Nearly half of the points awarded in introductory biology courses at Arizona State University could be obtained through digital cheating methods, including those powered by artificial intelligence, according to a preliminary analysis completed in late 2025.
The audit, conducted by biology professor Sara Brownell, examined the syllabi of 21 in-person ASU biology courses and found that, on average, 45 percent of course points are vulnerable to being earned through academic dishonesty facilitated by technology. The findings, reported by Inside Higher Ed, highlight a growing concern that the ease of access to tools like ChatGPT is undermining traditional methods of assessing student learning, even in face-to-face settings.
Brownell’s research stems from a broader shift in science education over the past quarter-century, moving away from a reliance on high-stakes testing toward evaluating students based on participation and active learning. While supportive of this evolution, Brownell observed a troubling trend in her own large lecture course: students were receiving participation credit through the use of electronic clickers, even when not physically present in class. Some students were even using the devices to answer questions for absent classmates.
“We were measuring student effort by class attendance or by having them watch a video and answering a set of questions before class,” Brownell told Inside Higher Ed. “Now they can just copy and paste the question into [ChatGPT] and receive the answers. We’re using students’ grades as a reflection of their learning and effort in class, and AI, other technology and increased academic dishonesty [are] undermining that.”
The methods students employ extend beyond AI-powered tools. Brownell’s research, which involved conversations with students and a confidential poll, revealed widespread use of group chats for sharing answers, discreetly photographing exam questions with smartphones and wearable technology, and utilizing AI browsers to complete assignments for online courses. One student admitted to Brownell’s research team, “Participation made up a really huge part of our grade. I wasn’t about to sacrifice points that I might need in the future if I’m not doing well on a test. It’s nice to have that safety blanket and there’s really no reason to not have a really good grade in participation.”
Brownell acknowledged the temptation students face, particularly when balancing academic demands with other commitments. “It’s easy to blame students, but when it’s 9:45 p.m. And you have an assignment due in 15 minutes and you just finished a shift at your job and you’re exhausted, it’s just too easy and too tempting to take that question and feed it into AI,” she said. She too noted a competitive dynamic, where students perceive compelled to cheat if they believe their peers are doing so.
While students reported difficulty cheating on proctored exams, they found ways to circumvent lockdown browsers used for remote assessments. Brownell believes a potential solution lies in a return to in-person, paper-based exams and a more rigorous verification of student participation. “I want to give my students participation points for coming to class, engaging with the material and working hard in class,” she said. “But if instructors aren’t willing to put in that extra time and effort to make sure that students aren’t cheating on those aspects of the course, then maybe they do need to move to all high-stakes exams in person.”
