The Opposite of Cheating

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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