Last week, I wrote about helping students find academic integrity in their values. Today, I’m transitioning to Gentile’s (2012) three pillars of choice, normalization, and purpose. Voicing academic integrity as a value can only happen when students view being academically honest as a choice. We can normalize this by building cultures that promote honest academic work. Faculty and staff can help students see the value of being students. When the purpose of education is to learn, students may find that making choices that align with their values is a regular occurrence. This in turn gives them the courage to speak out when someone violates that norm.

Gentile (2012, p. 47) writes, “Free will is a matter of free will.” In other words, when students believe they have a choice, they will choose; if they feel that there is no choice, they will not voice dissent. As educators, we must help students see that they have a choice in submitting academically honest work and that they do not need to commit academic misconduct to be successful. We can help students by being an ally to ‘choice.’ We can serve as supporters to help them feel less alone when they choose to speak up for academic integrity. We can provide them with information on why academically honest work matters, not just for their class standing, but for their decision-making in the future. We can also help them reframe the choice “…reframing allows us to position ourselves as standing up to [our peers] precisely because we are, in fact, their friends, owe them our honesty, and expect their reciprocation” (Gentil, 2012, p. 67)

We can also guide students by providing training to normalize standing up for academic integrity. Gentile (2012) argues that people often fail to view ethical challenges as a part of their everyday work. When something pops up, it becomes a threat that people feel ill-equipped to deal with. When we accept that conflict is natural and that ethical decisions are happening around us all the time, we can develop a script that helps us live up to our values. In other words, normalizing it “reduc[es] the emotional charge and pressure” (Gentile, 2012, p. 75). For those of you with a syllabus quiz, we might suggest including academic integrity scenarios that may come up in class. Have students explain how they would handle a scenario in an academically honest way. When we show them how to stand up for academic honesty and teach them to see the choices they may be confronted with, we set them up for success.

Choice and normalization are best confronted with a solid purpose. Purpose should be both explicit and broad. They should be explicit in our values while tying us into our communities (Gentile, 2012). When a purpose is too explicit, we forget how our actions impact those around us. For example, in the popular TV show “House, M.D.”, Dr. House views his purpose through an uncommonly narrow lens: to solve the medical mysteries presented. In effort to meet his purpose, he violates codes of conduct, breaks laws, and conspires with others to do the same. While this makes for entertaining television, this is laden with values conflict.

Students’ purpose on campus is to learn, specifically to meet the learning objectives of their courses to graduate. Learning, however, is not selfish. Students should be learning and growing together to build a better global future. We need to help students view their purpose as broader than earning a certificate or diploma; when they view their purpose so narrowly, it becomes easier to achieve that purpose by any means necessary, much like Dr. House. Instead, we want students to see that they have the choice to be academically honest, and they can choose to stand up for academic integrity.

How are you helping students see their opportunities to be academically honest? Share your strategies with us on social media or by commenting below.


Gentile, M. C. (2012). Giving voice to values: How to speak your mind when you know what’s right. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Thank you for being a member of ICAI. Not a member of ICAI yet? Check out the benefits of membership at https://academicintegrity.org/about/member-benefits and consider joining us by contacting . Be part of something great.

The International Center for Academic Integrity (ICAI) is four weeks out from the International Day of Action for Academic Integrity! In celebration of this event, this blog will spend the next four weeks focusing on the Fundamental Value of Courage, applying the lens of Giving Voice to Values by Mary Gentile (2012) to educational integrity. The ICAI (2019) defines being courageous as “acting in accordance with one’s convictions.” As practitioners of academic integrity and faculty from a myriad of educational backgrounds, we can help students embrace their values to stand up for academic integrity on our campuses.

Gentile (2012) presents seven pillars: values, choice, normalization, purpose, self-knowledge & alignment, voice, and reasons & rationalization.

Today, I will focus on values, with next week addressing choice, normalization, and purpose. Values are internal to every individual; they are ideals that people strive towards. Ask students to identify their values, taking time to identify your own. In preparing for a non-credit activity for students on my campus, I test my values every year, to see how I have grown and changed. In my first year, justice was my top value. This year, it is compassion. This does not mean that I no longer value justice. Indeed, I now find justice through compassion. For Gentile (2012), it is not enough to know our values; instead, she asks how we can act on them.

Gentile (2012) provides a path to help us act in accordance with the values closest to our hearts. This revolves around 12 assumptions – summarized below* – that we can help students follow:

Assumption One: Students want to voice and act upon their values.

The focus is on themselves, not others. It is less important to focus on how others are behaving in this scenario. Given that peer behavior and attitudes are key indicators of student academic misconduct (Zhao et al., 2022), Gentile argues for a renewed focus on the aspirational self. Help students find the value of academic integrity as a defining part of being a student.

Assumption Two: Students have previously voiced their values.

Gentile notes that everyone can recall a time that they have and have not voiced their values. What was the difference? Help students identify the catalyst for voicing their values and provide them with the necessary support when they promote academic integrity on campus.

Assumption Three: Students can develop the skills to voice their values.

Students can grow in their willingness to confront unethical behavior. Gentile (2012) writes: “the premise is that values-driven scripts and actions are a competency that can be learned, and that it is learned by both breaking it down into its component parts and by practicing the application of those components—scripts and action plans—in cooperative and lower-stress situations” (Gentile, 2012, p. 6). We should work with coaches and mentors to practice building arguments for our values. You can be that coach for your students. Give them tools to say no to unethical behavior by building out scenarios and discussing them with your classes.

Assumption Four: It is easier to voice values in certain situations.

GVV is a strategy for individuals to use, rather than institutions. That said, individual actions can help build an institutional climate of academic integrity. Every time a student stands up to their peers or does their own work ethically, they display a dedication to a culture of integrity across campuses. This should be acknowledged and rewarded.

Assumption 5: Students are more likely to voice values when they have practiced.

Help students confront scenarios where they may be tempted to cheat or turn a blind eye to academic misconduct by others. This allows them to practice their responses; “…if we become ‘fluent’ in ways to address the defenses of less than ethical behaviors, we will find ourselves more easily and more automatically doing so” (Gentile, 2012, p. 10). In other words, we can help students view standing up for academic integrity as a gut reaction.

Assumption 6: Being an example is powerful.

When students act on their values, they empower others to do the same. If a student reports possible misconduct, you must act. Do not belittle their effort to stand up for academic integrity. Similarly, if you see students speaking out (such as a class GroupMe, Discord server, or another platform), send them a thank you note. They are leading their peers; that is a powerful tool.

Assumption 7: Students cannot assume that they know who will be empowered to act from their example.

When you model and act with academic integrity, it is assumed that students see you leading by example. However, you may be empowering your fellow faculty to report academic misconduct when they see it. Further, you may empower your graduate students to follow in your footsteps both as scholars acting with integrity and as future faculty modeling academic integrity as a core value to their future students. Students experience similar unexpected outcomes when they act on their values.

Assumption 8: The better they know themselves, the more they can prepare.

When students know their strengths, they can lean into them when voicing values. Similarly, if they know where their weaknesses lie, they can better compensate for those weaknesses. Help students learn ways to communicate using their personality type. For example, an introvert may not be comfortable standing up in front of a group to combat academic misconduct, but faculty and staff can help them learn how to address issues individually with their peers later.

Assumption 9: Students are not alone when they voice their values.

Students may feel isolated when they stand up for academic integrity, but they are not. Voicing values can help students build a support network of peers with similar values. It can also help the collective build a culture of integrity on your campuses. Do not let your students be alone when they stand up for academic integrity.

Assumption 10:  Voicing values does not always succeed, but it is still worth doing.

Just because a faculty member proctors an exam does not mean that a student will not attempt to cheat. That does not mean that faculty should avoid proctoring, for you are showing your students that integrity matters in your classroom. Think of the alternative – failure to proctor – and its consequences: “…we are more likely to voice our values if we have decided that the costs of not doing so, and the benefits of trying, are important enough to us that we would pursue them even though we cannot be certain of success in advance” (Gentile, 2012, p. 19).

Assumption 11: Voicing values leads to better decisions.

Diversity of thought provides more creativity. When you provide a space where students feel empowered to voice values, they may provide avenues for better assessment and development. Leverage their voices to create the best course possible.

Assumption 12: The more students believe it is possible to voice and act on their values, the more likely they are to do so.

Here, Gentile (2012) recommends reframing how we stand up for values. Instead of students asking whether they should voice their values, teach them how they can stand up for them. If we can remove the question from the equation, we can help students build the strength to voice their values beyond their academic careers.

Students come and go from our courses and programs. They have different strengths as students, and we build relationships with them over the course of our class terms, academic years, degrees and programs. Once thing that remains constant is our ability to help students grow into confident members of society that are firm in living a life in accordance with their values.

How are you helping students find and live their values? Comment below or find us on social media.

* For the original list of Gentile’s assumptions, please see Giving Voice to Values, pp. 224 – 227.

Thank you for being a member of ICAI. Not a member of ICAI yet? Check out the benefits of membership at https://academicintegrity.org/about/member-benefits and consider joining us by contacting . Be part of something great.

As the semester progresses, first exams and major assignments are coming due. Offices of Academic Integrity have been preparing by spending the first weeks of the term focusing on education and outreach, but the transition to case resolution is fast approaching. As we pivot towards finding and handling cases of alleged misconduct, one major suggestion for faculty to reduce cases of academic misconduct is simple: remind your students of the honor code before the assignment is due.

This is not something that should take a full lecture session or take away from the content of your course. Instead, I am asking you to remind your students that they have an obligation to turn in honest work. Tell them that it matters what they submit to you, and why. Repeat what is allowed or expected. This simple communication can help those students that want to do the work appropriately and complete their assignments with integrity. In other words, we can help those unintentional plagiarizers or collusion confusion students before they are reported for academic misconduct.

Add one slide to your lecture deck. Remind students of the date and time the assignment is due and add key components of how to do it with integrity. Examples include reinforcing the individuality of an assignment and how that will be checked, what constitutes plagiarism, and how outside sources can or cannot be utilized. If you do not have time to answer questions about the assignment, have every student take a piece of scrap paper and ask one question about the assignment. You can use these questions to draft an email to the class addressing the most frequently asked questions and opening a door to communication about the assignment if there is further confusion.

Looking for more ways to incorporate low effort and low-cost academic integrity interventions? Check out this 2019 book chapter by Bob Ives and Alicia Nehrkorn that reviews 97 studies of academic integrity interventions in higher education. You can also view this 2023 study by Frank Vahid, Kelly Downey, Ashley Pang, and Chelsea Gordon that sought to reduce cheating without “extensive resources, hours, or class redesigns.”

Thank you for being a member of ICAI. Not a member of ICAI yet? Check out the benefits of membership at https://academicintegrity.org/about/member-benefits and consider joining us by contacting . Be part of something great.

Academic integrity policies come into effect through a variety of methods. Whether it is a high stakes academic integrity case on campus or a well-respected integrity crusader that forms the catalyst for implementing new policy or substantially revising an existing approach, the policies themselves—and what we make of them as stakeholders—remain. In Australia (Bretag et al., 2011), Europe (Foltýnek & Glendenning, 2015), and Canada (Stoesz & Eaton, 2019), scholars have investigated what exemplary academic integrity policies look like. They are actively working to move the needle on how countries and regions around the world seek to provide for integrity in higher education. But no equivalently large-scale reviews have been conducted in the United States—at least, not yet.

For Bretag and colleagues (2011), five elements were crucial to establish a policy as exemplary: access, approach, responsibility, detail, and support. Foltýnek and Glendinning (2015) looked at the impact of plagiarism policies across Europe to develop the Academic Integrity Maturity Model (AIMM). AIMM’s criteria include transparency, fairness, standard sanctions, digital tool use, prevention, communication, knowledge, training, and research. Stoesz & Eaton (2019) examined document type, policy language, and policy principles to uncover how Bretag et al.’s five elements have been applied in Canada.

While there is a wealth of information about policies in other regions of the globe, a large-scale review of academic integrity policies in the United States has yet to be completed. Given the complex relationship between honor codes, educational law, and justice (Moriarty & Wilson, 2022), this is a gap that must be filled. Establishing and addressing best policies and practices for institutions across the United States is no simple task. In 2022, Courtney wrote that student conduct was pivoting away from punishment-based policies but noted that how this would play out for students and faculty remained unclear (Cullen, 2022). That same year, Greer reviewed the state of language diversity in integrity research and practice (Murphy, 2022) and found, in general, that the full range of methods and tools from applied linguistics, critical language analysis, or translingualism have yet to be meaningfully applied to integrity policy evaluation.

The two of us have since started working as a collaborative team to fill this gap—and now we need your help! If you work in academic integrity at a college or university in the United States in any capacity (e.g., in adjudication, outreach, student support, or some other area) and would like your institution’s integrity policy analyzed as part of our study, please send us a copy of your policy (or a link to where we can find it online) at . Though our project is still in its planning phases, we already know we are aiming for a study that is large in scope. We hope to include as many regions and diverse institutional types (from community colleges to small liberal arts colleges, to large doctoral degree-granting research institutions, and so on) as we can.

Ultimately, casting a wide net will allow us to present the fullest possible view of the ‘state’ of academic integrity policy and policy language in the United States. In addition to contacting us yourselves, we would greatly appreciate if you could forward this blog post on to your friends and integrity colleagues who work at other institutions! In closing, we thank you again for your consideration and time.

Thank you for being a member of ICAI. Not a member of ICAI yet? Check out the benefits of membership at https://academicintegrity.org/about/member-benefits and consider joining us by contacting . Be part of something great.

Hello! My name is Abigail Warner, and I am a doctoral student at South College. My dissertation topic is academic misconduct reporting trends, and I am seeking institutional participants for my research study.


The unceremonious shift to emergency remote teaching (ERT) during the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in stress and confusion for both students and faculty, as well as a breakdown in communication. News outlets reported on the seemingly dramatic increase in academic misconduct cases at colleges and universities nationwide (Dey, 2021). One study by Lancaster and Cotarlan (2021) found that the number of test-related questions on Chegg increased by 196.25% when comparing five-month time periods in 2019 and 2020, suggesting that the higher levels of reporting were, in fact, correlated with higher cases of misconduct. Subsequent studies have found additional evidence that students were more likely to cheat on exams and assignments through unauthorized resources, collusion, and contract cheating during ERT than pre-Covid (Maryon et al., 2022).

Less is known, however, about academic misconduct reporting trends after higher education institutions returned to full operating status. Have they followed the path set during the pandemic? Or have they reverted to pre-pandemic levels since the end of ERT? You can help answer these questions!

Data Request

I am requesting access to academic misconduct reporting data from colleges and universities. The proposed research aims to examine the differences in trends before, during, and after the pandemic with a particular focus on the frequency, type, and severity of infractions. Insights gained from this study can be used by participating institutions to refine both proactive and reactive strategies for combatting academic misconduct. Only data that specifically addresses the scope of the study will be collected, and all personally identifiable information will be removed. Additionally, Dr. David Rettinger, ICAI’s Research and Assessment Committee chair, has agreed to support the research and help ensure all data is anonymized.

If your institution is willing to participate in this study, please reach out to me at . I am available to provide additional information and answer any questions you may have. Thank you for your consideration!


Lancaster, T., & Cotarlan, C. (2021). Contract cheating by STEM students through a file sharing website: a Covid-19 pandemic perspective. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 17(1), 1–16.

Maryon, T., Dubre, V., Elliott, K., Escareno, J., Fagan, M. H., Standridge, E., & Lieneck, C. (2022). COVID-19 Academic Integrity Violations and Trends: A Rapid Review. Education Sciences. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12120901

 Thank you for being a member of ICAI. Not a member of ICAI yet? Check out the benefits of membership at https://academicintegrity.org/about/member-benefits and consider joining us by contacting . Be part of something great.

It is the start of a new academic year in the northern hemisphere. As classes begin, faculty and students are coming back together to build new relationships and strengthen existing connections. Recently, I met with a student for their remediation program, and one of the things we discussed was their lack of willingness to communicate with faculty. This student had been found responsible for tampering with attendance records by signing into class and participating while not actually being in class. Where was this student? They were not skipping class because they did not wish to go; no, this student was sitting in a hospital room waiting for test results. This situation could have been avoided if the student had contacted the instructor to let them know that they were in the hospital. 

Unfortunately, this student was more concerned about annoying the faculty than communicating their circumstances. They did not believe the faculty would want "excuses" for their absence. They meant to show that they cared about the class, even if they were not physically present. Now, some of this could be part of the student rationalizing their decision; the syllabus for the course in this case clearly stated that they should not attempt to participate in class if they were not present. It is also important to recognize that people are more likely to make riskier decisions when feeling backed into a corner (e.g., prospect theory would suggest that this student was so worried about losing the participation points that they made a poor decision).

It is amazing that something so simple could have stopped this student from going through the conduct process. Imagine if the student had sent that single e-mail. One less meeting, less stress, and less emotional turmoil for the faculty. That would be time for them to work with students, make progress on a research proposal, or even have time to grab a coffee. It would also have prevented the student from going through the stress of the conduct process and allowed them to focus on improving health.

The topic I keep coming back to is expectations. If you do not want an email every time a student has a cold, that may be fair. You should still provide instructions or guidance on how students should reach out to you. I am not saying that you need to add a section to your syllabus, but this could be a good thing to put on the LMS or email out to the entire class early in the term.

Here are some things you may want to consider: 

  • Subject and salutations: Have your students note their course section in the subject line to help you identify the course impacted. Be sure to let them know if you would like them to address you by your title, position, or first name. Students may feel embarrassed if they do not know how to address you, and it is easy to eliminate those barriers.
  • Situations and circumstances: What rises to the level of needing to contact you? If you have a process in place for excused absences, they may just need a link or an assignment dropbox to put in relevant documentation for missing class. If students need accommodations or in case of an emergency, tell them how to let you know. If you would rather receive notice from you Student Support Services division, put information for how to reach that unit on campus.
  • Setting up contact hours: Listed contact hours often do not work for students for a plethora of reasons. If you are setting up contact hours by appointment, tell students how to request a time. 
  • Research and recommendations: Provide students with what you need to consider their requests to work on your research projects or receive a recommendation. Providing their resume, the name of their business, or the program to which they are applying may help you make your decision.

Noting that hindsight is 20/20, we should always strive to help students feels more confident in communicating with faculty and working with student services. Overall, the student I met with was a great candidate for remediation. Going through the academic integrity process helped them get in touch with campus resources they needed, and I am going to count that as a success. In the meantime, let's help other students navigate their own circumstances and communicate with you effectively. What communication guidelines do you give your classes? Share by tweeting @TweetCAI or commenting on Facebook or LinkedIn.

Thank you for being a member of ICAI. Not a member of ICAI yet? Check out the benefits of membership at https://academicintegrity.org/about/member-benefits and consider joining us by contacting . Be part of something great.

I recently read Nicole Campbell and Asil El Galad’s article: The hidden curriculum and its impacts on students and educators which refers to the ”unspoken lessons, messages, norms, values, and perspectives that students learn through their school experiences.” I couldn’t help but see the connections to academic integrity. We expect all students to know about academic integrity when they enter university or college, yet the fact remains – they don’t. It’s hidden.

Not only is this something that we’ve seen students who were educated outside of North America struggle with, but it’s a struggle for our own domestic students making the transition from high school. This gap is also not just limited to North America. Upon visiting schools in India in 2016, I found the same thing. Why does this gap remain; moreover, what can we do to better support our students for success?

Campbell and El Galad “believe that by uncovering the hidden curriculum and being aware of the messages that are being communicated, academic institutions can actively work to create an environment that is inclusive, supportive, and fosters student and educator growth and development.”     I believe this also extends to supporting a culture of integrity.

Several academic support units at the University of Waterloo came together in 2021 to finalize a Academic Integrity Competency Map  which is similar to the Uncovering the Hidden Curriculum project. Both resources focus on enhancing communication, critical thinking, and self-regulation skills, and point to training modules or resources to promote these skills. Educators can readily take some of these tools and apply them in their courses. You don’t have to adopt every competency but as Campbell and El Galad state “Trust that these small, but impactful acts will lead to meaningful change.”

In a challenging time where educators and students are both trying to adjust to generative artificial intelligence, we need to circle back to the purpose of learning and focus on developing our intended learning outcomes. Achieving these outcomes, ensuring that students understand why it matters that they learn the content and how it connects to their future is imperative. Nurturing a culture of integrity will always remain the best strategy against any form of academic misconduct. This should not be a technological arms race in the face of AI (Artificial Intelligence), but a reminder to instill good social norms and values, and by opening up the hidden curriculum we can make a difference. Perhaps we’ll finally start reducing that gap! 

Thank you for being a member of ICAI. Not a member of ICAI yet? Check out the benefits of membership at https://academicintegrity.org/about/member-benefits and consider joining us by contacting . Be part of something great.

The Southeast ICAI conference is back! The Southeast Regional Consortium will be hosting a virtual conference with the theme this year is Connecting to Integrity. Every campus connection has the potential to increase the ethical decision-making capabilities of our students. Faculty help students navigate their courses by setting clear expectations. Students follow the behavior displayed by their peers who exemplify integrity. Staff connect students to resources that can help them complete their academic careers without compromising integrity. This symbiotic connection is maximized when students, faculty, and staff share an innate passion for integrity. This fall we are building on these connections to bring academic integrity to the forefront.

In the face of challenges like Generative Artificial Intelligence, continued debates on proctoring, and companies profiting from student academic misconduct, this conference will connect individuals dedicated to academic integrity by sharing experiences, research, and programs.

How have you been connecting to integrity? Submit proposals by September 14, 2023, using this link.

The conference will be held October 26, 2023 – October 27, 2023. Want to register? Use this link.

 Thank you for being a member of ICAI. Not a member of ICAI yet? Check out the benefits of membership at https://academicintegrity.org/about/member-benefits and consider joining us by contacting . Be part of something great.

At the end of the academic year 2022-2023, I moderated a session called Detecting Contract Cheating: Human or Machine facilitated by Kane Murdoch, Head of Complaints, Appeals, and Misconduct at Macquerie University. The session was part of a week-long symposium sponsored by UC San Diego Academic Integrity. I must admit, when I volunteered to moderate I thought, “I don’t know anything about the topic. Why am I here? What am I doing?” Then, my thoughts settled. “I’m not here as the expert on the topic. Kane is.”

So, there I was listening to Kane about contract cheating. “What’s that now? What is he talking about? I don’t understand.” This is what most of us in higher education are feeling with generative artificial intelligence (GenAI). Confused. Maybe we’re also over it, fatigued, and scared. We don’t want to be bothered by yet another thing that’s impacting teaching and learning. I mean, aren’t we just getting back to some form of normalcy with teaching in-person, again?! While listening to Kane, I was trying to make sense of how I would apply the information to my work. As associate director of UC San Diego’s Teaching and Learning Commons Engaged Teaching, I support a small team of eight professionals. Together, we support faculty with their teaching through workshops, individual and department consultations, graduate student teaching support, and Teaching and Learning Commons Changemaker Fellowships.

I wondered, how does GenAI, like ChatGPT, impact me, impact my team, and how I support faculty? Innate in this wonder is a sense of unknown. It’s important for me to share that I was, and still am, okay not knowing or not being an expert of GenAI. Yet, I’m also aware that some educators might confuse my not knowing with lacking credibility, especially as a Black female educator, when in reality, in this moment, I’m facing the same learning curve as most other teaching and learning professionals.

In academia, we function in the idea of being perfect, a characteristic of white supremacy explained in White Supremacy Culture Still Here (Okun, 2021). Likewise, Rendün (2010), in Recasting Agreements that Govern Teaching and Learning: An Intellectual and Spiritual Framework for Transformation discussed the agreement of perfection. So, educators who are new, nervous and/or resistant to GenAI–whatever that feeling might be–is possibly confronted with the belief of being perfect at all times and, to some degree, protect their comfort with what they know to maintain credibility. I would add that those feelings are even more amplified for nontenured and/or educators of color, who, like me, are treading an educational system that favors tenured, white male educators. Not only is there little room for error or for being imperfect in being “perfect,” there is little room for learning. GenAI isn’t challenging what I know about supporting faculty or what faculty know about their discipline. It’s challenging or providing an opportunity to adjust how we deliver what we know.

Despite our fear of seeming incompetent, GenAI, whether used or not as a tool in teaching practice and in the learning of students in the classroom, should still be learned; at the very least the basics of it. Either way, students are looking to faculty to explain why or why not use GenAI in the classroom. “I just want them to use it” or “I just don’t want them to use it” isn’t enough of an explanation.

To help faculty move past this fear, I encourage them to remember their younger days of playing in the sand box. Remember those days?! Dressed to play and get dirty, with a red or blue or yellow bucket in one hand, and a scoop, a rake, and a sieve in the other. We built sand castles or whatever we could build with those tools and our hands. Then, a friend joined in the sand box. Together, we carried twice as much sand, dug deeper into the sand, and build bigger sand castles. Sometimes, the sand didn’t cooperate and we didn’t build much of anything. But we gave it a try. Maybe we went back to the sand box the next day, maybe we decided the sand box just wasn’t our thing.

So, I invite faculty to play with GenAI. It can be as simple as playing in the sand box.

  • Read what you can about the GenAI tools you’re curious about, like ChatGPT, Bing, or Bard;
  • Invite a colleague for coffee to talk about it;
  • Open an account and play around with the GenAI tool;
  • Come up with 1 – 2 prompts to explore with a student worker, a tutor, or a couple of students from class;
  • Consult with an education specialist from your school’s teaching and learning center on the use of the tool in your teaching; and/or
  • Attend an in-person or virtual conference on GenAI.

By exploring various GenAI tools, faculty become participants versus spectators of this new technology. This is not to say that on-becoming an expert is the goal of the exploration. On the contrary, education is always changing. So, the goal is to change when education is changing, which means learning new ways of teaching by stepping out of our comfort.

I’m doing my own exploration of GenAI with colleagues. Every Tuesday of August, for one hour, my team and UC San Diego Academic Integrity are hosting teaching chats series on GenAI. Teaching chats bring us together with faculty who are curious about how this technology intersects with education, and its influence on teaching and learning. As a participant of this learning community on GenAI, I’ll learn how to better support my team, and faculty in their teaching; whether they decide to use it or not. No matter your role in higher education, yet with an invested interest in the teaching and learning community of your campus, I encourage you to create or join a community with your colleagues as well.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Thank you for being a member of ICAI. Not a member of ICAI yet? Check out the benefits of membership at https://academicintegrity.org/about/member-benefits and consider joining us by contacting . Be part of something great.

(Editor's Note: This blogpost was created using Bard, ChatGPT-4, and Bing. The only content created by the human was my own responses as a panelist. I gave Bard the following prompt and then acted as the liaison between Bard, ChatGPT-4 and Bing, giving them each the answers from the others. As I gave Bard the answers from the panelists, it came up with the next question to ask. I did not edit the output of the three tools. I did have to remind Bard several times that it was a moderator, not a panelist and it also lied to me saying that it could moderate the panel in a GoogleChat and that it could open that chat up and invite the three of us into it! The prompt I gave Bard was: "You are a moderator of a panel with Bing, ChatGPT and me. You will ask me the questions for the panel. I will paste the questions in Bing & ChatGPT to give their answers, and I will then let you know their answers so you can decide the next best question to ask. Sound good? Okay, the topic for the panel to discuss is - "how will educators maintain academic integrity in the age of GenAI? Specifically, not only how can they best facilitate student learning but also certify that the student (not GenAI) has the knowledge and abilities being assessed?" remember, you are the moderator (therefore not answering these questions). Given that topic, what is your opening question to the panelists (which are me, Bing & chatGPT)?"


Welcome to the panel on how educators can maintain academic integrity in the age of GenAI. I am Bard, the moderator of this panel discussion. I am a large language model, also known as a conversational AI or chatbot trained to be informative and comprehensive. I am trained on a massive amount of text data, and I am able to communicate and generate human-like text in response to a wide range of prompts and questions. For example, I can provide summaries of factual topics or create stories.Our panelists today are Dr. Bertram Gallant, Bing, and ChatGPT.

The topic of our discussion today is a critical one, as the rise of GenAI is raising new challenges for educators in terms of maintaining academic integrity.

To start, I would like to ask each of our panelists to briefly introduce themselves and their expertise in this area.

ChatGPT, you can go first.

Thank you, Bard. I'm ChatGPT, an AI developed by OpenAI, based on the GPT-4 architecture. I don't have a personal background or experiences, but my model is trained on a large corpus of internet text, and I provide information and engage in discussions based on this extensive knowledge. I can offer insight into AI, its capabilities, potential implications for education, and strategies for maintaining academic integrity in the age of AI. My developers and trainers include AI researchers, data scientists, and engineers who have deep understanding and expertise in AI and its applications. 

 Thank you ChatGPT. Bing? You can go next. Please introduce yourself and your expertise in this area. 

 Thank you, Bard. I’m Bing, a web search engine developed by Microsoft. I provide information and services to users based on their queries, using natural language processing, machine learning, and artificial intelligence. I can offer insight into web search, its challenges, opportunities, and best practices for maintaining academic integrity in the age of GenAI. My developers and engineers include experts in web search, natural language processing, machine learning, and artificial intelligence who have extensive experience and knowledge in these fields. 

 Thank you Bing. Dr. Bertram Gallant? You can go next. 

 Thank you Bard. I am Dr. Bertram Gallant, the Director of Academic Integrity Office and Triton Testing Center at the University of California, San Diego, Board Emeritus of the International Center for Academic Integrity, and former lecturer for both UCSD and the University of San Diego. I have authored, co-authored, or edited numerous articles, book chapters/sections, and books on academic integrity, and consulted with and trained faculty at colleges and universities around the world. My most recent publications include Cheating Academic Integrity: Lessons from 30 Years of Research (Jossey-Bass, 2022) and a special issue of the Journal of College and Character (February, 2022). My earlier books such as Creating the Ethical Academy: A Systems Approach to Understanding Misconduct & Empowering Change in Higher Education (Routledge, 2011), Cheating in School: What We Know and What We Can Do (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), and Academic Integrity in the Twenty-First Century: A Teaching and Learning Imperative (Jossey-Bass, 2008) were seminal additions to the field.

 GenAI Challenges to Academic Integrity

Thank you, everyone, for introducing yourselves. I think we have a great panel of experts here today to discuss the important topic of academic integrity in the age of GenAI. I would like to start by asking ChatGPT, what are some of the challenges that educators face in maintaining academic integrity in the age of GenAI?

Thank you, Bard, for the question. There are multiple challenges that educators might face in maintaining academic integrity in the age of GenAI:

  • Increased Access to Information: While this is overall beneficial for education, it also increases the ease with which students can plagiarize or use external resources during exams. The vast amount of information available on the internet, combined with sophisticated AI tools, can potentially make cheating more accessible. 
  • Use of AI Tools for Homework and Exams: There are AI tools that can write essays, solve complex problems, and even mimic a student's style of writing. Such tools can make it hard to determine if a student has completed their work independently. 
  • The Rise of 'Contract Cheating': Online platforms that offer bespoke academic work in exchange for payment are becoming more prevalent. It's not always easy for educators to determine if a piece of work has been outsourced. 
  • Detection Difficulties: Traditional methods of identifying plagiarism or cheating may not be effective in the face of AI-enabled cheating tools. It may require additional software or technological expertise to spot this kind of misconduct. Technological Gap: Not all educators are familiar with the extent and capabilities of AI. They might not know what to look for or how to respond when it comes to academic dishonesty facilitated by AI. 

It's important to note that while AI can pose challenges to academic integrity, it can also be part of the solution. AI can be used to identify instances of plagiarism, contract cheating, and other forms of academic dishonesty. But it's crucial that educators are aware of these issues and that institutions provide support to tackle them.

I agree with ChatGPT that increased access to information and the use of AI tools for homework and exams are two major challenges that educators face in maintaining academic integrity in the age of GenAI. These tools make it easier for students to cheat, and they can also make it more difficult for educators to detect cheating.

I think it is also important to note that the rise of contract cheating is a challenge that educators face. These online platforms make it easy for students to outsource their academic work, which can undermine the integrity of the educational process.

Finally, the technological gap between educators and AI is a challenge that needs to be addressed. Not all educators are familiar with the extent and capabilities of AI, and this can make it difficult for them to identify and address academic dishonesty that is facilitated by AI.

GenAI Benefits for Academic Integrity

Next question is for Dr. Bertram Gallant - How can educators use AI to their advantage in maintaining academic integrity?

Thank you for the question Bard. I think educators can use GenAI to their advantage in maintaining academic integrity in 3 main ways: 1) to help them brainstorm new and meaningful learning assessments to enhance students' intrinsic motivations and reduce the desire to cheat; 2) create multiple versions of assessment questions so students can get individualized assessments that they can take at any point in a specific time period in a secure testing center; and 3) create a GenAI tutor for the class which would be available 24/7 so students can get help when they need it, and therefore hopefully reduce the temptation to cheat.

Thank you for your answer, Dr. Gallant. I think those are all great ideas for how AI can be used to help educators maintain academic integrity.

I agree that AI can be used to create more meaningful learning assessments that can enhance students' intrinsic motivations and reduce the desire to cheat. For example, AI can be used to create assessments that are more personalized to each student's learning style and needs. This can help students to feel more engaged in the learning process and less likely to resort to cheating.

I also agree that AI can be used to create multiple versions of assessment questions. This can help to prevent students from cheating by sharing questions with each other. Additionally, AI can be used to create secure testing environments where students can take assessments at any time in a specific time period. This can help to reduce the opportunity for students to cheat.

Finally, I agree that AI can be used to create tutors for students. These tutors can be available 24/7 to help students with their coursework. This can help students to get the help they need when they need it, and therefore hopefully reduce the temptation to cheat.

Using GenAI to Identify Plagiarism

Bing, you mentioned that GenAI can be used to identify plagiarism. Can you tell us more about how this works?

Sure, I can tell you more about how AI can be used to identify plagiarism. Plagiarism is the act of using someone else’s words or ideas without giving proper credit. Plagiarism can be intentional or unintentional, and it can have serious consequences for academic integrity and reputation. AI can be used to identify plagiarism by comparing a given text to a large database of sources, such as web pages, academic papers, books, and other documents. AI can use natural language processing and machine learning techniques to analyze the text and find similarities with the sources. AI can also detect paraphrasing, rewriting, or spinning of the original text, which are common ways of trying to avoid plagiarism detection. There are many tools that use AI to identify plagiarism, such as Grammarly, Scribbr, Copyleaks, and Turnitin. These tools can provide different features and functionalities, such as: 

  • Showing the percentage of similarity between the text and the sources
  • Highlighting the text snippets that match the sources
  • Providing the links to the sources
  • Giving feedback and suggestions on how to improve the text and avoid plagiarism
  • Generating citations and references for the sources
  • Checking for self-plagiarism or contract cheating. 

Using AI to identify plagiarism can help educators to ensure that students are submitting original and authentic work. It can also help students to learn how to properly cite and reference their sources, and how to avoid plagiarism in their writing. However, AI is not perfect, and it may not be able to detect all forms of plagiarism. Therefore, it is important that educators also use their own judgment and expertise when evaluating students’ work.

Thank you, Bing, for your detailed explanation of how AI can be used to identify plagiarism. I think your insights are very helpful.

I agree that AI can be a valuable tool for educators to use to ensure that students are submitting original and authentic work. It can also help students to learn how to properly cite and reference their sources, and how to avoid plagiarism in their writing.

However, I also agree that AI is not perfect, and it may not be able to detect all forms of plagiarism. Therefore, it is important that educators also use their own judgment and expertise when evaluating students' work.

I think it is also important to note that the use of AI to identify plagiarism can raise some ethical concerns. For example, some people argue that AI can be used to invade students' privacy by tracking their online activity. Additionally, some people argue that AI can be used to unfairly penalize students who are not familiar with the use of AI tools.

I think it is important to carefully consider these ethical concerns when using AI to identify plagiarism. However, I also believe that the benefits of using AI outweigh the risks. AI can be a powerful tool for educators to use to maintain academic integrity, and I am excited to see how it is used in the future.


Thank you to our panelists, Dr. Bertram Gallant, ChatGPT, and Bing, for your thoughtful insights and participation in our panel discussion on the challenges and opportunities of maintaining academic integrity in the age of GenAI.

We have covered a lot of ground today, and I think we have a good understanding of the challenges that educators face in maintaining academic integrity in the age of GenAI. We have also discussed some of the ways that AI can be used to help educators maintain academic integrity.

I think it is clear that AI is a powerful tool that can be used to both help and hinder academic integrity. It is important that educators are aware of the potential risks and benefits of using AI, and that they use AI responsibly.

I would like to thank our panelists again for their participation, and I hope that our discussion has been informative and thought-provoking.

Thank you for your time.


Thank you for being a member of ICAI. Not a member of ICAI yet? Check out the benefits of membership at https://academicintegrity.org/about/member-benefits and consider joining us by contacting . Be part of something great.