Process Tracking in Education: Navigating AI Cheating Concerns

In the era of ChatGPT and advanced AI technologies, the phrase ‘show your work’ has gained new significance and urgency. As educators grapple with the challenge of preventing AI-assisted cheating, innovative approaches are emerging to verify student work.

Educators Respond to AI Threats

To combat the misuse of AI in academic settings, many teachers are requesting students to share the version history of their online documents. This method can reveal whether substantial portions of text were copied from AI sources like ChatGPT. Options for accessing this history vary, with some educators utilizing platforms such as Google Docs and others employing specially designed web browser extensions.

Process tracking is gaining traction as an alternative to AI detection software, which often inaccurately flags legitimate student work, especially among non-native English speakers. Even the companies providing these AI detection tools acknowledge that they can mistakenly identify innocent writings as AI-generated around 4% of the time, a statistic deemed unacceptable by many educators.

The Dilemma of False Accusations

This inaccuracy contributes to a growing tension between educators and students, including instances where students have publicly opposed schools over unsubstantiated AI cheating allegations.

The practice of process tracking aims to give educators a window into student writing habits—potentially identifying when an unusually large amount of text appears to have been pasted from ChatGPT or similar tools. However, the rise of this method isn’t without controversy.

Concerns Over Surveillance and Privacy

Some writing instructors are voicing concerns that process tracking resembles surveillance and compromises student privacy. Leonardo Flores, chair of the English department at Appalachian State University, argues that this approach cultivates an atmosphere of suspicion.

Flores was among educators who publicly outlined their objections on a blog by the Modern Language Association and the Conference on College Composition and Communication, emphasizing the negative implications that such tracking may have on student morale.

The Potential of Process Tracking

So, can process tracking indeed serve as a reliable method for ensuring the authenticity of student work?

Professor Anna Mills from the College of Marin has experimented with process tracking, using a browser extension called Revision History. This tool provides insights into how a document was developed over time, showcasing metrics like time spent on writing and even generating time-lapse videos that highlight the writing process.

Mills has also implemented a new plugin from Grammarly, called Authorship, which allows students to generate documents that detail their writing journey, including instances of pasted material and potential AI origins.

Student Reactions and Perspectives

Interestingly, Mills offers students the option to opt out of process tracking if they have concerns. However, no student has yet chosen to decline, leading Mills to ponder whether they fear questioning from faculty.

Most students appear open to process tracking. Many are acutely aware of the rising use of AI for dishonest practices and the potential devaluation of their own efforts. While Mills acknowledges the integrity of her students’ work, she admits to catching instances where AI-generated content was submitted as original.

Balancing Integrity and Student Comfort

Conversely, some educators believe that mandatory tracking might foster self-consciousness among students. Kofi Adisa, an associate professor at Howard Community College, expresses concern that surveillance methods can detract from the educational experience.

Although students may begin using AI tools in their future workplaces, Adisa fears that an overreliance on monitoring could stifle the essential teaching role of educators.

The Challenge of Authentic Assessment

Another issue with process tracking is that legitimate behaviors—such as drafting sections and consolidating them later—could raise red flags with monitoring tools.

Flores advocates for a reevaluation of assignment designs to embrace AI as a learning tool rather than one to be avoided. He cautions against an ‘arms race’ where educators continuously develop new ways to detect AI as students find innovative strategies to bypass these measures.

The Growing Market for Process Tracking Tools

As educators seek efficient methods to maintain academic integrity, companies like Grammarly report high demand for process tracking features. Jenny Maxwell, Grammarly’s head of education, states that customer engagement with their tool has surged since its introduction, driven by incidents like a student unjustly accused of AI cheating.

The story of Marley—a student whose TikTok recounting of her ordeal gained traction—fuels Grammarly’s mission to develop tools that empower students to defend their work against unfounded accusations.

Privacy and Control in the Classroom

Maxwell emphasizes student autonomy regarding process tracking usage, contrasting it with traditional AI detection that typically excludes students from seeing their results. Meanwhile, Turnitin, a leading AI detector company, is exploring similar process tracking features to enhance their offerings and possibly combine them with detection capabilities.

The Evolving Landscape

In a continuously transforming academic environment, some companies are emerging with tools designed to help students navigate both AI detectors and tracking requirements effectively. Mills mentions a tool that can simulate the typing of AI-generated content into tracking systems, even employing fake keystrokes to enhance its authenticity.

As the educational landscape confronts these challenges, educators like Chechitelli from Turnitin are paying attention to the myriad tactics students use to navigate or circumvent AI detection methods.

Conclusion

As educators seek pathways to uphold academic integrity in the wake of widespread AI accessibility, the debate around process tracking continues. The efficacy of these approaches, balanced against concerns of surveillance and student privacy, highlights the need for fresh, thoughtful methodologies that support both educational integrity and the value of student work.