FAQ, etc.] for [audience].

I’m a [job role] using this image in my [online course module, presentation, article, etc.] about [subject/topic]. Please write the following for the image:

  1. Descriptive alt text (approximately 125 characters or fewer)
  2. Detailed image description for accessibility
  3. Suggested file name (use lowercase letters and hyphens, no spaces)
  4. Text caption to display alongside the image

Note: You can upload images to most AI chatbots like as ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude.

Don’t overthink it

  • Don’t worry about order: Chatbots use machine learning to process your whole prompt at once, so the order of the information you provide usually doesn’t matter that much in most cases. Just focus on providing the right information.
  • Write naturally: Chatbots can “understand” everyday language (even our slang and sarcasm) thanks to a technology called natural language processing, which is part of how large language models (LLMs) work. So, you don’t need to use special wording or commands. Just write to it like you would a real person, and it’ll usually get the gist of what you’re saying.

Remember chatbots’ original purpose and fact-check everything

Chatbots are used for many things, but their original purpose is still the same: to chat with you. 

You might ask them to explain complex topics, check facts, or even solve math problems—but at their core, chatbots are built to converse. They aren’t inherently designed to conduct research, verify information, or solve math problems. They can help with those tasks, and some even have features like “Deep Research,” but those are just extensions of their original purpose.

That said, always, always, always fact-check chatbot responses because they don’t generate text based on facts. They just predict what word is most likely to come next.

Treat all conversations with AI like public conversations

Regardless if it’s a public or private chatbot, don’t include any personally identifiable information (PII) or sensitive organizational details in your prompts or files you upload (Excel, Word, etc.).

Anonymize information to protect learners, yourself, and your organization. For example, use “University/Company ABC” instead of your company name, or “Student/Employee A” instead of specific names.

Control AI use during exams and assignments 

Generative AI chatbots have plenty of benefits for educators and learners.

They can serve as a smart assistant that helps educators develop course materials, personalize learning experiences, and even improve accessibility. When learners use them appropriately—which means not overly relying on them or simply copying and pasting the responses as their own—chatbots can increase engagement, improve learning and retention of information, and sharpen critical thinking and problem-solving skills. That said, when they’re overused, the exact opposite is true.

The good news? You can control if, when, and how learners use AI during online exams and assignments by using hybrid virtual proctoring. It allows you to block AI entirely or allow it at certain times. So, whether it’s a traditional online exam, a written assignment, or even a math test (online or handwritten), you’ll know learners didn’t use AI.

Sign up for more resources

More Reading & Learning

Why do students REALLY cheat?

The Real Reasons Why Students Cheat

Article on what web accessibility is and compliance standards

Web Accessibility Guidelines & Compliance Standards In Online Learning

How to Talk to Students Suspected of Cheating

13 Ways to Prevent Cheating on Online Tests

Does Honorlock detect cell phones?

Honorlock’s Online Proctoring Software Detects Cell Phones

What is online proctoring for remote testing

What is online proctoring?

Picture of Tyler Stike

Tyler Stike

Tyler is Honorlock's Director of Content and a doctoral student at the University of Florida focused on educational technology.

How Students Justify Academic Dishonesty

5 ways students justify cheating

Students cheat for all sorts of reasons beyond wanting better grades or just because they can, but what’s really fascinating is how they justify it. Understanding how students justify misconduct can help faculty get to the root of academic dishonesty. This article breaks down common mindsets and shares practical ways to address them before they lead to bigger issues, like a “cheating culture.”

5 ways students justify cheating

1. "Teeeeechnically, I didn’t cheat."

Some behaviors are unethical but not technically against the rules—and students know it.

On top of that, cheating may be unintentional because students don’t always realize that certain actions count as academic violations, especially because expectations vary across classes and disciplines (Waltzer & Dahl, 2023).

All of this blurs the line between what’s considered cheating and what’s simply unethical—and it’s been that way for years.

A student survey from 2010 about whether behaviors were cheating, unethical, or neither found predictable trends in students’ opinions but also highlighted inconsistencies that can make life difficult for educators.

Here are some interesting takeaways from the student survey:

96.4% believe copying exam answers is cheating, but only 73% think letting classmates copy your answers is cheating.

Nearly 40% say working with peers on an online exam without permission is cheating, while the other 60% are split between calling it unethical or not a problem at all.

Just over 9% think witnessing cheating without reporting it is cheating, almost 60% see it as unethical but not cheating, and about 30% say it’s neither.

Cheating
Unethical
(not cheating)
Neither
Copy classmates’ answers
during an exam
96.4%
2.3%
1.1%
Witnessing cheating but not reporting it
9.2%
59.6%
30.3%
Allowing others to look at
your answers during exams
73.3%
3.4%
23.3%
Working with peers on online exams without permission
39.8%
29%
30.2%
Asking classmates about exam questions before taking it
26.7%
45.6%
26.6%
Falsely claiming you submitted an assignment
61.1%
33%
4.5%
Copying homework from classmates
72.9%
22.6%
3.9%
Copying work from other students’ past assignments
52.3%
31.1%
16%
Storing answers/formulas in a calculator used in an exam
74.5%
15.6%
9.8%

How to help

Writing clear, objective rules for tests and assignments helps reduce confusion and prevent academic dishonesty. The challenge is making them comprehensive enough to cover key details while keeping them concise—because what seems clear and straightforward often has just enough wiggle room for students to take advantage of.

Give students a detailed definition of what you consider cheating, and talk through example situations. The example situations should be specific because broad examples are ineffective (Awosoga et al., 2021). This makes your definition more relatable and helps them better understand how it applies in real scenarios. 

It’s easy to assume that talking to students about academic integrity will go in one ear and out the other, but it can actually make a difference in reducing cheating in some situations (Malesky, 2022; Tatum & Schwartz, 2017). 

That said, it should be just one small part of a larger strategy—it helps, but it’s not nearly enough on its own.

2. “Professors don’t seem to care when people cheat.”

Most faculty members believe academic integrity is important, and most realize it’s an issue in higher education (MacLeod & Eaton, 2020; Awosoga et al., 2021), but unfortunately, academic dishonesty is often unreported*.

Why is academic dishonesty underreported if it’s so important? 

According to a few faculty surveys, academic dishonesty is underreported because it’s a slow process, evidence of cheating is rarely conclusive, and they have little faith that the institution will enforce consequences for cheating*. 

Learn more about why faculty often avoid reporting cheating.

Some faculty survey responses indicated that the process took so long that they forgot the case details.

“When the feedback finally got back to me I’d actually forgotten what had happened… I thought oh jeez, yeah, I remember that now, that was a while ago.” 

“I think it takes too long… It does take weeks sometimes for a decision to come back down.”

What happens if a school allows cheating?

If students believe faculty don’t care about cheating—or don’t care enough to address it—it can quickly become the norm, creating a culture where academic dishonesty is accepted and even expected (Tolman, 2017). And when that happens, academic misconduct happens more often, and each time it happens, students see it as a less serious offense (Shu et al., 2011).

How to help

Talking to students about suspected cheating is awkward and stressful, but these conversations are important because addressing each instance of academic dishonesty helps decrease future cheating (Tatum & Schwartz, 2017)

These conversations don’t have to be as negative as they seem either. But what should you say? What shouldn’t you say? What evidence do you need? This guide to talking to students about cheating has everything you need.

A hybrid proctoring solution provides objective evidence—audio, video, images, clicks, and more—that can support misconduct cases. It offers clear, conclusive evidence that helps faculty and the teams involved in the reporting process.

Universities should focus on faculty training on academic dishonesty to create awareness of school policies and a shared definition of what counts as misconduct. This is particularly important for newer faculty members to get acclimated and up to speed on integrity policies (Awosoga et al., 2021).

Make it easier to report cheating by asking faculty and staff where the process gets stuck and how it can improve. Use their feedback to cut out unnecessary steps, add helpful tools like electronic forms or scheduling software, and create a system that supports everyone better.

*(Carpenter et al. 2010; MacLeod & Eaton, 2020; Staats et al., 2009)

3. “At work, they’d call it being resourceful, not cheating.”

A student survey by Cole et al. (2014) found that many justify academic dishonesty, like using internet resources or sharing answers during online exams, by arguing that they’ll be able to do it in the workplace.

This rationale also influences students’ prioritization of grades over learning, as one survey response explained: “When you get to the workplace, they teach you what you want to know, your diploma is just your foot in the door for the most part.” (Cole et al., 2014, p. 43).

How to help

Faculty need to show why the learning material and activities matter in real life to help students understand the importance and why they should care about it. When students feel they’re learning for themselves, especially when it’s practical information they’ll use in the future, they’re much less likely to cheat (Anderman & Won, 2018; Carpenter et al., 2010).

4. “I was paraphrasing, not plagiarizing.”

Sometimes, students knowingly plagiarize because they see it as a way to save time—especially when they don’t care about the subject or think it’s relevant to their futures (Moss, 2018).

Others may not even realize they’re plagiarizing, like the 70% of students who believe internet resources are public information that doesn’t need to be cited (Larkin & Mintu-Wimsatt, 2015). Students can also unintentionally plagiarize when they’re trying reeeeeally hard to sound overly academic, which is a struggle that some doctoral students face (Fatemi & Saito, 2020).

“Plagiarism can be particularly difficult for students to perceive. The lines between plagiarism and appropriate paraphrasing are often blurry, which can generate considerable disagreement among students and instructors about what constitutes plagiarism.” (Waltzer & Dahl, 2023, p. 131)

How to help

APA or MLA? Chicago, maybe? When do you need to cite a source? What counts as common knowledge? Questions like these can make plagiarism feel confusing, especially with all the gray areas. Make it easier for students by providing helpful resources in the course and teaching them how to cite properly.

Tie written assignments to students’ future work when you can. This can be challenging when teaching students who are taking the course as an elective, not out of interest.

For example, if a business administration major is in an art history class, offer flexibility to write a plan for a profitable art gallery business. While this kind of flexibility isn’t always realistic, even small connections to their future goals can make a difference.

Long and short-form written assignments can be proctored just like online exams.

During proctored written assignments, students WON’T be able to:

  • Access unauthorized websites, applications, and extensions (including chatbots) unless faculty permit access to them (e.g., allowing students to visit specific articles and case studies.
  • Use their cell phones to look up information.
  • Use books or notes unless approved by the instructor.
  • Paste content into the word processor that was copied before the assignment started.
  •  Ask voice assistants like Siri or Alexa for help.

Share links to helpful citation resources at your institution, like the writing center, and from reliable citation websites.

5. "I was so anxious."

Tests are inherently stressful; the more anxious a student gets, the more likely they are to cheat (Eshet et al., 2024). Test anxiety and the fear of failing the test make cheating hard to resist, even for students who typically wouldn’t cheat (Eshet et al., 2024; Salgado et al., 2022).

How to help

Offering practice exams gives students a chance to familiarize themselves with the testing platforms and check to make sure their device meets the minimum system requirements.

Talk to students about accommodations, like extended time or assistive technologies, and how to request them or get help if they need it.

Give students a clear idea of what the test will cover, its format, the types of questions, time limit, etc.

Knowing how and why cheating happens is important for educators to be proactive against academic dishonesty and create a culture of honesty and fairness. Hybid online proctoring supports this effort by helping detect and prevent dishonest behavior so educators can focus on teaching.

Anderman, E. M., & Won, S. (2019). Academic Cheating in Disliked Classes. Ethics & Behavior, 29(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2017.1373648

Awosoga, O., Nord, C. M., Varsanyi, S., Barley, R., & Meadows, J. (2021). Student and faculty perceptions of, and experiences with, academic dishonesty at a medium-sized Canadian university. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 17(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-021-00090-w

Carpenter, D. D., Harding, T. S., & Finelli, C. J. (n.d.). Using Research to Identify Academic Dishonesty Deterrents Among Engineering Undergraduates.

Cole, M. T., Swartz, L. B., & Shelley, D. J. (2014). Students’ Use of Technology in Learning Course Material: Is it Cheating? International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 10(1), 35–48. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijicte.2014010104

Eshet, Y., Grinautsky, K., & Steinberger, P. (2024). To behave or not (un)ethically? The meditative effect of mindfulness on statistics anxiety and academic dishonesty moderated by risk aversion. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 20(1), 6–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-024-00151-w

Fatemi G., Saito E. (2020) Unintentional plagiarism and academic integrity: the challenges and needs of postgraduate international students in Australia. J Furth High Educ 44(10):1305–1319. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2019.1683521

Larkin, C., & Mintu-Wimsatt, A. (2015). Comparing cheating behaviors among graduate and undergraduate online business students. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 15(7), 54–62.

MacLeod, P. D., & Eaton, S. E. (2020). The Paradox of Faculty Attitudes toward Student Violations of Academic Integrity. Journal of Academic Ethics, 18(4), 347–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-020-09363-4

Malesky, A., Grist, C., Poovey, K., & Dennis, N. (2022). The Effects of Peer Influence, Honor Codes, and Personality Traits on Cheating Behavior in a University Setting. Ethics & Behavior, 32(1), 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2020.1869006

Moss, S. A., White, B., & Lee, J. (2018). A Systematic Review Into the Psychological Causes and Correlates of Plagiarism. Ethics & Behavior, 28(4), 261–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2017.1341837

Salgado, J. F., Cuadrado, D., & Moscoso, S. (2022). Counterproductive Academic Behaviors and Academic Performance: A Meta-Analysis and a Path Analysis Model. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 893775–893775. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.893775

Shu, L. L., Gino, F., & Bazerman, M. H. (2011). Dishonest deed, clear conscience: When cheating leads to moral disengagement and motivated forgetting. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(3), 330–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211398138

Staats, S., Hupp, J. M., Wallace, H., & Gresley, J. (2009). Heroes Don’t Cheat: An Examination of Academic Dishonesty and Students’ Views on Why Professors Don’t Report Cheating. Ethics & Behavior, 19(3), 171–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508420802623716

Tatum, H., & Schwartz, B. M. (2017). Honor Codes: Evidence Based Strategies for Improving Academic Integrity. Theory into Practice, 56(2), 129–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2017.1308175

Tolman, S. (2017). Academic Dishonesty in Online Courses: Considerations for Graduate Preparatory Programs in Higher Education. College Student Journal, 51(4), 579–584.

Waltzer, T., & Dahl, A. (2023). Why do students cheat? Perceptions, evaluations, and motivations. Ethics & Behavior, 33(2), 130–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2022.2026775

Sign up for
our blog
More resources
Does Honorlock detect cell phones?
What is online proctoring for remote testing
Why do students REALLY cheat?

How to Detect Cheating On Online Exams

It’s tough to detect and prevent cheating on exams—especially online. Students are smart, tech-savvy, and have plenty of tools that make it easier to cheat unless you have the right assessment strategies, proctoring technology, and a deeper understanding of why students cheat—beyond obvious reasons like wanting better grades or thinking they can get away with it.

Why do people cheat on exams?

People often cheat because they can easily get away with it, they want better grades, or they just feel unprepared. Those are obvious reasons. But beyond the obvious reasons, cheating is complex and has a lot of gray areas. You can learn more of the real reasons students cheat, but here are three interesting reasons:

Do attitudes and emotions impact cheating?

We like to think that when students have strong beliefs that cheating is wrong, they’ll avoid it, and their moral compass will steer them toward academic integrity. But, that usually isn’t the case. Attitudes, morals, and values impact intentions to cheat, but ultimately, they don’t reduce cheating behavior (Ababneh et al., 2022; Johnson‐Clements et al., 2024; Kasler et al., 2023).

It’s kind of like how we know that driving above the speed limit is illegal, so we don’t intend to speed to the airport… But if you’re running late for a flight, you’ll probably put the pedal to the metal even though you know it’s wrong.

Negative emotions, like anxiety, increase cheating, especially if they expect to perform poorly or aren’t prepared (Eshet et al., 2024; Salgado et al., 2022).

Plagiarism is confusing

Students generally understand plagiarism, but there’s still confusion about how to do it and what information needs to be cited (Larkin & MintuWimsatt, 2015).

Some believe using internet content without citing it is acceptable because it’s publicly available. They also struggle with understanding what qualifies as “common knowledge.” Yale defines common knowledge as knowledge that most educated people already know or can find in an encyclopedia or dictionary. Obviously, there’s a ton of information in those two sources, and Yale acknowledges that the definition of common knowledge is ambiguous and explains that it changes based on the audience.

So, is it still cheating if students genuinely don’t know how or what to cite? Regardless of whether it’s intentional behavior or an innocent mistake, it needs to be addressed.

They believe others students are cheating and faculty don’t care

When students know their peers are cheating, it begins to feel like normal, acceptable behavior, which makes them more likely to cheat, and it’s easier to justify misconduct (Bath et al., 2014; O’Rourke et al., 2010; Tatum, 2017). The issue is amplified when faculty don’t address cheating, and students begin to think that they don’t care or won’t do anything about it.

Faculty often avoid addressing and reporting cheating for several reasons (MacLeod & Eaton, 2020; Staats et al., 2009):

  • Reporting cheating is time-consuming, and faculty often doubt their institution handles misconduct consistently or effectively.
  • Evidence of cheating wasn’t conclusive enough.
  • Accusing a student of cheating is stressful for both faculty and students.
  • Worries about the situation escalating, such as the student denying the accusation or the risk of legal repercussions.

Using assessment strategies and remote proctoring to prevent cheating on online exams

Protect test content from being leaked online

With forums like Reddit and websites like Chegg and Quizlet posing as “homework help,” it’s easy and common for your test content to be leaked online.

One university found that 56% of their exam content was leaked on Chegg. Engineers at the university said, “Alarmingly, we found over half of the audited units had cheating content on Chegg, [which] is broadly used to cheat and 50% of questions asked on Chegg are answered within 1.5 h[ours]. This makes Chegg an appealing tool for academic misconduct in both assignment tasks and online exams.”

Instead of manually searching for individual questions, Search & Destroy™ automatically scans the web for your leaked test content in a few minutes. If it finds any, it shows you where and allows you to send one-click takedown requests. Easy peasy.

Restrict time limits

Unless students require accommodations for additional time, setting strict time limits can help reduce cheating. Several studies found that students take about twice as long to complete unproctored exams compared to students taking proctored exams—which may be because they spend more time searching for answers online during unproctored tests (Alessio et al., 2017; Howard, 2020; Zhang, 2024).

Stop students from using AI during assignments and exams

Students can use AI chatbots like ChatGPT, Claude, and Microsoft Copilot to write about pretty much anything. Unfortunately, using AI detection software won’t really help because once a student changes a few words in the AI-generated text or uses a paraphrasing tool, AI detection is ineffective and inaccurate.

However, there are a few proctoring tools that work together to block unauthorized AI during exams and assignments.

In addition to using proctoring to block AI chatbots, you can also use:

  • Authentic assessments for students to prove they can apply what they’ve learned to complete projects and tasks in real-world situations.

For example, instead of asking nursing students to answer a series of multiple-choice questions, an authentic assessment may ask them to record a short video where they identify the parts of a stethoscope and demonstrate how to use it while explaining what they’re doing.

  • Assignments tied directly to in-class content, such as creating a short essay that compares and contrasts two peer discussion posts or a personal reflection on the results of an in-class survey.

Example assignment connected to class: Select two peer responses from last week’s discussion posts, each focusing on a different learning theory. Write a 2-page comparison of their similarities and differences, then create a simple visual (mind map, concept map, or infographic) to show how your own response aligns with or differs from the two you chose.

  • Scaffolded assignments that break larger assignments into a series of smaller assignments. For example, replace a single, long-form research paper with smaller assignments like brainstorming topics, submitting a proposal and outline, and writing a draft for peer review before writing the final research paper. You can also ask for a reflective component. Similar to the Ask students to submit each step in a different format, such as a mind map for brainstorming, a concept map for the proposal/outline, and a voice-over presentation for the reflection.

Detect cell phones, smartwatches, and other secondary devices

Cell phones are a huge threat to exam integrity. In fact, it’s the most common way students try to cheat on proctored exams.

Most proctoring services hope a live proctor, who usually watches 10-12 exams at once, will catch a student using a phone in real-time, which isn’t realistic. However, some services take a different approach that uses AI to detect phones and other devices, with a live proctor reviewing it once it’s flagged.

Help reduce students’ test anxiety

Tests are naturally stressful for most people, and they can increase anxiety. And when anxiety increases, some students are more likely to cheat (Eshet et al., 2024).

Practical tips for faculty to help reduce student test anxiety:

  • Clearly explain what the test covers, question types, time limit, grading criteria, etc.
  • Show how to use any technologies (include a demonstration if possible.)
  • Provide practice exams to test technology and devices.
  • Review the rules and answer any questions.
  • Share technical support contact information and details on how to access it.
  • Explain available accommodations and how to request them.

Monitor behavior 

Another thing to consider is how you’ll monitor student behavior during online exams, such as:

  • Video monitoring so you can see if they’re trying to look at their notes and use other resources during the test.
  • Smart Speech detection (not sound detection) so you can tell if they’re talking to someone else in the room or asking Siri for help, but not have to review flags for unimportant noises like coughing or a doorbell ringing.
  • Locking the browser and recording their screen to see if they try to access other websites or attempt to copy and paste questions into a document.

Verify that it’s the right person taking the test

Online proctoring systems can help verify identity by capturing a photo of both the test taker and their ID. This way, you’ll know that the person taking the proctored exam is getting credit for the online course. 

Learn more about remote proctoring software, tools, and services

See Software

Want to see Honorlock in action? Schedule a demo.

Sign up below for more tips
to improve your online exams

Ababneh, K. I., Ahmed, K., & Dedousis, E. (2022). Predictors of cheating in online exams among business students during the Covid pandemic: Testing the theory of planned behavior. The International Journal of Management Education, 20(3), 100713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100713

Alessio, H. M., Malay, N., Maurer, K., Bailer, A. J., & Rubin, B. (2017). Examining the Effect of Proctoring on Online Test Scores. Online Learning, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i1.885

Bath, M., Hovde, P., George, E., Schulz, K., Larson, E., & Brunvatne, E. (2014). Academic integrity and community ties at a small, religious-affiliated liberal arts college. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 10(2), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.21913/IJEI.v10i2.1005

Eshet, Y., Grinautsky, K., & Steinberger, P. (2024). To behave or not (un)ethically? The meditative effect of mindfulness on statistics anxiety and academic dishonesty moderated by risk aversion. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 20(1), 6–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-024-00151-w

Howard, D. (2020). Comparison of exam scores and time taken on exams between proctored oncampus and unproctored online students. Online Learning, 24(4), 204-228. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v24i4.2148

Johnson-Clements, T. P., Curtis, G. J., & Clare, J. (2024). Testing a Psychological Model of Post-Pandemic Academic Cheating. Journal of Academic Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09561-4

Kasler, J., Sharabi-Nov, A., Shinwell, E. S., & Hen, M. (2023). Who cheats? Do prosocial values make a difference? International Journal for Educational Integrity, 19(1), 6–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-023-00128-1

Larkin, C., & Mintu-Wimsatt, A. (2015). Comparing cheating behaviors among graduate and undergraduate online business students. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 15(7), 54–62.

MacLeod, P. D., & Eaton, S. E. (2020). The Paradox of Faculty Attitudes toward Student Violations of Academic Integrity. Journal of Academic Ethics, 18(4), 347–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-020-09363-4

O’Rourke, J., Barnes, J., Deaton, A., Fulks, K., Ryan, K., & Rettinger, D. A. (2010). Imitation Is the Sincerest Form of Cheating: The Influence of Direct Knowledge and Attitudes on Academic Dishonesty. Ethics & Behavior, 20(1), 47–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508420903482616

Salgado, J. F., Cuadrado, D., & Moscoso, S. (2022). Counterproductive Academic Behaviors and Academic Performance: A Meta-Analysis and a Path Analysis Model. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 893775–893775. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.893775

Staats, S., Hupp, J. M., Wallace, H., & Gresley, J. (2009). Heroes Don’t Cheat: An Examination of Academic Dishonesty and Students’ Views on Why Professors Don’t Report Cheating. Ethics & Behavior, 19(3), 171–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508420802623716

Tatum, H., & Schwartz, B. M. (2017). Honor Codes: Evidence Based Strategies for Improving Academic Integrity. Theory into Practice, 56(2), 129–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2017.1308175

Zhang, N., Larose, J., & Franklin, M. (2024). Effect of unproctored versus proctored examinations on student performance and long-term retention of knowledge. The Journal of Chiropractic Education. https://doi.org/10.7899/JCE-23-16

The Real Reasons Why Students Cheat

Why do students REALLY cheat?

Between 50-80% of college students cheat at some point.1 These estimates vary, but it’s safe to say that cheating is common in higher education. And since people tend to downplay negative behaviors like academic dishonesty, the true numbers are likely higher.2

Scenario 1: Anything less than a 90% on your last final exam means failing the course, delaying graduation, and paying to retake it—an expense you didn’t plan for, and can’t afford. Meanwhile, you know your classmates are cheating, but the instructor seems to ignore it.

Scenario 2: An elective you’re aren’t interested in requires a long essay. Would you use ChatGPT to “help” write it so you can focus on studying for finals in your career-related courses—especially since you can make a few edits and AI detection won’t catch it?

Many studies suggest that students are likely to cheat in these scenarios.

Sometimes, the reasons for cheating are obvious, like wanting good grades or just because they can. Other times, they’re more complex, like students’ assumptions of how much instructors actually care and gray areas where opinions of what counts as cheating differ—even among faculty. 1(Cantiello & Geschke, 2024; Janke et al., 2021; MacLeod & Eaton, 2020) 2(Newton, 2024)

When cheating becomes a culture

Cheating isn’t because of a few “bad apples.” And it isn’t just your students’ fault. Instructor communication and teaching style, as well as institutional policies and procedures—or lack thereof—play a significant role in creating a learning environment where academic dishonesty is the norm.

But shouldn’t students’ strong values and unwavering moral compasses steer them away from unethical behavior and guide them toward honesty and academic integrity? Not always… especially when students know their peers are cheating and the instructor doesn’t do anything about it.

Why wouldn’t faculty address cheating?

A 2020 survey of over 400 faculty from 17 institutions offered some insight. Unless the behavior is blatantly obvious, some faculty won’t report it because it’s a time-consuming process, and they don’t believe the institution will support them (MacLeod & Eaton, 2020).

Faculty survey insights about why cheating is underreported​:

  • 66% said their institution doesn’t handle academic dishonesty consistently.
  • 48% have ignored cheating when evidence wasn’t entirely conclusive.
  • 30% said it’s too time-consuming to formally report cheating.
  • 24% indicated that their institution’s integrity policies were effective.
  • 10% didn’t believe protecting academic integrity was their responsibility.

Faculty survey insights about why cheating is underreported

0 %

said their institution doesn’t handle academic dishonesty consistently.

0 %

have ignored cheating when evidence wasn’t entirely conclusive.

0 %

said it’s too time-consuming to formally report academic misconduct.

0 %

indicated that their institution’s integrity policies were effective.

0 %

said academic integrity wasn’t their responsibility.

Although a bit dated, a survey by Staats et al. (2009) reinforced the above findings and added a few more reasons that faculty believe contribute to non-reporting of academic dishonesty:

  • Students could take legal action.
  • Accusing students is stressful.
  • Professors lack the courage to address students who cheat.
  • Worries about the situation escalating if a student denies misconduct.
  • A reluctance to potentially damage the student’s future.

Addressing a culture of cheating

When students assume others are cheating and that faculty and the institution don’t care or won’t do anything about it, a “cheating culture” emerges (Tolman, 2017). But the thing about cheating is that the more it happens, the more it happens—and with each instance, students see it as a less serious offense (Shu et al., 2011).

So, what can you do about it?

Slap an academic integrity policy on the school website? Ask students to sign course honor codes? Those can help if they’re part of larger efforts. If not, you’re just wasting time.

How about setting up online proctored exams? These help detect and reduce cheating and give faculty evidence to prove it. But proctoring vendors don’t—and shouldn’t—determine the consequences of academic integrity violations. That responsibility falls to the faculty and institution.

You need the right technology, but you also need the right people and processes.

“Faculty and administrators need to focus their attention on creating a culture that discourages cheating as much as they do on acquiring and implementing technological resources to catch cheating students.” (Malesky, 2022, p. 18)

Why do students cheat?

According to McCabe (2016), Simkin & McLeod (2010), and just about every study exploring this topic, there are a few common (and very predictable) reasons for student cheating, like pressure to earn good grades, lack of preparedness, and simply because the opportunity was there with little risk of getting caught. Overall, no surprises here. 

Beyond that, academic dishonesty has gray areas related to differing opinions, peer behaviors, specific situations, and whether students feel that the institution and instructor genuinely care, among other factors.

Personality, values, morals, attitudes, and emotions?

Although personalities, values, morals, and attitudes impact students’ intentions to cheat, they have little influence on reducing cheating in most cases (Ababneh et al., 2022; Johnson‐Clements et al., 2024; Kasler et al., 2023).

Think of it like this: we may not intend to eat too much dessert over the holidays, but we still grab the extra slice(s) of pie and a few too many cookies.

Neutral attitudes and anonymity amplify academic misconduct in online learning environments

Neutral and disengaged attitudes make it easier for students to justify academic misconduct and disconnect from their behavior—even when they know it’s wrong (Lee et al., 2020; Sevnarayan & Maphoto, 2024). The impact of these attitudes is amplified in online learning environments because there’s a sense of anonymity and less personal accountability, both making it easier for students to justify dishonest behavior (Sevnarayan & Maphoto, 2024).

Students’ test anxiety is linked to academic misconduct

The more anxious a student feels, the more likely they are to act unethically in academic settings (Eshet et al., 2024). If a student is anxious and expects a poor grade (because they’re unprepared, for example) they’re more likely to take risks like academic fraud compared to students who expect to perform well (Salgado et al., 2022).

Students view cheating differently

We usually think of cheating as intentional behaviors like peeking at another student’s test or using a cell phone to look up answers during an online exam. But that isn’t always the case.

Sometimes, what seems like intentional unethical behavior may stem from a misunderstanding or a different view of cheating. Other times, students know their behavior is unethical but not technically cheating, and they find it easier to justify in situations where they don’t believe it’s particularly harmful or deceptive (Waltzer & Dahl, 2023).

Students and faculty opinions differ on the severity of certain behaviors

For the most part, students and faculty have similar views on what counts as cheating, but they don’t always see eye-to-eye on the severity of certain behaviors (Pautler et al., 2013). For example, both groups agree that taking a test for another student, using unauthorized notes, and intentional plagiarism are serious offenses.

But when it comes to behaviors like signing in for another student, gathering test question banks from previous years, and unintentional plagiarism, faculty usually interpret these more severely than students do.

Dishonesty or teamwork? Many students don’t consider group work on take-home tests as cheating—even when they don’t have permission from the instructor; they view it more as teamwork than dishonesty (Carpenter et al., 2010; Forkuor et al., 2019).

Students see some behavior as unethical but not cheating

Students recognize that some behaviors are unethical but not academic misconduct. For example, 65.5% indicated that making up an excuse to delay an exam or paper is unethical but not cheating (Carpenter et al., 2010).

Student survey results: cheating vs. unethical behavior

Copying classmates' answers during an exam

96.4% of agreed that this is cheating

Witnessing cheating but not reporting it

Almost 60% indicated this is unethical, but not cheating. Over 30% said this isn’t cheating or unethical.

Allowing others to look at your answers during an exam

Nearly 3 out of 4 respondents said this is cheating, but most of the remaining 25% said this isn’t cheating or unethical.

Taking online exams with classmates without permission

About 40% said this is cheating. The other 60% was evenly split between those who said it’s unethical and those who said it isn’t cheating or unethical.

Asking classmates about exam questions before taking it

45% said it’s unethical, while the remaining 55% was divided between those who think it’s cheating and those who don’t believe it’s either one.

Claiming you submitted an assignment when you didn't

61% believe this is cheating while most others indicated that it’s unethical but not cheating.

Copying assignment work from previous students

Over 52% agreed this is cheating. 31% found it to be unethical, although not cheating, while 16% said it’s neither.

Cheating
Unethical
(not cheating)
Neither
Copy classmates’ answers
during an exam
96.4%
2.3%
1.1%
Witnessing cheating but not reporting it
9.2%
59.6%
30.3%
Allowing others to look at
your answers during exams
73.3%
3.4%
23.3%
Working with peers on online exams without permission
39.8%
29%
30.2%
Asking classmates about exam questions before taking it
26.7%
45.6%
26.6%
Falsely claiming you submitted an assignment
61.1%
33%
4.5%
Copying homework from classmates
72.9%
22.6%
3.9%
Copying work from other students’ past assignments
52.3%
31.1%
16%
Storing answers/formulas in a calculator used in an exam
74.5%
15.6%
9.8%

While most students’ views on academic dishonesty align with what we believe is academic dishonesty, there are some concerning outliers here. For example, while about 40% think taking an exam with classmates without the instructor’s permission is cheating, the other 60% either see it as unethical but not cheating—or don’t think it’s wrong at all. These differences in opinion cause serious academic integrity violations and larger problems in higher education, especially in e-learning.

Rationalizing cheating as “real world” behavior

In a survey of almost 600 college students, many said that people can access resources and share information in real life, so they don’t see that behavior as misconduct (Cole et al., 2014).

Tying that into their future work plans, one student said, “Getting a good grade is more important than learning anything anymore… because when you get to the workplace, they teach you what you want to know, your diploma is just your foot in the door for the most part.” (Cole et al., 2014, p. 43).

Unintentional plagiarism

A survey of graduate and undergraduate students found that 70% view Internet resources as public information that’s free to use without citing (Larkin & Mintu-Wimsatt, 2015). 

Students may also unintentionally plagiarize because they’re trying too hard to sound academic, which often happens to doctoral students (Fatemi & Saito, 2020).

0 %

of students view Internet resources as public information that’s free to use without citing

Courses are focused on grades, not learning

Students are more likely to cheat when they feel the course focuses on grades (Anderman & Koenka, 2017). This is different from a student’s personal focus on earning good grades. When a course is focused on grades, students feel like everything revolves around grades rather than learning (Anderman & Koenka, 2017; Anderman & Won, 2019). This can happen for many reasons, such as when instructors rely heavily on high-stakes exams to assess knowledge or when every exam or assignment seems to be high-stakes.

Focusing on grades also makes academic integrity violations feel more acceptable in classes students dislike or aren’t interested in (Anderman & Won, 2019). This is especially troubling for instructors who typically have students taking their course as an elective (remember the scenario in the beginning with the elective you don’t even care about?)

They believe other students are cheating

Students are more likely to cheat if they believe their peers cheat, especially when they witness it firsthand, which makes it seem like normal and acceptable behavior, and it can even lead them to justify it (Bath et al., 2014; O’Rourke et al., 2010; Tatum, 2017). 

Knowing that their peers are cheating is one of the strongest predictors of a student’s own academic dishonesty (O’Rourke et al., 2010). Peer influence also shapes students’ views on dishonest and acceptable behavior more than the rules set by instructors or the school (Forkuor et al., 2019).

“Clearly, cheating among college students is prevalent and it is even common among students who acknowledge that it is morally wrong. Morality does not seem to be a major influence on student decisions to cheat or not to cheat. Peer disapproval of cheating and the behavior of peers are clearly much greater influences and may help explain the success of academic honor codes in reducing cheating.”

(McCabe, 1997, p. 444)

11 strategies to prevent cheating in online learning

Addressing and preventing cheating can feel like you’re running through a never-ending obstacle course. And just when you think you’re getting ahead, a new challenge pops up. While it’s an endless effort, a few core strategies can help clear the path in your courses and across your institution.

Reduce test anxiety

Anxious students are more likely to cheat, especially when they’re unprepared and/or fear bad grades, as stress increases risky shortcuts (Eshet et al., 2024; Salgado et al., 2022). Aside from those stressors stress, a student survey by Honorlock and a partner university found that students also worry about using test technologies. Managing these concerns can help improve performance, reduce unethical behavior, and encourage academic integrity.

Tips to help reduce student test anxiety:

  • Set expectations: Let students know what the test will cover, its format, and any other details (time limit, grading criteria, etc.) to reduce uncertainty and help them prepare.
  • Review the rules, instructions, and procedures: Go over the test rules, instructions, and procedures, and answer any questions students may have to avoid confusion and uncertainty.
  • Make sure students can use the technologies: Show them how to use any tools, platforms, or software they’ll use to take the exam. Provide a live demonstration if needed.
  • Offer practice exams: Practice exams help students get familiar—and hopefully comfortable—with technologies and confirm their device meets system requirements.
  • Show students how to access technical support: Provide technical support contact information and show them how to access it.
  • Provide information about accommodations: Discuss available accommodations (e.g., extended exam time, assistive technologies, etc.) and provide information on how to access those resources.
Did you know? Many college students with disabilities don’t disclose them because they’re unaware of available support or how to access it, and they fear stigma, judgment, and unequal treatment from peers and instructors. (Adam & Warner-Griffin, 2022; Herrick et al., 2020)

Prevent the use of generative AI chatbots

Generative AI chatbots, such as ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, and Microsoft Copilot, are a double-edged sword in higher education. They’re great for faculty because they assist with content creation and lesson planning, and students can use them for tutoring and interactive learning activities like language practice and debates. Unfortunately, students also use AI to generate written responses for assignments, whether it’s long-form essays or short answers.

Teaching strategies to mitigate AI cheating in online learning

While it’s an uphill battle to some extent, there are ways faculty can adapt their course activities and assessment and technology that can help.

Does AI detection work?

AI detection works when students copy and paste AI-generated text without changing it. But students are smart and savvy. They’ll edit, paraphrase, and rework the text to make it their own; when that happens, AI detection software is ineffective and unreliable at best.

Aside from using remote proctoring technology to block AI, here are a few examples (below) of how to discourage students from using AI to complete their coursework.

Baron (2024) tested the largest commercial plagiarism and AI detection platform against ChatGPT-generated text. The study found that the detection tool was accurate when the text was unaltered, but when Quillbot paraphrased the text, the AI detection platform’s accuracy score dropped to 31% and 0% after two rephrases.

A study by Weber-Wulff et al. (2023) tested 14 AI detection platforms (12 publicly available and 2 commercial) against ChatGPT. The researchers concluded that AI detection is often inaccurate when text is manually edited, paraphrased, or reordered, and struggles with identifying AI-translated content.

Gupta and Gupta (2024) discuss the accuracy issues of AI detection platforms, stating that, “The market teems with AI detection tools, each boasting superior precision and competitive advantages. Yet, research reveals a stark reality: these tools often fall short in accuracy and reliability.”

Scaffolded assignments are basically just a series of smaller tasks/assignments that build up to a larger assignment. For example, instead of one long-form essay, have students brainstorm topics and submit a proposal and outline, then write a rough draft for peer review, and the final assignment is an essay followed by a reflection.

You can also ask students to submit each task in a different format. For example, the brainstorm could be presented as a mind map; the proposal and outline could be presented in PowerPoint with visuals; the rough draft and final essay could be in Word or Google Docs; and the peer review and reflection could be done through audio or video submissions.

Authentic assessments offer students an opportunity to apply their skills and knowledge by completing realistic tasks they may face in the real world.

For example, instead of asking accounting students to answer a series of multiple choice test questions, an authentic assessment may ask them to prepare cash flow statements, balance sheets, multi-year depreciation schedules, etc.

Connect assignments to information directly from class, such as comparing and contrasting discussion responses from two classmates or aligning a theory with a particularly interesting comment from a live discussion.

While this isn’t foolproof, students would likely spend more time giving the AI the right information and tweaking the response than simply writing the response themselves.

Scaffolded assignments are basically just a series of smaller tasks/assignments that build up to a larger assignment. For example, instead of one long-form essay, have students brainstorm topics and submit a proposal and outline, then write a rough draft for peer review, and the final assignment is an essay followed by a reflection.

Authentic assessments offer students an opportunity to apply their skills and knowledge by completing realistic tasks they may face in the real world.

For example, instead of asking accounting students to answer a series of multiple-choice test questions, an authentic assessment may ask them to prepare cash flow statements, balance sheets, multi-year depreciation schedules, etc.

Connect assignments to information directly from class, such as comparing and contrasting discussion responses from two classmates or aligning a theory with a particularly interesting comment from a live discussion.

While this isn’t foolproof, students would likely spend more time giving the AI the right information and tweaking the response than simply writing the response themselves.

AI resources from universities

Several universities have developed excellent resources for faculty to control the use of AI, whether blocking it entirely or integrating it thoughtfully in their course activities.

Involve students in the process

Students significantly influence their peers’ academic behavior, both positively and negatively, so faculty and institutions should collaborate with students to align on acceptable behavior and build a culture of academic honesty where students reject cheating and lead by example (Daumiller & Janke, 2020; Forkuor et al., 2019).

Students learn more about academic integrity when their peers teach them, and having student delegates address integrity issues and guide them through processes like requesting hearings creates a more positive, lasting impact (Malizia and Jamenson, 2018; Zivcakova et al., 2014).

Orr & Orr (2019) suggest that peer-to-peer discussions about academic misconduct can deepen students’ understanding of academic integrity and recommend training student delegates to:

  • Conduct respectful, supportive conversations 
  • Understand academic integrity policies, procedures, and processes
  • Practice real-life scenarios to prepare for handling cases

Institutional leadership should continually talk to those involved in handling dishonesty cases and educating peers about academic integrity to understand how the institution can improve efforts, such as streamlining specific processes and offering students practical training and resources like citation workshops and digital guides with citation tips.

Clearly define academic dishonesty

As we mentioned earlier, students struggle to understand which actions are considered cheating (Carpenter et al., 2010; Tatum & Schwartz, 2017). However, when students are provided with clear examples of what counts as cheating, it can help them understand their own actions and whether they qualify as cheating (Burrus et al., 2007).

Tips to create a shared definition of cheating:

  • Define it: Provide detailed descriptions of what you consider cheating along with examples and share them throughout the course.
  • Write clear rules and instructions: Write clear, objective rules for exams and assignments. Review them with students and discuss scenarios to define cheating together.
  • Emphasize the value of integrity: Discuss how academic integrity contributes to academic growth and prepares them for future success instead of enforcing compliance.1
  • Remind them of the course honor code: Mention the course honor code before each exam because studies show this can reduce cheating.2 This shouldn’t be the only time you discuss the honor code though.

Bonus tip: Teach students how to cite their work. Plagiarism can be confusing and so can citation requirements—APA or MLA? Chicago, maybe? When do you cite sources? What’s considered “common knowledge”? Teach students how to cite sources and provide helpful resources in the course.

Recommendation from: 1Forkuor et al., 2019; 2Zhao et al., 2023

Reading definitions of cheating can change how students view their behavior

After reading definitions of behaviors that are considered cheating, students reported much higher rates of cheating (Burrus et al., 2007).

Write objective rules and instructions

As discussed throughout this article, confusion and different interpretations of cheating often lead to dishonest behavior. One piece of the puzzle to help reduce confusion is writing clear and objectives rules and instructions for tests and assignments. 

Writing these can be difficult. They need to be comprehensive but also clear and concise, which is a tough balancing act.

Original rule
Your desk must be clear of all items except the device you use to take the test.
Updated rule

The testing area and any surface your device is placed on must be clear of all items except the device used to complete the test. This includes books, papers, electronics, and other personal belongings.

Rationale: The original rule doesn’t account for situations where a student’s only option is to place their device on the floor or a kitchen counter, for example, instead of a desk or table. Students might argue, “I was at a table, not a desk,” or, “The rule says ‘your desk,’ but I don’t own this desk.”

That rationale may seem far-fetched, but the point is that word choices matter and they can be exploited. And if nuances in word choices didn’t matter, attorneys and contract specialists would have way more free time.

Support faculty & remove friction from the reporting process

Two faculty surveys found that they don’t report cheating because it’s so time-intensive, and they don’t believe their institution handles cases of academic dishonesty consistently or effectively, all contributing to faculty feeling unsupported (MacLeod & Eaton, 2020; Staats et al., 2009).

Survey faculty and staff involved in academic misconduct cases to identify issues and gather improvement ideas, then use their input to review the process with these initial considerations:

  • What’s holding things up? Identify bottlenecks and specific steps that cause delays and frustration.
  • Revamp and remove: Are there outdated steps or unnecessary requirements that can be updated, changed, or removed?
  • Identify quick fixes and long-term changes: Start with quick fixes while planning and working toward larger, long-term improvements.
  • Use technology to make things easier: Can any technologies reduce manual work and streamline processes?
    • Examples: Electronic forms to eliminate paperwork, scheduling software to automate case-specific meetings, proctoring tools to collect evidence, such as video recordings of misconduct, etc.
  • Collect feedback: After making changes, provide time for those involved in the reporting process to adjust and test the updates. Then, ask for their feedback on the process and what’s working or not working as planned.

Because every institution has its own resources, staff, structure, and technology, these tips are simply a starting point for improving the process of reporting academic misconduct, and they should be adapted to fit your specific needs.

Proctor online exams

While online exam proctoring effectively reduces cheating1, its impact on exam scores is less significant and straightforward than it might seem. Unproctored exam scores are usually higher than proctored ones—sometimes by a lot2, but the difference is usually relatively small3.

Shouldn’t unproctored exam scores ALWAYS be higher if students cheat? Not always.

Proctoring may change how students prepare for exams (in a good way)

Students may prepare more thoroughly for proctored exams because they know they can’t rely on using outside resources like the internet for help, which, according to Howard (2020), leads to exam scores comparable to those of students using those resources during unproctored exams. This extra preparation may explain why students who took proctored exams scored higher on recall tests months later (Howard, 2020; Zhang, 2024).

These findings align with a survey of over 1,500 students, where many said taking remotely proctored exams helped them prepare and stay focused, including one who stated, “I can’t cheat [during proctored exams]. Therefore, I have to push myself to learn.”

Students indicated that proctoring:

“… keeps me focused and not think[ing] about distractions.”

“… helps me focus more since I’m in my own environment.”

“… makes you accountable for actually learning the material, not just cheating your way through.”

“… keeps me focused on my work.”

“… challenges you to really try your best.”

“… helps me focus more and reduces the urge to cheat on things.”

“… keeps me in the right head space.”

“… keeps me focused on finishing the test.”

“… gives students the feeling of being alone and gets them in the right mindset to take a test.”

However, we aren’t saying that better grades on unproctored exams are only because students can cheat. Other factors contribute to higher scores on unproctored exams, like question formats and the testing environment itself (Zhang, 2024).

And most importantly, we can’t lose sight of the fact that many students prepare diligently for every exam whether they’re proctored or not.

Finding the right proctoring solution

Comparing proctoring vendors can be tricky because there are so many tools and types to choose from. Below is a brief overview of proctoring tools and the different types available.

Online proctored exam tools and features

Most services that use AI, whether entirely or as part of a hybrid solution, offer basic proctoring tools for online exams, like browser lockdowns and video monitoring. Those are a good start, but you’ll need more advanced tools to stop students from using cell phones or AI during exams.

  • Browser lockdown software: Restricts access to other websites and blocks keyboard shortcuts.
  • Video/audio monitoring: Uses the webcam and microphone to record behavior and the testing environment.
  • Identity verification: Confirms that the test taker is the student getting credit. Typically, it involves holding a form of identification up to the webcam.
  • Cell phone detection: Detects when students use cell phones, so you don’t have to rely on a proctor seeing a cell phone in real time.
  • AI blocking: Prevent students from using AI like ChatGPT unless faculty want to allow it.
  • Exam content protection: Searches the internet for your leaked exam content; offers a one-click takedown request.
  • Speech detection: Specifically listens for words/phrases, like commands that activate voice assistants like Alexa or Siri, which could provide students with answers.
  • Exam analytics: In-depth, actionable reporting on proctored assessments in one easy-to-use portal.
Types of proctoring software and services

The proctoring service’s approach also matters—some only use AI, others rely on humans, and some use both. Each type creates a different testing experience for students, so finding the right one is important for your institution, faculty, and especially your students.

Blocks sites, software, and keyboard shortcuts. Cheap, easy setup, but doesn’t stop cheating; students can still use phones and other resources.

AI monitors behavior (no humans) & flags potential academic misconduct. AI proctoring is cost effective and there’s no scheduling. However, no human oversight means overflagging, which can be distracting for students and takes longer for faculty to review.

Human proctors watch multiple students in real time and intervene if they see dishonest behavior. Offers human oversight and addresses misconduct immediately, but it’s expensive, scheduling is a hassle, and it increases student anxiety.

Hybrid proctoring blends live proctors with AI and a browser lock. AI monitors behavior during exams and alerts a proctor to review any suspicious behavior and intervene only if cheating is confirmed. There’s human oversight but this approach is less stressful for students because they aren’t being watched by a stranger. Hybrid proctoring also removes scheduling issues which improves scalability.

Institution staff or a proctoring service reviews recordings after exams are finished. Less stressful for students & offers human oversight, but there’s no real-time intervention & it’s expensive.

Focus on learning and mastery instead of grades

Initial strategies to help shift the focus of your course to learning and mastery:

  • Allow revisions to focus on mastery: Students are less likely to cheat when they can revise and improve their work because it shifts their focus to mastering the material instead of chasing grades (Anderman & Koenka, 2017; Ruth et al., 2024).
  • Provide detailed, constructive feedback: Providing feedback with examples, actionable tips, positive reinforcement, and supplemental resources helps students learn and improve their work.
  • Align coursework with real-world application: Course activities that reflect real-world situations help reduce dishonest behavior (Ruth et al., 2024). For example, accounting students could create balance sheets in Excel instead of answering multiple-choice questions.

These teaching strategies can help reduce students’ motivation to cheat and build toward a more positive, supportive culture focused on mastery (Malesky et al., 2022). 

And here’s some good news for instructors teaching elective courses to students who may only be there for credit: Focusing on mastery makes students less likely to rationalize cheating, even in classes they may be particularly interested in (Anderman & Won, 2019).

Address academic dishonesty every time it happens

Cheating decreases when faculty address every instance of dishonesty (Tatum & Schwartz, 2017). But as we mentioned earlier, faculty understand the importance of addressing cheating yet still hesitate to act on it for a number of reasons (MacLeod & Eaton, 2020).

Sometimes, it’s because reporting misconduct is too time-consuming, but some instructors avoid addressing cheating because of the stress and anxiety it causes (MacLeod & Eaton, 2020; Staats et al., 2009). And it’s just as tough on students, even though some see that as part of the consequences of breaking the rules.

But is that still true when a student cheated— let’s say they didn’t cite their sources—but genuinely didn’t realize it? Maybe they were never taught how to and when to cite them. Either way, you have to address it, or everyone loses.

How to talk to students about cheating

These conversations are as delicate to conduct as they are tough to prepare for. But they don’t have to be as negative and stressful as they seem.

What do you say? Better yet, what SHOULDN’T you say? What evidence do you need? What even counts as evidence? Do you email them first?

This article about how to talk to students about cheating has everything you need—even different email templates and talk tracks, depending on the situation.

Do more with academic integrity policies and honor codes

Academic integrity policies and honor codes won’t stop cheating altogether, but they can help reduce it to an extent. Sometimes, even just mentioning them before an exam reduces dishonest behavior, as students may think twice about their actions and potential consequences (Malesky, 2022; Tatum & Schwartz, 2017).

Most faculty are familiar with their institution’s academic integrity policy, but many only pay attention to it after incidents of academic misconduct occur or when they receive reminders to include policy details in their syllabi (MacLeod et al., 2020).

But they need to be more than a document on a school’s website or something you mention before a test. Institutions and faculty need to embed integrity into larger efforts that influence and encourage a culture of academic integrity, transparency, and accountability. 

In addition to the other strategies we’ve discussed, the tips below are a starting point to help faculty and leadership build a culture of academic integrity.

Regularly discuss integrity policies with students: Review and discuss academic integrity policies and class honor codes and link to them throughout your course syllabus, announcements, discussion boards, etc.

Be open and genuine: Have open, genuine conversations with students about why you care about academic integrity and how it impacts their education. Try sharing a bit about yourself.; tell them about your values and experiences or a relevant story to help them understand your perspective.

Assign class delegates: These students can help educate classmates about integrity policies and lead discussions about academic honesty.

Quick confirmation question: Add a question (graded or ungraded) at the start of a test where students acknowledge that they understand the instructions, rules, and policies. This is especially helpful when recent changes/updates have been made.

Build faculty and staff alignment: Hold semesterly training, require policy acknowledgments, create awareness of what counts as dishonest behavior, and centralize resources to keep faculty and staff aligned on integrity policies and updates.

Collect faculty feedback: Survey faculty (anonymously) to understand what questions and suggestions they have for academic integrity policies and the challenges they face in formally addressing academic dishonesty.

Train faculty to address cheating: Provide resources to help faculty conduct effective, healthy conversations with students they suspect of cheating. Hold workshops where faculty can engage in mock discussions for practice.

Learn from student delegates: Talk to those involved in handling dishonesty cases and educating peers about academic integrity to understand how the institution can improve efforts, such as streamlining specific processes and offering students practical training and resources like citation workshops and digital guides with citation tips.

No matter what strategies, policies, or technologies you have in place, there’s no cheat-proof system that lasts forever. Students are resourceful, and technology never stops evolving.

That’s why it’s not just about the tools and processes—it’s the people behind them. Faculty, staff, administrators, and students working together make the real difference. 

When everyone aligns, a culture of academic integrity emerges, where cheating becomes the exception, and learning comes first.

Ababneh, K. I., Ahmed, K., & Dedousis, E. (2022). Predictors of cheating in online exams among business students during the Covid pandemic: Testing the theory of planned behavior. The International Journal of Management Education, 20(3), 100713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100713

Adam, T., Warren-Griffin, C. (2022). Use of supports among students with disabilities and special needs in college. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.

Alessio, H. M., Malay, N., Maurer, K., Bailer, A. J., & Rubin, B. (2017). Examining the Effect of Proctoring on Online Test Scores. Online Learning, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i1.885

Alessio, H. M., Malay, N., Maurer, K., Bailer, A. J., & Rubin, B. (2018). Interaction of Proctoring and Student Major on Online Test Performance. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(5). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i5.3698

Anderman, E. M., & Koenka, A. C. (2017). The Relation Between Academic Motivation and Cheating. Theory Into Practice, 56(2), 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2017.1308172

Anderman, E. M., & Won, S. (2019). Academic Cheating in Disliked Classes. Ethics & Behavior, 29(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2017.1373648

Bath, M., Hovde, P., George, E., Schulz, K., Larson, E., & Brunvatne, E. (2014). Academic integrity and community ties at a small, religious-affiliated liberal arts college. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 10(2), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.21913/IJEI.v10i2.1005

Burrus, R. T., McGoldrick, K., & Schuhmann, P. W. (2007). Self-reports of student cheating: Does a definition of cheating matter? The Journal of Economic Education, 38(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.3200/jece.38.1.3-17

Cantiello, J., & Geschke, R. H. (2024). Preventing Academic Dishonesty in Online Courses: Best Practices to Discourage Cheating. The Journal of Health Administration Education, 40(2), 205–230.

Carpenter, D. D., Harding, T. S., & Finelli, C. J. (n.d.). Using Research to Identify Academic Dishonesty Deterrents Among Engineering Undergraduates.

Cole, M. T., Swartz, L. B., & Shelley, D. J. (2014). Students’ Use of Technology in Learning Course Material: Is it Cheating? International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 10(1), 35–48. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijicte.2014010104

Dahl, A., & Waltzer, T. (2024). A Canary Alive: What Cheating Reveals about Morality and Its Development. Human Development, 68(1), 6–25. https://doi.org/10.1159/000534638

Daffin Jr, L. W., & Jones, A. A. (2018). Comparing Student Performance on Proctored and Non-Proctored Exams in Online Psychology Courses. Online Learning (Newburyport, Mass.), 22(1), 130-. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.1079

Daumiller, M., & Janke, S. (2020). Effects of performance goals and social norms on academic dishonesty in a test. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 537–559. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12310

Dendir, S., & Maxwell, R. S. (2020). Cheating in online courses: Evidence from online proctoring. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 2, 100033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2020.100033

Eshet, Y., Grinautsky, K., & Steinberger, P. (2024). To behave or not (un)ethically? The meditative effect of mindfulness on statistics anxiety and academic dishonesty moderated by risk aversion. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 20(1), 6–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-024-00151-w

Fatemi G, Saito E (2020) Unintentional plagiarism and academic integrity: the challenges and needs of postgraduate international students in Australia. J Furth High Educ 44(10):1305–1319. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2019.1683521

Forkuor, J. B., Amarteifio, J., Attoh, D. O., & Buari, M. A. (2019). Students’ Perception of Cheating and the Best Time to Cheat During Examinations. The Urban Review, 51(3), 424–443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-018-0491-8

Gibson, Y., & Kuhn, R. (2024). E-Proctoring Tools: Is It a Necessary Inconvenience. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 24(7), 24–35. https://doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v24i7.7088

Han, S., Nikou, S., & Yilma Ayele, W. (2023). Digital proctoring in higher education: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational Management, 38(1), 265–285. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-12-2022-0522

Herrick, S. J., Lu, W., & Bullock, D. (2020). Postsecondary Students With Disabilities: Predictors of Adaptation to College. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 24(2), 603–624. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025120941011

Howard, D. (2020). Comparison of exam scores and time taken on exams between proctored oncampus and unproctored online students. Online Learning, 24(4), 204-228. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v24i4.2148

Hylton, K., Levy, Y., & Dringus, L. P. (2016). Utilizing webcam-based proctoring to deter misconduct in online exams. Computers and Education, 92–93, 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.002

Janke, S., Rudert, S. C., Petersen, Ä., Fritz, T. M., & Daumiller, M. (2021). Cheating in the wake of COVID-19: How dangerous is ad-hoc online testing for academic integrity? Computers and Education Open, 2, 100055-.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2021.100055

Johnson-Clements, T. P., Curtis, G. J., & Clare, J. (2024). Testing a Psychological Model of Post-Pandemic Academic Cheating. Journal of Academic Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09561-4

Kalhori, Z. (2014). The Relationship between Teacher-student Rapport and Student’s Willingness to Cheat. Procedia, Social and Behavioral Sciences, 136, 153–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.306

Kasler, J., Sharabi-Nov, A., Shinwell, E. S., & Hen, M. (2023). Who cheats? Do prosocial values make a difference? International Journal for Educational Integrity, 19(1), 6–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-023-00128-1

Larkin, C., & Mintu-Wimsatt, A. (2015). Comparing cheating behaviors among graduate and undergraduate online business students. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 15(7), 54–62.

Lee, S. D., Kuncel, N. R., & Gau, J. (2020). Personality, Attitude, and Demographic Correlates of Academic Dishonesty: A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(11), 1042–1058. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000300

MacLeod, P. D., & Eaton, S. E. (2020). The Paradox of Faculty Attitudes toward Student Violations of Academic Integrity. Journal of Academic Ethics, 18(4), 347–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-020-09363-4

Malesky, A., Grist, C., Poovey, K., & Dennis, N. (2022). The Effects of Peer Influence, Honor Codes, and Personality Traits on Cheating Behavior in a University Setting. Ethics & Behavior, 32(1), 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2020.1869006

Malizia, D. A., & Jameson, J. K. (2018). Hidden in plain view: The impact of mediation on the mediator and implications for conflict resolution education. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 35(3), 301–318. https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.21212

McCabe, D. L. (1997). Classroom cheating among natural science and engineering majors. Science and Engineering Ethics, 3(4), 433–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-997-0046-y

McCabe, D. L. (2016). Cheating and honor: Lessons from a long-term research project. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of academic integrity (pp. 187–198). Singapore: Springer Singapore.

Morin, M., Alves, C., & De Champlain, A. (2022). The Show Must Go On: Lessons Learned from Using Remote Proctoring in a High-Stakes Medical Licensing Exam Program in Response to Severe Disruption. Journal of Applied Testing Technology, 23, 15-.

Newton, P. M., & Essex, K. (2024). How Common is Cheating in Online Exams and did it Increase During the COVID-19 Pandemic? A Systematic Review. Journal of Academic Ethics, 22(2), 323–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-023-09485-5

O’Rourke, J., Barnes, J., Deaton, A., Fulks, K., Ryan, K., & Rettinger, D. A. (2010). Imitation Is the Sincerest Form of Cheating: The Influence of Direct Knowledge and Attitudes on Academic Dishonesty. Ethics & Behavior, 20(1), 47–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508420903482616

Orr, J. E., & Orr, K. (2023). Restoring Honor and Integrity Through Integrating Restorative Practices in Academic Integrity with Student Leaders. Journal of Academic Ethics, 21(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-021-09437-x

Pautler, H. M., Ogweno, A. W., Schnur, J. S., Schnur, E. S., Rapp, L. E., Kilgore, K. J., & Grice, G. R. (2013). An academic honor code developed and implemented by students. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 5(6), 637–644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2013.08.001

Peterson, J. (2019). An analysis of academic dishonesty in online classes. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 31(1), 24–36. 

Rüth, M., Jansen, M., & Kaspar, K. (2024). Cheating behaviour in online exams: On the role of needs, conceptions and reasons of university students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 40(5), 1987–2008. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12994

Salgado, J. F., Cuadrado, D., & Moscoso, S. (2022). Counterproductive Academic Behaviors and Academic Performance: A Meta-Analysis and a Path Analysis Model. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 893775–893775. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.893775

Sevnarayan, K., & Maphoto, K. B. (2024). Exploring the Dark Side of Online Distance Learning: Cheating Behaviours, Contributing Factors, and Strategies to Enhance the Integrity of Online Assessment. Journal of Academic Ethics, 22(1), 51–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-023-09501-8

Shu, L. L., Gino, F., & Bazerman, M. H. (2011). Dishonest deed, clear conscience: When cheating leads to moral disengagement and motivated forgetting. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(3), 330–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211398138

Simkin, M. G., & McLeod, A. (2010). Why do college students cheat? Journal of Business Ethics, 94(3), 441–453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0275-x

Staats, S., Hupp, J. M., Wallace, H., & Gresley, J. (2009). Heroes Don’t Cheat: An Examination of Academic Dishonesty and Students’ Views on Why Professors Don’t Report Cheating. Ethics & Behavior, 19(3), 171–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508420802623716

Stearns, S. A. (2001). The Student-Instructor Relationship’s Effect on Academic Integrity. Ethics & Behavior, 11(3), 275–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327019EB1103_6

Tatum, H., & Schwartz, B. M. (2017). Honor Codes: Evidence Based Strategies for Improving Academic Integrity. Theory into Practice, 56(2), 129–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2017.1308175

Tolman, S. (2017). Academic Dishonesty in Online Courses: Considerations for Graduate Preparatory Programs in Higher Education. College Student Journal, 51(4), 579–584.

Waltzer, T., & Dahl, A. (2023). Why do students cheat? Perceptions, evaluations, and motivations. Ethics & Behavior, 33(2), 130–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2022.2026775

Waltzer, T., Samuelson, A., & Dahl, A. (2022). Students’ Reasoning About Whether to Report When Others Cheat: Conflict, Confusion, and Consequences. Journal of Academic Ethics, 20(2), 265–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-021-09414-4

Zhang, N., Larose, J., & Franklin, M. (2024). Effect of unproctored versus proctored examinations on student performance and long-term retention of knowledge. The Journal of Chiropractic Education. https://doi.org/10.7899/JCE-23-16

Zhao, L., Peng, J., Yang, X., Yan, W., Ke, S., Dong, L. D., Li, Y., Ma, J., & Lee, K. (2023). Effects of honor code reminders on university students’ cheating in unproctored exams: A double-blind randomized controlled field study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 75, 102213-. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2023.102213

Zivcakova, L., Wood, E., Forsyth, G., Zivcak, M., Shapiro, J., Coulas, A., Linseman, A., Mascioli, B., Daniels, S., & Angardi, V. (2014). Investigating Perceptions of Students to a Peer-Based Academic Integrity Presentation Provided by Residence Dons. Journal of Academic Ethics, 12(2), 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-014-9206-2

Sign up for our blog

More resources for educators

How to Talk to Students About Cheating

A comprehensive guide with situational talk tracks, email templates, and realistic strategies for faculty to address academic dishonesty with students.

Read Now

Remote Proctoring 101: Software & Services

A comprehensive guide with situational talk tracks, email templates, and realistic strategies for faculty to address academic dishonesty with students.

Learn More

How to Proctor Written Assignments

Learn how to proctor essays and other written assignments to prevent the use of AI.

Read Now
How to Detect Cell Phones During Exams

Cell phones are the most common way students try to cheat on proctored tests. Learn how to stop it.

Read Now
Author
Tyler Stike
Tyler Stike
Tyler is Honorlock's Director of Content and a doctoral student at the University of Florida focused on educational technology.

Web Accessibility Guidelines & Compliance Standards In Online Learning

Article on what web accessibility is and compliance standards

Just as your campus buildings have braille signs, wheelchair ramps, and elevators to make them accessible to everyone, think of web accessibility in the same way: all users, regardless of disabilities or conditions, should be able to access and interact with your online course content and technologies.

Did you know: 

More than 1 in 4 people in the US have a disability. Disabilities can include cognitive, neurological, psychological speech, auditory, mobility, and visual, among others.

Color blindness (color vision deficiency) affects about 4.5% of the world’s population. This means a school with 5,000 students has about 225, on average, with color vision deficiency.

Color Blindness Simulator​

The comparison images below show how different types of color blindness, also called color vision deficiency, can impact a student’s ability to interpret your online course content.

three brightly colored parrots sitting on branches in normal color vision Blue-Blind Tritanopia
three brightly colored parrots sitting on branches in normal color vision Green-Blind Deuteranopia
three brightly colored parrots sitting on branches in normal color vision red color blindess example with three parrots sitting on a branch
three brightly colored parrots sitting on branches in normal color vision black and white color blindness simulation showing three parrots on a branch

Scroll to see more examples

Imagine having a color vision deficiency and being asked to focus on one color of text while ignoring another during an online exam. For some, telling these colors apart is nearly impossible, making it hard to follow the instructions. This is just one example of the many web accessibility issues students with disabilities face in e-learning.

Find the information you need
Guidelines
Standards
Checkers

What is web accessibility?

Web accessibility means designing digital resources and content that everyone can access, use, and interact with, regardless of disabilities and socioeconomic factors, like internet bandwidth and speed, that can restrict access.

It involves understanding how students with disabilities interact with learning content, recognizing the challenges they face, and designing learning materials, activities, and resources to address those challenges.

Why is accessibility important in online learning​?

Accessibility in online learning is important because it gives every student a fair chance to learn, participate, navigate, and interact with course content and activities. Without it, many students could face challenges that prevent learning or even accessing courses altogether.

POUR principles

There are four principles of accessibility that are known as POUR principles. POUR is an acronym that stands for perceivable, operable, understandable, and robust.

Perceivable

Students can sense and access online elements through vision, hearing, or assistive technologies.

Operable

Students can navigate and interact with content using controls, buttons, or navigation tools.

Understandable

Students can easily comprehend and use the content and interface.

Robust

Content works across devices, browsers, and assistive technologies.

Web accessibility guidelines and standards

There are several guidelines specific to web accessibility, as well as broader compliance standards that we’ll cover in this article:

  • Guidelines: WCAG, Mobile, UAAG, ATAG, EPUB
  • Standards: ADA, Section 508, EN 301549

Are guidelines and standards the same thing? No, web accessibility guidelines and standards are different. Guidelines are best practices and recommendations, while standards are legally required. BUT some standards require compliance with guidelines.

Web accessibility guidelines

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)

WCAG provides technical standards and best practices to create more accessible digital content that supports every user, regardless of disabilities, content type, or device. Instructional designers and instructors can use WCAG to create accessible course content for people with disabilities, such as physical and mobility conditions, blindness, deafness, speech difficulties, and learning disabilities.

Examples of WCAG recommendations:

  • Consistent course format: Use a consistent layout across course materials to make navigation easy (e.g., keeping headers, footers, and navigation in the same place).
  • Easy to read text: Use accessible font sizes, high color contrast, and appropriate spacing to improve readability.
  • Text alternatives for non-text content: Add text descriptions to all multimedia used in your course. For example, alt-text for images, captions and subtitles for videos, transcripts for audio, etc.
  • Keyboard Accessibility: Make all course elements usable and navigable by keyboard (e.g., navigation, reading materials, quizzes, etc.).
  • Avoid flashing elements: Don’t use any elements in your course that flash more than three times per second.

Mobile Accessibility Guidelines

W3C, the same standards organization that created the other guidelines in this article, provides broad guidelines for designing content that is accessible and works well on mobile devices.

Mobile accessibility tips for online courses:

  • Optimize for small screens: Minimize the information on each page (e.g., fewer images and modules) and use responsive design to adjust the layout.
  • Support zoom/magnification: Allow students to zoom in on content.
  • Use high color contrast: High contrast is important for readability on mobile devices, especially in bright or changing light conditions like outdoor sun glare.
  • Simplify touchscreen gestures: Use simple gestures, like single or double tapping or swiping, and provide an on-screen indicator or advisement of the gestures.
  • Easy to access buttons: Place buttons and interactive elements in locations where they easy to reach and usable with one hand.
  • Key information at the top: Place important information at the top of the page to assist users with low vision and cognitive impairments with locating content without extra interaction.

User Agent Accessibility Guidelines (UAAG)

UAAG makes internet browsers and media players (YouTube, Vimeo, Spotify, etc.) easy to use and compatible with assistive technologies. These guidelines helps create a more accessible, consistent experience regardless of the browser or media players used in your courses. UAAG is important for online courses because it allows all users—students, faculty, and staff—to access and interact with learning materials regardless of their accessibility needs, devices, and platforms.

Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG)

ATAG makes website builders and content editors more accessible for designers and developers with disabilities. This is important for online courses because it allows instructional designers, e-learning staff, and instructors to create e-learning materials that all students can access and use.

ATAG  is relevant for authoring tools used to:

  • Create web pages (WYSIWYG HTML editors)
  • Generating websites (learning management systems (LMS), courseware tools, content management systems)
  • Convert documents to web technologies (word processors and HTML converters)
  • Save content in web formats (word processors and desktop publishing apps)
  • Quickly update portions of web pages (blogs, forums, etc.)
  • Produce digital multimedia content (video editors)
  • Send emails with messages using web content technologies (Mailchimp, Hubspot, etc.)
  • Create mobile applications (Adobe XD, Figma, etc.)

Ebook Accessibility (EPUB)

EPUB accessibility guidelines help make ebooks and other digital publications accessible to people with disabilities by supporting screen readers, making the content easy to navigate, and including alt text for images. In online learning, these guidelines allow all students, including those with visual or cognitive impairments, to access and engage with ebooks and other digital publications.

What makes an ebook accessible?

Accessible ebooks make reading easier for everyone, like screen reader compatibility for students with vision impairments, read-aloud text for learners with dyslexia, and switch control support for those with motor disabilities. Some also offer extra features like sign language videos for deaf users or simplified text for learners with intellectual disabilities.

Accessibility Compliance Standards

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

What is ADA compliance?

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a federal law created by The Department of Justice that protects people with disabilities by prohibiting discrimination. ADA grants equal access to public spaces, jobs, transportation, telecommunications, and online services, like education. It requires schools, businesses, and other organizations to make reasonable accommodations so everyone can participate fully.

ADA includes web accessibility guidelines like making text and links easy to read, adding alt text to describe images, and providing captions or transcripts for audio and video content to ensure clarity and consistency.

For colleges and universities, ADA compliance—including accessible web content—provides equal access to programs, resources, and facilities for all students, faculty, and staff, which builds a more inclusive environment that meets compliance standards.

Who should follow ADA compliance standards?

ADA impacts many industries and organizations, such as private employers, public organizations (such as schools and universities), and various levels of government agencies. ADA advocates that organizations should self-regulate their web accessibility standards and are encouraged to use WCAG guidelines as well.

Section 508

What is Section 508?

Section 508 is a law that requires federal agencies to make their electronic and information technology—websites, software, and multimedia—accessible to people with disabilities. Complying with Section 508 also requires agencies to make online training accessible.

How does Section 508 apply to higher education?

While Section 508 primarily applies to federal agencies, its standards influence higher education institutions, especially those receiving federal funding, which includes requirements to meet accessibility standards like Section 508. This alignment with other accessibility standards helps provide all students equal access to e-learning resources and educational opportunities.

EN 301 549

EN 301 549 is a European standard that sets accessibility requirements for digital products and services that make them usable by people with disabilities. It builds on WCAG but also covers requirements that make biometric technologies such as facial recognition and fingerprint scanning accessible for people with disabilities. While EN 301 549 is primarily used by European Union (EU) countries, other countries, including Canada, Australia, Sweden, and Norway, use it as a framework for their accessibility efforts.

Back to Menu

Accessibility Checkers and Compliance Testing

Web accessibility checkers to help you create online courses that are accessible for everyone.

WCAG compliance checker

Accessibility color checker

Website accessibility checker

Video captioning tools

Microsoft Office

Functional web accessibility evaluator

Finish the 3-Part Accessibility Series

Assistive Technology in Remote Learning and How it Works

Visit Article

Creating Accessible Online Classes (with examples)

Visit Article
Sign up for more resources

Tyler Stike

Tyler is Honorlock's Director of Content and a doctoral student at the University of Florida focused on educational technology.

How to Talk to Students Suspected of Cheating

Cheating happens.

It happens at all levels of education. From the anxiety-inducing timed multiplication test in 3rd grade to high-stakes final exams in college.

It happens more often during online exams. A survey1 found that students are about 50% more likely to cheat in online courses than in live classes.

It happens for many reasons. Sometimes students cheat because they want good grades or just because there’s little risk of getting caught. But it also ties back to factors like their perceptions of faculty and confusion about what counts as cheating and what’s just unethical behavior.

It happens in different ways. Whether it’s sneaking a quick Google search on their cell phones, whispering questions to Siri and Alexa, or having entire essays written by AI chatbots, technology makes cheating quick and easy.

At all levels of education.

From anxiety-inducing timed multiplication tests in 3rd grade to high-stakes final exams in college.

More often during online exams.

A survey1 found that students are about 50% more likely to cheat in online courses than in live classes.

For many reasons.

Sometimes students cheat because they want good grades or just because there’s little risk of getting caught. But it also ties back to factors like their perceptions of faculty and confusion about what counts as cheating and what’s just unethical behavior.

In different ways.

Whether it’s sneaking a quick Google search on their cell phones, whispering questions to Siri and Alexa, or having entire essays written by AI chatbots, technology makes cheating quick and easy.

Click below to skip ahead

How to prepare for the convo
Practical conversation strategies
Extra resources

Find what you need

Talking to students about cheating is difficult but necessary

No instructor looks forward to talking to a student about cheating (we really hope not). And while these are the last conversations you want to have with your students (and they feel the same), they’re necessary—no matter who, what, when, where, why, or how cheating happens.

But to make these conversations effective, you need to approach them thoughtfully. Talking to a student about cheating requires careful planning, consistency, emotional intelligence, solid evidence from the online proctoring software, and a deep understanding of disabilities and accommodations, which are often overlooked.

The ripple effect of addressing academic dishonesty

Responding to cheating the right way helps build a culture of academic integrity among your students.

“Instructors at our partner institutions have told us that addressing suspected cheating has an impact beyond each individual case,” said Jordan Adair, VP of Product at Honorlock. “Providing consistent feedback to students on their proctored exam results helps reduce future incidents and sends a clear message to students and their peers that academic integrity is valued at their institution.”

So, what's next?

  • How do you start the conversation?
  • What should you say, and what should you avoid saying?
  • What evidence do you need to prove they cheated during the proctored exam?
  • What if their story is believable, but you still have concerns about academic dishonesty?
  • Have you considered how disabilities may play a role?
  • Are your test rules as objective as they should be?
  • How do you start the conversation?
  • What should you say, and what should you avoid saying?
  • What evidence do you need to prove they cheated during the proctored exam?
  • What if their story is believable, but you still have concerns about academic dishonesty?
  • Have you considered how disabilities may play a role?
  • Are your test rules as objective as they should be?

This article provides strategies for preparing for a conversation with a student about cheating, practical approaches for discussing it effectively, and templates for what to say in different situations.

Preparing to talk to a student about cheating

Review the institution’s academic integrity policy

Even if you’re familiar with your institution’s academic integrity policy, it’s important to review it again, as the policies and procedures related to acts of academic misconduct may have changed since you last checked.

Determine the purpose of the conversation

What do you want out of this conversation? Be more specific than just “to discuss cheating.” Establishing a clear goal helps guide the conversation and your preparation for it.

Do you want to…

  • Inform the student that the exam proctoring software flagged certain behaviors and discuss how to avoid them next time?
  • Determine if the student needs additional support and resources?
  • Hear their side of the story before deciding how to proceed?
  • Discuss the next steps in the academic misconduct investigation process and potential consequences?

Notify the student via email

Send the student an email notifying them that you need to meet with them because of concerns about potential academic misconduct.

Instructor note: If multiple students are involved in the same instance of misconduct, email each student individually and do not mention the other students’ names. This protects student privacy and addresses each situation individually.

Templated email to request a meeting with the student

Subject line: Meeting Request: Important Discussion Regarding [Course Name]

Dear [Student First & Last Name],

I am writing to inform you of my concerns regarding your recent submission for the [exam/assignment name] in [course name] this semester (Semester 20__). 

During the [exam/assignment], the proctoring software flagged behavior that appeared inconsistent with the provided rules and academic integrity policies at [Institution Name].

To ensure a fair process, I would like to meet with you to discuss the software’s findings, hear your perspective, and clarify any questions before taking further steps.

I am available [virtually or in my office] on [list dates and times]. Please reply with a date and time by [date and time].

I’ve included [links/attachments] to [Institution Name]’s Academic Integrity Policy and the course syllabus:

  • [Institution Name] Academic Integrity Policy [link and/or attach document]
  • [Course Name & Number] Syllabus: [link and/or attach document]

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

EMAIL TIPS

Example from email: “… the proctoring software flagged behavior that appeared inconsistent…”

Example from email: I would like to meet with you to discuss the software’s findings, hear your perspective, and clarify any questions before taking further steps.

Example from the email: I am available [virtually or in my office] on [list dates and times]. Please reply with a date and time by [date and time].

Example from the email: I’ve included [links/attachments] to [Institution Name]’s Academic Integrity Policy and the course syllabus:

  • [Institution Name] Academic Integrity Policy [link and/or attach document]
  • [Course Name & Number] Syllabus: [link and/or attach document]

Templated email for other conversation purposes

Use this to inform the class of commonly flagged behavior:

The proctoring software flagged several behaviors among quite a few students during the last exam. I wanted to share these issues with you all and offer some tips on how to avoid them in the future. Please take a look before your next exam. [Add a bulleted list after this of the behaviors with specific tips to avoid them]

Use this text at the beginning of the email if the purpose of the conversation is to determine if the student needs additional support and resources:

“To provide a fair process and identify any support you might need, I’d like to discuss the software’s findings and hear your perspective.  I can also help address your questions about future exams and academic integrity policies.“
Use this text at the beginning of the email if the purpose of the conversation is to discuss the next steps in the academic misconduct investigation process:
I want to meet with you to discuss the findings, the next steps in the academic misconduct investigation process, and potential consequences, as well as to clarify any questions you may have.

Review your test rules and instructions

Writing clear test rules and instructions that leave no room for subjectivity is tough. While they seem straightforward, any ambiguity can complicate discussions with students.

Two example test rules that aren’t as objective as they seem:

1. Do not use any AI chatbots to write any portions of your essay.

This rule work because it includes “any” chatbots writing “any” portions of their essay, but students might think:

  • I can’t use AI chatbots to write my essay, but I can use them to edit it.
  • I can use Grammarly to rewrite and improve my essay because it’s an AI writing assistant, not an AI chatbot.
Improved version of example #1

Do not use any artificial intelligence (AI), including chatbots, voice assistants, writing assistants, or editing software, to write, edit, or improve any part of your essay. All essay content must be your original work, created entirely by you, without assistance from any external electronic technologies.

2. Do not use a cell phone, tablet, or other computers during the proctored exam.

Seems pretty clear, right? Well, students might think:

  • I can’t use my phone, tablet, or another computer, but it doesn’t say I can’t use my smartwatch.
Improved version of example #2
During the proctored exam, only authorized resources and exam materials are permitted on your desk or workspace in the testing area. Unauthorized electronic devices, including cell phones, tablets, smartwatches, calculators, or other electronic equipment, are not allowed.

With those examples in mind, play devil’s advocate as you review. This helps prepare for the conversation and refine your test rules. If updates are needed, inform students via email and LMS tools like messages, forum posts, and announcements.

Instructor Tip

You can use an unscored question at the beginning of the next test to confirm their acknowledgment of any updates to test rules and instructions.

Consider disabilities when reviewing evidence from the proctoring software

If the evidence (exam reports and video recordings from the remote proctoring software) shows suspicious behavior, it’s natural to assume it’s cheating. However, this “suspicious” behavior could be related to disabilities and accessibility needs.

For example, a student might be repetitively looking off-screen during the exam.

At face value, this behavior seems suspicious—like they might be looking at notes or receiving help from someone off-camera.

But what if the student has a condition, such as Tourette Syndrome (TS) or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), that causes involuntary head movements?

Another thing to consider is that many college students don’t disclose disabilities to their instructors2, often due to unawareness3 and stigma4:

  • Unawareness: many students don’t know they need accommodations, aren’t aware accommodations are available, and/or don’t know how to find help at their institution.
  • Stigma: fear of judgment and being treated differently by peers and instructors prevents students from disclosing disabilities; some are even ashamed to seek accommodations.

If the evidence (exam reports and video recordings) from the proctoring software shows suspicious behavior, it’s natural to assume it’s cheating. However, this “suspicious” behavior could be related to disabilities and accessibility needs.

“Understanding ADA guidelines and different accommodations that students need is invaluable in education and academic integrity,” said Dr. Lee Conerly, Director of Academic Instruction at Coastal Alabama Community College, “Students’ behaviors during exams may look like cheating, even when they absolutely are not cheating.”

Dr. Conerly gave an example of how the behaviors of students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), like repetitive head twitching and fidgeting, can be mistaken for cheating, “I watched the exam recording, and the student was repeatedly looking off to the right, which makes it easy to assume they were looking at something or someone for answers. But I recognized signs of ADHD in their behavior. So, instead of jumping to conclusions, our conversations with the student focused on the human elements to learn more about them and their accommodation needs.”

However, the student didn’t disclose this information to the instructor before this conversation, which is common among college students2, mainly due to unawareness3 or stigma4.

  • Unawareness: many students don’t know they need accommodations, aren’t aware accommodations are available, and/or don’t know how to find help at their institution.
  • Stigma: fear of judgment and being treated differently by peers and instructors prevents students from disclosing disabilities; some are even ashamed to seek accommodations.

Tips for instructors to increase awareness and reduce stigma related to accommodations:

Tips for instructors to increase awareness and reduce stigma related to accommodations:

1. Talk about accommodations often

Engage in open conversations with students to increase awareness and understanding of disabilities and accommodations. Discuss accommodations before each assessment and encourage the use of campus support services. Share anonymous examples (to protect students’ privacy) of students who have successfully used accommodations in your courses.

Be very clear: accommodations are support, not special treatment.

2. Make it easy to find support

Provide links to campus support services in various areas of your online course, such as Announcements, Discussions, Chat, and syllabus.

3. Use anonymous surveys

Ask students to complete an anonymous survey in your LMS or through a tool like SurveyMonkey. This helps identify common challenges without revealing specific student needs.

For example, if several students report mobility disabilities that impair typing, you could allow talk-to-text dictation options for tests and other assignments.

Get weekly articles, ebooks, and webinars

Sign Up
Sign Up

How to talk to a student about cheating

There’s no way around it: talking to a student about suspected cheating is inherently awkward, challenging, and even emotionally draining for both of you.

While we provide practical strategies and scripts for various situations, it’s important to recognize that each case is unique and rarely straightforward. However, being direct and sticking to the facts—firm and factual—keeps emotions in check and the discussion focused.

Focus on the objective information

Remember that the conversation is to address the situation, not to confront the student or debate about what’s morally acceptable or what cheating is or isn’t.

Prevent opinions and biases from getting in the way by focusing on objective information:

  • The evidence you’ve gathered from the online proctoring software
  • Your course policy and the exam/assignment rules
  •  The institution’s academic dishonesty policy

Explain the flow of the conversation

Thank the student for meeting with you, then tell them that you’ll discuss your concerns, present evidence from the online proctoring solution, and review academic integrity policies for your course and/or institution.

You also need to tell them they’ll have an opportunity to share their side of the story and ask questions. After that, the conversation can be similar to the email you sent them.

In the example conversation throughout the next few sections, we’ll imagine the student was flagged for using a cell phone out of view of the camera.

Discuss your concerns

Tell the student exactly what your concerns are. Be specific and concise.

Example: “During the [exam name], the test proctoring software flagged you for [specific behavior, such as using a cell phone off-screen], which is against academic integrity policies.”

Present the evidence

Before presenting any evidence from the exam proctoring solution, confirm that the student knows which solution you’re referring to (they may use multiple during their education) and understands how it works. If they don’t, offer to provide an overview and answer any specific questions they have.

Instructor note: be prepared to discuss how the proctoring solution works, especially related to the specific behavior you’re addressing with the student.

Then, you can transition to presenting the evidence:

“I watched a recording of the behavior, which the remote proctoring software flagged and was reviewed by one of their trained proctors. We can watch the recording together right now if you’d like.”

Instructor note: some students will want to watch the recording, and some will not. Be prepared to respect their decision either way.

If they want to watch the recording:

“I have the video ready. Feel free to explain your actions as we watch. Let me know if there are times you’d like to pause or parts you’d like to rewatch.”

Instructor tips:

  • Have the video cued and ready
  • Write down the timestamps of important parts to watch
    • e.g., The student’s cell phone is visible at :20, :33, :45
  • Ask open-ended questions instead of leading questions
    • For example, instead of asking a leading question like, “Were you looking at your cell phone here?” ask, “Can you describe what you were doing here?”

If they don’t want to watch the recording:

  • Acknowledge their decision
    “I understand you’d rather not watch the video of the proctored exam, and that’s perfectly okay. We can discuss the flagged behavior based on what I observed.”
  • Be highly descriptive (and accurate) when describing the flagged behavior

Always be direct and concise, but give as much detail as possible when describing the flagged behavior, like in the examples below.“During the exam, the proctoring platform flagged several instances where you…”

    • covered your mouth and asked Siri for answers, which can be heard in the video. I’ll read them from the transcript provided by the Voice Detection software within the proctoring platform, [read transcript].

Ask for their explanation

Whether they choose to watch the recording or not, ask open-ended questions to get their side of the story, such as:

  • “Can you help me understand what was happening during when [specific behavior]?”
  • “Can you describe what you were doing when [specific behavior]?

Responding to different explanations

Some students may accept responsibility. Some may flat-out deny cheating, even when there’s clear video evidence from the proctoring platform. But some explanations may be plausible, so it’s important to keep an open mind during these discussions.

Responding when the explanation resolves the situation

“Thank you for explaining what happened. Based on your explanation, it seems this situation can be resolved. I appreciate your honesty and cooperation. Let’s continue to follow the guidelines to avoid any future misunderstandings.”

Responding when you’d like to seek guidance from another expert

“Thank you for your explanation. Hearing your perspective helps me understand the situation better. To ensure fairness and handle the situation appropriately, I’m going to consult with [specific expert, department, etc.] to better understand [specific topic]. I’ll follow up with you once I have more information.”

Responding when students accept responsibility for cheating

The conversation can be difficult even when the student admits to cheating and accepts responsibility. Your response may depend on the institution’s academic integrity policy, which could require you to report it, or it may be left up to you. 

“I appreciate your honesty in admitting to cheating. However, academic integrity is fundamental, and I’m required to follow the academic integrity policy, which means reporting this incident. The appropriate office will determine the consequences. I understand this isn’t ideal, but it’s necessary to maintain fairness for all students.”

Responding when students deny cheating

The best response when students deny cheating (even with clear evidence in the video recording) is to use neutral language, stick to the facts, and ask clarifying questions.

“I understand that you have a different perspective, but the video shows repeated instances where you [state the observed behaviors]. We can address each instance individually. Can you explain why you were [first observable action].”

If there’s little progress, explain the next steps: 

“Given the evidence and your explanation, I need to follow the university’s academic integrity policy. This involves reporting the incident to the academic integrity office for further review. They’ll evaluate the evidence, and you’ll have an opportunity to share your perspective and ask questions.”

Address the integrity policy, next steps, and consequences

Unless their explanation resolves the situation, you should review your institution’s policies for addressing acts of academic dishonesty, the next steps in the investigation and/or process, and the potential consequences for violations.

Instructor note: continue using neutral language, regardless of what you learned in the conversation.

For example, instead of saying, “Since you cheated on the exam, you’ll be [insert consequence],” say, “Violations of this policy can lead to these consequences…”

Dealing with cheating is difficult but worth it

Talking to students about suspected cheating isn’t easy, but it’s key to maintaining academic integrity and protecting your reputation.

Take the time to prepare: review your course policies, the institution’s academic integrity policies, the evidence from the online proctoring platform, the objectivity of your own test rules, and consider disabilities.

Consider the student’s perspective: these conversations can be stressful for students, so remember to give them the opportunity to share their side of the story while actively listening.

Every word matters: from the first email you send to request a meeting to the conversation itself, stay objective, focus on the evidence, and have a real dialogue with your student to keep the process fair and constructive.

Proctor online exams effectively: use the right proctoring solution to deter and prevent cheating while keeping the test experience fair, customizing exam settings to accommodate students’ needs, and making it as stress-free as possible.

Blog Sign Up

Blog Sign Up

Resources to prevent cheating and improve exams

Preventing cheating on online exams

Why do students REALLY cheat?

The Real Reasons Why Students Cheat

13 Ways to Prevent Cheating on Online Tests

How to proctor essays and written assignments (typed or handwritten)

Proctored Essays & Written Assignments

Does Honorlock detect cell phones?

Honorlock’s Online Proctoring Software Detects Cell Phones

How to prevent contract cheating on your exams

Using online proctoring services to stop students from cheating with ChatGPT

How Honorlock proctoring can stop ChatGPT

downloadable ebook about three ways proctoring saves faculty time

Improving online exams & courses

List of nine ways to improve online course design

9 Best Ways to Improve Online Course Design

Punishing students for cheating vs encouraging academic integrity

How to Create a Culture of Academic Integrity

Tips for writing better test rules for online exams

How to Make Test Rules for Online Exams (With Examples)

Article to help instructors write better exam questions

How to Write Better Test Questions (Tips With Examples)

AI Policy Statement For Higher Education and Online Learning With Copy & Paste Template

Prewritten AI Policy Statement

How to create online authentic assessments

Tips to Create Online Authentic Assessments (with examples & rubric template)

Preparing students for online proctored exams

How students can prepare for a proctored exam

Preparing for a Proctored Exam & What to Expect

4 Strategies to Help Faculty Reduce Student Test Anxiety

Learn about room scans for online exams

Best practices for online test room scans

Accessibility

Article on what web accessibility is and compliance standards

Web Accessibility Guidelines & Compliance Standards In Online Learning

How to make online courses accessible and equitable with AI tools

Meeting Students Where They Are: Building Accessible & Equitable Online Courses With AI

Creating Accessible Online Classes (with examples)

1 Newton, P.M., Essex, K. How Common is Cheating in Online Exams and did it Increase During the COVID-19 Pandemic? A Systematic Review. J Acad Ethics 22, 323–343 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-023-09485-5

2 Adam, T., & Warner-Griffin, C. (n.d.). Use of Supports among Students with Disabilities and Special Needs in College. Data Point. NCES 2022-071. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED618477

3 Driving Toward a Degree 2023: Awareness, Belonging, and Coordination – Tyton Partners. (2023, November 16). Tyton Partners. https://tytonpartners.com/driving-toward-a-degree-2023-awareness-belonging-and-coordination/

4 Herrick, S. J., Lu, W., & Bullock, D. (2020). Postsecondary Students With Disabilities: Predictors of Adaptation to College. Journal of College Student Retention, 24(2), 603–624. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025120941011

Picture of Tyler Stike

Tyler Stike

Tyler is Honorlock's Director of Content and a doctoral student at the University of Florida focused on educational technology.

13 Ways to Prevent Cheating on Online Tests

13 Ways to Prevent Cheating On Online Tests

13 Ways to Stop Cheating on Online Tests

  1. Detecting cell phones and other devices
  2. Blocking AI like ChatGPT
  3. Catching remote access software in contract cheating
  4. Finding leaked test questions on the Internet automatically
  5. Locking the test browser down
  6. Listening for voice commands to activate voice assistants
  7. Implementing hybrid virtual proctoring (AI + humans)
  8. Verifying ID and monitoring behavior with a webcam
  9. Creating explicit test rules & instructions
  10. Reducing test anxiety
  11. Prioritizing flexbility and accessibility
  12. Addressing students suspected of cheating
  13. Spotting trends in academic dishonesty through exam recordings and reports

How do these prevent exam cheating?

1. Detect cell phones and other devices

Most people have cell phones or other devices, like smartwatches and laptops, which could be used to look up answers during online exams.

In fact, 71% of online proctored exam violations involve cell phones or other secondary devices.

Most exam proctoring services rely on a proctor to see a phone in real time, which is unreliable when a proctor is watching a nearly dozen test takers at once. 

But some solution’s cell phone detection technology identifies when test takers attempt to use their phones and other devices to look up answers and when Apple devices are present in the testing area.

2. Block AI chatbots & browser extensions

ChatGPT, Claude, and Google Gemini—all generative AI chatbots—are as controversial in online education as they are popular.

You tell it what to write about and it generates that content in a few seconds. They write pretty well overall, but they can be overly proper and generic sometimes. But with the right instructions, they can write like we (humans) do, and they’re really difficult for AI writing detection software to catch.

How to detect AI writing

Can plagiarism checkers help?

Nope. AI chatbots don’t plagiarize content. They create “fresh” text based on what billions and billions of resources they’ve been trained on.

Do AI writing detection tools work?

Not really. They’re helpful as a high-level gut check, but studies show that AI writing detection tools struggle when the AI-generated text is manually edited with a few small word swaps and paraphrasing. And, as we mentioned earlier, using specific prompts generates human-like content.

Can remote proctoring help?

Yes. Remote proctoring systems can prevent the use of unauthorized AI tools during online exams and even during essays and other written assignments by:

  • Blocking access to other browsers and applications so AI tools can’t be used
  • Listening for commands that activate voice assistants, which could be used to navigate AI
  • Preventing test takers from pasting pre-copied text into exams and assignments

3. Catch remote access software (contract cheating)

Has a technician ever remotely accessed and fixed your computer? That’s remote access software in action.

The downside is that it’s also used for cheating on online exams. The person getting credit pays a service for an expert to secretly take the test for them while they appear on video as if they’re completing the test.

How to block remote access software during online exams:

  • Show locations by IP address: use proctoring software to show exam locations by IP address. If exams are taken in countries without known test takers, it could mean that proxy test-taking services were used and further investigation is needed.
  • Record screens and require keyboard commands: before the tests or written assignments begin, ask learners to use specific keyboard commands that display all active applications on their device.
  • Blocking applications: various settings within proctoring software can be used to block remote access applications, such as the browser lock.

4. Use software to find leaked test questions on the internet

Have you Googled your test questions? You should, because they’re often leaked on forums like Reddit, as well as sites that pretend to help with test prep and homework, but they’re really just repositories of test content alongside other avenues of cheating, like their “Expert Q&A” which is just hundreds of their “experts” answering questions 24/7 via chat.

The problem is that searching for your test content takes time… a lot of time.

The good news is that Search & Destroy automatically searches the web for your leaked test content in a few minutes and, if it finds any, gives you a one-click option to send a takedown request. 

5. Use a browser lock as an initial defense

While browser lockdown software shouldn’t be the only way to secure your exams, it’s a foundational tool to prevent cheating. It secures the test browser by restricting access to other sites and applications and disabling keyboard shortcuts.

6. Detect voices and sounds in the room

Use voice detection software that listens for specific keywords or phrases that activate voice assistants, such as “Hey Siri” or “OK Google,” to identify test takers who may be attempting to gain an unfair advantage. It then alerts a live remote proctor in real-time to review the situation and intervene if necessary.

This approach to makes proctored online exams less intimidating and non-invasive because a proctor will only intervene if the AI detects potential misconduct.

7. Use hybrid virtual proctoring to secure online exams

Hybrid proctoring solutions, which combine AI with human proctors and browser lockdown software, is highly effective to prevent cheating. But even with the same type of proctoring, the experience can vary widely depending on the company’s approach, for example:

  • Company 1: a remote proctor, visible in a box on students’ screens, watches around a dozen test takers at once while AI monitors their behavior.
  • Company 2: AI monitors behavior and pauses the exam for potential misconduct (even for innocent actions like sneezing), forcing a live proctor to step in unnecessarily.
  • Company 3:  behavior is monitored by AI, but instead of pausing the exam for potential misconduct, the AI alerts the proctor, who reviews the situation and only intervenes if necessary.

Based on these examples, it’s important to dig into how different companies approach proctoring, as it can seriously impact the entire test-taking experience and exam integrity.

Article to help instructors write better exam questions
How to proctoring online authentic assessments
What is online proctoring for remote testing
Tips for writing better test rules for online exams
Certificate vs Certification vs Licenses
How to proctor essays and written assignments (typed or handwritten)
Why do students REALLY cheat?

8. Use video to monitor behavior and verify ID

Use video monitoring to verify identity, scan the room for unauthorized resources (cell phones, books, etc.), and monitor students’ behavior during the proctored exams.

9. Provide explicit rules and clear instructions for your online exams

Writing test rules and instructions can be tricky because they need to be clear and concise, yet comprehensive and objective. Even when rules are direct and clear, there could be room to make them more comprehensive and adaptable, like in this example:

  • Original test rule: Do not talk during the test.
  • Improved test rule example: Do not communicate with anyone during the test, whether verbal, non-verbal, or electronic.
The improved rule addresses potential loopholes by covering various communication methods, like gesturing or passing notes.
 
See more examples and templates to help write better test rules, instructions, and guidelines.

10. Take steps to help reduce test anxiety

It’s important to understand what causes test anxiety before taking steps to help reduce it. A student survey indicated that many feel anxious before an exam because they don’t know what to expect and they have technology concerns.

Two tips to help test anxiety:

  1. Provide frequent practice tests to help students understand what to expect and ensure that their technology works correctly.
  2. Use online proctoring software that combines AI with human proctors to help support students during the exam.

Learn more about how to reduce test anxiety using online learning technology.

11. Prioritizing accessibility and flexbility

It’s proven that students are more likely to cheat when they’re tired. That’s why on-demand proctoring services with 24/7/365 live support are so important. This gives students the ability to take proctored exams when they’re most alert and access real-time support if they need it.

12. Talking to students about cheating

Talking to a student suspected of cheating isn’t fun but, but it’s necessary to protect academic integrity now and in the future. When cheating is handled right—easier said than done—you set the tone for your students and build a culture of academic integrity.

Discussing cheating with students might seem simple, but it takes a lot of preparation and planning to make the conversation effective and to be ready for any situation that comes your way.

13. Use reporting to identify exam trends that may highlight cheating

Remote proctoring software collects extensive data, offering insights into how students approach exams through actionable reports and time-stamped recordings directly in the LMS. Ideally, the reports will be easy-to-read and include timestamped recordings of important behavior.

Here’s how a lecturer from the University of Florida used remote proctoring to identify trends and anomalies in test scores:

“After the second quiz in the third week of class, I had a ceiling effect that looked like a ski jump, with 80% of my students getting 100% on tests. I knew there was something seriously wrong. I began looking closely at who had missed which questions over the two quizzes. That’s when I realized I needed a proctoring solution of some kind. When I initially attempted to address the issue, I really didn’t even know enough to ask the right questions to get help… It was more than a tool to guard or block students from using inappropriate information. It was also a means to detect and determine many different ways that students approach the exams.” – Ryan P. Mears, PhD, Lecturer, University of Florida

4 common reasons for cheating on exams

  1. Pressure: whether it's keeping a scholarship or passing a certification for a raise, pressure drives many to cheat on exams.
  2. Opportunity: surveys tell us that people are more likely to cheat on online exams than they are in a classroom or testing center.
  3. Competitiveness: school and work are competitive, which can drive some to use questionable tactics when they feel they can't compete fairly.
  4. Lack of preparation: sometimes cheating happens because someone just isn't ready—maybe due to long work hours, extracurriculars, health issues, or family time.

Sign up below to receive more resources for tips, best practices, ebooks, and industry trends

Want to see Honorlock in action? Schedule a demo.

Tyler Stike

Tyler is Honorlock's Director of Content and a doctoral student at the University of Florida focused on educational technology.

Proctored Essays & Written Assignments

How to proctor essays and written assignments (typed or handwritten)

Proctored essays are a thing now, thanks to generative AI chatbots like ChatGPT, Claude, and Google Gemini. These chatbots can generate content on virtually any topic in a matter of seconds. They write well, and with the right instructions, they can write just like us.

AI and plagiarism detection won't cut it

AI detection and plagiarism detection are similar, but different. Both aim to detect unoriginal content, but their focus is different.

  • AI detection looks for writing patterns, like word choice and sentence structure, to identify AI-generated text.
  • Plagiarism detection compares text against huge databases of content to identify copied or paraphrased content from other sources.

Why won't they work?

Plagiarism detection is irrelevant at this point

Most aren’t copying text word-for-word, and there are plenty of AI writing tools that can paraphrase text for them. Adding to that problem, AI chatbots don’t plagiarize.

AI detection is improving, but still waaaaay behind

They aren’t very accurate, and they’re easy to deceive—we tried it. 

That isn’t just our opinion, though.

A recent study1 tested 14 AI detection tools—12 publicly available & two commercial—against ChatGPT, and here are the findings:

AI detection tools are inaccurate: they often mistakenly identify AI-generated text as human-written, and struggle to detect AI content translated from other languages.

Manually editing responses reduces the accuracy of detection tools: swapping words, reordering sentences, and paraphrasing decreased the detection tools’ accuracy.

Prompts can help generate human-like content.

Another thing working against AI detection tools is that using specific prompt details (writing instructions) helps AI chatbots “write” like humans do.

Here are a few examples (not nearly an exhaustive list) of prompts that can help the AI write more like a human:

  • Write in simple terms and avoid technical jargon
  • Use contractions and a mix of short and long sentences
  • Keep responses clear and concise
  • Break down complex topics into smaller sections (use headers) and include analogies, similes, and metaphors for better understanding when necessary.
  • Use casual discourse markers and conversational transition phrases, like “but,” “besides,” and “in the long run,” instead of more formal ones such as “however,” “moreover,” “in conclusion,” or “ultimately.”

Try it out

First use a generic prompt like this: Summarize what photosynthesis is and why it’s important in 100 words or fewer.

Then try that same prompt, but add the examples above.

See any differences?

When would you be willing to take action?

With those inaccuracies in mind, what if the software indicates that 50% of the text is AI-generated. Would you take action at that point? Or would you require a higher percentage as for more “proof”? If so, what’s your threshold?

How to proctor essays and written assignments

Whether it’s a 1,500-word research paper or a series of short answer responses, Honorlock’s exam proctoring system makes it simple to secure essays and other written assignments, whether they’re typed or handwritten.

To sum up the process, Honorlock proctors essays just like online exams, meaning learners WON’T be able to do the following while writing:

  • Access other websites, applications, books, or their notes, unless permitted by the instructor
  • Paste content they copied before starting the essay
  • Use generative AI to answer questions or write content
  • Look up information on their cell phones
  • Ask Siri, Alexa, and other voice assistants for help

Honorlock online proctoring features to secure essays

Locks the browser to restrict access to other sites & applications

Our BrowserGuard™ feature lets you block all applications and websites except the one being used for writing, like Microsoft Word, or you can allow access only to specific applications and websites, such as research journals, while blocking everything else. This secure browser also records their screen and limits them to using one screen.

Block generative AI tools during proctored essays

Blocking AI is challenging, but Honorlock’s online proctoring system effectively prevents the use of generative AI by disabling copying and pasting, locking the browser and blocking extensions, listening for voice assistant activation commands, and detecting cell phones.

Detect cell phones & other devices

Honorlock proctoring technology detects cell phones from all angles, so you won’t need to rely on a proctor seeing a phone in real-time to know that they aren’t using them to look up information while writing their essays. Our AI detects when learners use cell phones to look up information, and it detects the presence of Apple devices in the testing area.

Detect voices to make sure Siri & Alexa aren’t helping

Honorlock’s AI proctoring technology listens for “Alexa” or “Hey Siri” and other specific commands that activate voice assistants. If any suspicious activity occurs, it alerts a live proctor to review it, records what was said, and provides a transcript for review.

This allows learners to talk through their essays without being flagged for irrelevant sounds like doorbells or coughing.

But what if a learner accidentally triggers our voice detection by saying a phrase that’s also a command for a voice assistant, such as “Okay Google”?

Our AI would notify a live proctor, but the proctor doesn’t immediately intervene. Instead, they review the situation in an analysis window, and if they determine no cheating occurred, they won’t intervene or disrupt the learner.

Block copying & pasting

Honorlock’s secure test browser prevents keyboard shortcuts, like copying and pasting. This also blocks them from pasting text they copied from another source before the test.

Scan the room for unauthorized resources & other people

Instructors can require a room scan before starting the proctored essay. This ensures that no unauthorized resources, like cell phones and books, or other people are in the room. 

Verify who they are

Quickly authenticates their identity—it takes about a minute or less— to ensure the person writing the essay is the same as the person getting credit.

Additional settings to proctor handwritten essays (or math) using pen/pencil and paper

Adjust proctoring settings

The instructor turns on Scratch Paper Allowed within Honorlock’s proctoring settings, and the AI won’t flag learners for looking down at their paper. 

The learner simply shows the blank paper before they start writing and uploads the written essay after they complete it.

Give the live proctor instructions & rules allowing handwritten essays

Providing the proctor with instructions that allow handwritten essays and rules for learners helps keep the review process organized.

Essay rules can include things like:

  • Only use a black or dark blue pen and blank/lined white paper
  • You can write on both sides of the paper
  • Before you begin writing, hold the blank paper up to the camera and show both sides
  • Write the question number in the top left corner of the paper
  • Hold the paper up to the camera after you finish writing your response to each question

How does Honorlock work?

Honorlock’s hybrid proctoring software and services combine AI with live proctors and 24/7 live support.

Unlike other online proctoring services, Honorlock makes the entire experience smooth and hassle-free. Remotely proctored exams can be taken 24/7 without the need for scheduling, and learners can get technical support from a real person. During proctored essays and assessments, learners won’t struggle with old, slow software or feel uncomfortable because a live proctor—a stranger—is watching them the entire time.

AI monitors behavior

The AI proctoring software monitors behavior during online exams and other course activities, like essays.

Detects misconduct?

The AI alerts a live proctor to review potentially problematic behavior in an analysis window.

No misconduct, no intervention

The proctor intervenes only if misconduct occurs.

Otherwise, the learner won’t be interrupted, and instructors and admins won't need to review irrelevant flags.

Access exam reports & recordings

After proctored tests are complete, test admins can filter reports and review recordings to focus on important flagged behavior. Test sessions are recorded in HD video and include easy-to-read summary reports with human-validated violations.

Ready for a demo? Get started

Sign up for our blog

1Weber-Wulff, D., Anohina-Naumeca, A., Bjelobaba, S. et al. Testing of detection tools for AI-generated text. Int J Educ Integr 19, 26 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-023-00146-z

Future AI Trends in Online Education

AI tools to improve online education

While some of the AI tools you’ll see aren’t widely used in online learning yet (they’re mostly used by businesses) we’ll explain how they work and the ways they can be adapted for online learning.

1. Understanding emotion in different ways

Understanding emotions is complex because we all feel and express them in different ways. While emotion AI isn’t perfect, it can help instructors improve engagement and support learners where they need it most.

What is emotion AI?

Emotion AI, sometimes called affective computing, detects and interprets human emotions by analyzing text, voice (audio), and video and associating specific components with related emotions.

How can emotion AI be used in online learning?

Emotion AI technology can help learners with cognitive and/or physical disabilities communicate; detect signs of confusion and frustration; and pinpoint course activities that they are interested in or uninterested in.

What are the types of emotion AI?

Text Emotion AI

Analyzes written language to identify the sentiment and emotional tone of the content.

Example uses: analyzing written responses, like forum posts and course evaluations, to identify, understand, and address emotional states.

Voice Emotion AI

Identifies emotions based on vocal characteristics like volume, tone, pitch, and speed.

Example uses: monitoring learners’ spoken responses during online classes and virtual presentations to detect nuances in learner interest or distress.

Video Emotion AI

Observes body language, facial expressions, and gestures to determine emotional states.

Example uses: observing facial expressions and body language during video conversations and online exams to understand learners’ confusion and levels of interest or disinterest.

The images below illustrate how video emotion AI software might appear from an instructor’s perspective when reviewing, offering insights into learners’ interest and engagement.

“High Attention” highlights that learner attention increases when making eye contact.

“Low Attention” shows a decreased level of attention when they look away from the screen.

While eye contact with a webcam doesn’t necessarily mean they’re really paying attention, and looking away doesn’t mean they aren’t listening, when paired with other metrics, like how long they looked away, facial expressions, and other body language, it can help gain a broader understanding of behavior and emotion.

Educators can use these individual insights or similar data from all learners to understand certain activities that boost attention and engagement, which topics confuse learners, and more.

High Attention

Low Attention

  • High attention example for emotion detection AI

  • Example of low levels of attention in video emotion software

High Attention

Low Attention

  • High attention example for emotion detection AI

  • Example of low levels of attention in video emotion software

2. AI language tools that go beyond translations

Newer language-related AI can understand the nuances of languages like slang, accents, and dialects to build truly global dialogues in online courses.

Accent Recognition AI

“Sorry, I didn’t quite catch that.”

Even if you’re a native English speaker, you’ve probably heard this or something similar from voice assistants. They’re about 95% accurate, sometimes more or less depending on which one you’re using, which is pretty good, right?

Sure, but that still means every 20th word is wrong, which is the exact length of the sentence you’re reading.

However, the accuracy varies depending on your accent… even if you’re a native English speaker. 

Question

Answer


  • Which two U.S. accents are voice assistants more likely to understand?

    1. Southern

    2. Midwest

    3. Western

    4. Eastern


  • 1 & 3

    Southern and Western accents were understood more often than Eastern and Midwest accents.

    Source: Washington Post, 2018 research

The research also found that people with non-native accents experienced 30% more inaccuracies when using voice assistants, with Spanish and Chinese accents being the least accurate. Imagine how frustrating that would be.

But there’s good news: accent recognition AI tools are available that are trained on extremely diverse data that allows it to better understand accents. They analyze and interpret speech patterns, intonations, and pronunciations specific to different accents. 

Accent recognition AI can help improve the operability of voice-controlled technologies and generate more accurate live captioning and transcriptions.

Name Pronunciation AI

What’s an easy way to stifle a sense of inclusion and belonging? Mispronouncing someone’s name.

Even if it’s an innocent mistake, it’s probably something that person encounters daily. But there’s a solution that can help: name pronunciation AI.

How does name pronunciation AI work?

  • Integrates throughout your online courses within the LMS, SIS, and other platforms to ensure that names are accurately pronounced.
  • Uses databases of audio name pronunciations and algorithms that recommend correct pronunciations.
  • Learners voice-record their names, and the recording is available throughout the platforms.

Name pronunciation AI can be used in:

  • Online class discussions
  • One-on-one advising sessions
  • Virtual information sessions
  • Recruitment conversations
  • Student support

Realistic Sign Language Interpretation AI​

Instead of using cartoon-like avatars, newer sign language interpretation AI creates a more realistic experience by splicing together videos of real people signing.

Some sign language AI can also provide real-time translation of spoken language and text to sign language and vice versa, making content accessible to deaf or hard-of-hearing learners.

Cartoon signing help
Cartoon signing help
Back to Menu

3. Automatically finding leaked test content

Have you ever found your test questions leaked on the internet?

“Homework help” sites like Chegg and discussion forums like Reddit and Quora make it easy to find and share your test questions and answers. 

You have 3 ways to tackle leaked test content:

1. Manually searching the internet on your own

You search the internet for individual test questions and send takedown requests if you find any.

2. Manually searching but with AI’s help

You select individual questions that the AI will search for and send your own takedown requests.

3. Automatically searching with AI

The AI does all the work by automatically searching the internet for all of your test content in a few minutes and giving you the ability to send one-click takedown requests.

Automating this process is the best way, so here’s how it works with Search & Destroy™:
  • Search & Destroy™ automatically searches for all of your exam questions
  • Search results show where any of your questions are leaked
  • Send one-click takedown requests to sites displaying your questions

That’s it. No more leaked content concerns.

4. Large Language Models can help review college admissions essays without bias

Completely eliminating biases isn’t realistic, but they can and should be acknowledged and addressed, and AI can help,  even though it can be biased too.

How can AI be biased?

AI reflects the biases of the people using it, the data it’s trained on, and the ways it’s used.

For example, if AI is trained on biased data, such as data from underrepresented groups, there’s a ripple effect that can impact algorithms, outputs, and future models.

The good news is that AI biases, similar to human biases, can be recognized and addressed to help reduce them.

Which would you pick?

If you were in charge of admissions—and let’s pretend time constraints don’t exist—would you:

  • Only review objective data, like standardized test scores and GPAs
  • Review objective data and understand other areas of who they are, like their personal qualities

Generally speaking, most would choose to consider personal qualities like personality, character, leadership, and life experiences.

While personal qualities are more subjective than test scores, research shows that they can predict success in school and life. Reviewing these qualities takes more time than reviewing objective information, like test scores and GPAs. But Large Language Models can help.

Large Langage Models (LLM)

What are large language models?

Large Language Models are a type of AI that can understand, interpret, and generate human language by analyzing and learning from extensive datasets.

How do LLMs work?

LLMs are trained by “reading” billions of pieces of text from various sources, like internet articles and forums, scientific research, textbooks, newspapers and magazines, and more.

This training helps them learn patterns and understand how words and sentences are formed in different formats and contexts.

LLMs don’t actually understand language, they’re just really good at predicting what word should come next. The two models we’ll discuss are unidirectional and bidirectional

  • Unidirectional: predicts the next word based on previous words
  • Bidirectional: analyzes text from both directions to predict a word in context

RoBERTa vs. ChatGPT

Both are LLMs that share the same architecture but excel in specific tasks, similar to cars with the same frame but different tires and suspension systems for certain terrains.

  • RoBERTa (bidirectional) drives better in the city (understanding language nuances and context), but it can still make it on certain off-road trails (creating content).
  • GPT (unidirectional) drives best on off-road trails, but can navigate some city streets.

The University of Pennsylvania used a LLM, RoBERTa to review college admissions essays for personal qualities

Research published in October 2023 by the University of Pennsylvania indicates that certain LLMs, if trained properly and thoroughly, can review admissions essays for personal qualities that predict college graduation on par with human admissions staff.

The researchers and their team analyzed over 300,000 college essays and scored them on the absence or presence of seven traits: prosocial purpose (helping others), leadership, learning, goal pursuit, intrinsic motivation, teamwork, and perseverance.

Then they trained RoBERTa  to recognize and evaluate similar qualities and characteristics in essay submissions without showing biases toward race, gender, or socioeconomic status. RoBERTa was used because it excels at understanding the context and meaning of language, which makes it an effective tool for understanding emotions, text classification, and translations.

Research results and takeaways

RoBERTa recognized personal qualities without bias

It recognized qualities like teamwork and intrinsic motivation in applicants from diverse backgrounds, without showing bias towards race, gender, or socioeconomic status.

RoBERTa’s predictions were accurate

Its predictions of the likelihood of students graduating were slightly more accurate than humans, but not by much.

The researchers recommend using AI with optimism and caution

“An AI approach to measuring personal qualities warrants both optimism and caution… We recommend AI be used to augment, not replace, human judgment. No algorithm can decide what the goals of a university’s admissions process should be or what personal qualities matter most for that community.”

5. Preventing remote access software contract cheating

Have you ever had a support technician take over your desktop and fix your computer from a remote location?

That’s basically how remote access software is used to cheat on exams.

A person pays a test-taking service to have one of their experts control their computer and take the exam from a remote location.

Even though the person getting credit appears to be sitting in front of the camera during the test, it’s the off-camera expert who is actually answering the questions.

And since the person getting credit stays on screen during the exam, ID verification methods won’t help.

How can you stop remote access cheating?

Honorlock’s remote proctoring platform has a few ways to help:

  • Recording the desktop and requiring specific keyboard commands immediately before starting the exam: Exam admins use Honorlock’s exam settings or test rules to require test takers to use keyboard commands, such as Ctrl+Alt+Del (Windows) or Cmd+Opt+Esc (Mac), to display the applications and processes running on the device.
  • Displaying countries: Honorlock’s Analytics Hub™ shows the countries that tests were taken in based on IP address. If any tests are taken in countries with no known test takers, it may indicate the use of remote access test-taking services.
  • Blocking applications: Honorlock’s proctoring platform gives exam administrators the ability to block specific applications that can be used for remote access.

6. Using AI for on-demand tutoring

Whether intentionally built for tutoring or adapted, AI tools such as intelligent tutoring systems, chatbots, and writing assistants offer 24/7 interactive tutoring and support, which enhances learning while building a more diverse and inclusive educational environment that accommodates various learning styles and needs.

They also offer real-time feedback, which is crucial for learners with intellectual disabilities because it helps them make connections between their work and the instructor’s feedback.

Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS)

Intelligent Tutoring Systems simulate one-on-one human tutoring, offering tailored feedback and adapting course materials to meet each learner’s needs. 

They can guide learners through problem-solving steps, offer hints, break down complex topics, and recommend additional relevant content.

While an ITS can benefit any subject, it’s particularly beneficial for subjects like math, which require—for the most part—a lot of repetition.

Here’s how an ITS could work for an algebra course:

  • The ITS assesses the learner’s understanding of basic algebraic concepts and their ability to solve problems.
  • After assessing knowledge, it customizes learning activities and offers additional content based on their needs. 
  • If the learner struggles in a specific area, it provides extra help, like step-by-step explanations and practice problems.
  • If the learner excels in a topic, the ITS gradually progresses to more advanced concepts and activities.
  • The ITS provides immediate feedback and additional context, allowing learners to recognize errors and learn to correct them.

Chatbots

ChatGPT, Google Bard, and other chatbots can provide learners with instant tutoring and support anytime they need it.

Learners can use chatbots to dig deeper into complex subjects, brainstorm ideas, provide feedback on written work, translate text, and check writing quality.

AI writing assistants

Writing tools like Grammarly and Quillbot have been around for a few years now, but they’re evolving.

Initially, they just helped improve writing by correcting grammar, spelling, and style issues.

But now, they’re incorporating AI that can instantly make writing more concise, easier to understand, or sound a specific way, such as being more assertive.

These tools are particularly useful for individuals writing in a second language and for those with learning disabilities, as they can boost confidence and deliver different forms of corrections and feedback immediately.

Regardless of which AI tools you use, make sure that they’re used purposefully, ethically, and with full transparency. Always keep in mind that AI tools are just that—tools. They aren’t a replacement for the people using them.

Sign up for more online learning resources​