Scores of AP Tests Invalidated on Suspicion of Cheating
Plus, University of Oregon website promotes Chegg. Plus, new survey shows teacher concerns about AI and cheating continue to grow.
Issue 307
Subscribe below to join 3,924 other smart people who get “The Cheat Sheet.” New Issues every Tuesday and Thursday.
If you enjoy “The Cheat Sheet,” please consider joining the 18 amazing people who are chipping in a few bucks via Patreon. Or joining the 38 outstanding citizens who are now paid subscribers. Paid subscriptions start at $8 a month. Thank you!
AP Test Scores Invalidated for Cheating
Inside Higher Ed, which continues to cover academic integrity issues very poorly, ran a story recently about a high number of AP test results that were canceled due to suspected misconduct.
The College Board, which runs AP tests, did not say how many scores were revoked and therefore, by extension, how many exams they believe may have been compromised. But a spokesperson did say the numbers were, “higher than normal” and:
“We have canceled more AP Exams than usual after identifying students who participated in unethical conduct,” Holly Stepp, the College Board’s executive director of media relations, wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed. She added that “the total number remains a fraction of 1 percent of exams.”
Assuming the fraction is half, just to pick a point, we’re talking about approximately 26,000 AP exams with “unethical conduct.”
Stepp, of the College Board, continued:
The “unethical conduct” was a leak of test materials in May that made its way onto the international black market. Those materials managed to reach an unusually large number of students this year in a globe-spanning cash-for-questions operation—though Stepp said that “none of the materials were so widely shared that we needed to cancel entire exam subjects or scores from whole countries.”
A globe-spanning cash-for-questions operation sounds like the literal business model of a few companies I could name. Though that’s unfair. Most of the time those companies don’t bother selling the questions, they sell the answers. Much more efficient.
I’ll also mention that, once again, no — cheating is not going down. Nearly everywhere we look, the trendline moves up as it moves to the right.
The article continues that, as a result of this round of integrity breaches, the College Board is considering accelerating their timeline to digitize and electronically deliver future AP tests. They hope that digital tests will be more secure. Which they will be, and won’t be. When you change test tactics, the nature of the cheating changes, the cheating itself doesn’t.
The article continues:
Steve Addicott, chief operating officer of the nearly 20-year-old assessment-security firm Caveon, said that while “truly adaptive” digital tests are typically more secure than static paper ones, new threats have evolved alongside the new technology, including the proxy test-taker market, which boomed during the pandemic.
“Bad actors are leveraging technology the same way assessment companies are,” Addicott said. “It’s an arms race.”
Exactly. Every move a test provider makes will be countered by profit-seeking cheating providers.
Addicott continues:
While students’ use of leaked materials was more widespread than usual this year, these operations are not uncommon. Addicott called it a “huge industry.”
“Nearly all high-stakes testing organizations are dealing not just with cheaters but with rings of test pirates, who are not trying to increase their scores but harvesting items illegally to sell online so that other people can gain unfair advantage,” he said. “It’s these groups that are incredibly sophisticated, organized, and make bundles of money … They’re parasites.”
I like this guy.
Yes, cheating is a “huge industry.” It’s highly profitable and incredibly sophisticated. As he said. You cannot change the way you design or deliver a test and change either the desire for people to cheat or the profit that comes from enabling those inclinations.
Another tidbit from the IHE reporting:
This year’s big AP leak appears to have originated on encrypted social media channels in China, including Xian Yu and Taobao, but students in classrooms across the U.S. also reported on social media that their scores had been canceled.
And, the absolutely least surprising sentence in the entire piece:
Many of them proclaimed their innocence.
Because, of course. No one gets caught cheating and says, “Right on, good job. You nailed me.”
Finally, it’s not clear that the College Board assessed any penalty aside from the voiding of scores, which presumes the test-taker lost their fees and time.
But I’d like to see test providers such as the College Board go further since a “try that again” isn’t really much of a penalty. Imagine a pitcher in baseball being caught doctoring the ball, if the penalty was simply to declare the doctored pitch void and go again — that’s no penalty at all. That’s no incentive not to cheat.
It seems the College Board could, if they chose, ban a test-taker who violated test ethics from taking any College Board test for a year. They could also report an invalidated “no score” along with any future score reports of presumably non-cheated tests. Either of those would be actual penalties. And call me crazy, I think there ought to be some.
The University of Oregon — The U of Oh No
Spotted and sent in by a reader and friend of The Cheat Sheet, the University of Oregon recently promoted cheating giant Chegg on its official website.
No, really.
In a bland post about websites that can help students find textbooks, I kid you not, the first suggestion is:
1. Chegg
Chegg stands out as a leading provider of textbook rentals, new and used textbooks, and eTextbooks. Beyond book purchases, Chegg offers study aids, homework help, and online tutoring. The rental process is simple, and return shipping is free.
First, like 4% of Chegg’s business is textbooks. It’s like not even what they do anymore.
What Chegg does instead, as the school is happy to highlight, is “homework help, and online tutoring.” Which means, of course, they will give you the answers if you pay them.
Someone at the University knows this. Back in 2021, Oregon cited a problem with students using Chegg to cheat (see Issue I have no idea what the number is). Or see Issue 10. You could do that as well.
Issue 10 is the one with a link to a podcast in which a Chegg official says that a simple thing the company could do to limit cheating — a delay between a student asking a question and being given an answer — would be “really unfair” to students.
But back on point — the University of Oregon is thumbs up on Chegg. Even pointing out the company’s cheating services. Nice.
New Educator Survey: Concerns About AI Cheating Still Growing
Imagine Learning, which I do not know especially well, recently released the results of a survey of educators and other school leaders on generative AI.
The sample size is not exceptional, at 157. And the sample was drawn from the company’s own “community,” which ain’t great. It also seems the company surveyed “parents and the community,” though if they did, and how many, are not clear.
Nonetheless, it has a headline finding or two that are worth sharing.
For one:
Compared to Fall 2023 results, participants are more likely to express concern regarding an increase in cheating and misinterpretation of results
In other words, the more time teachers and others get to spend with AI in education, the more concerned about cheating they become. Interesting.
The report continues:
Top concern among participants is an increase in plagiarizing/cheating due to generative AI — however, participants are also concerned with the negative impact it might have on developing students’ skills.
The top concern. Also, I’d say that cheating and a negative impact on skill development are kinda two fish in the same tank. Still, top concern.
How concerned? Check the graphic on page 24 of the report.
It shows that a jaw-dropping 84% of the survey respondents were either “very concerned” or “concerned” about an “increase in plagiarizing/cheating.” Eighty-four. It had the highest overall score of concern and the highest score of “very concerned.”
Maybe we ought to be very concerned.
In the parent/community subset — which, again, confuses me — cheating was once again the top concern with generative AI, scoring 68% overall. For comparison, “lack of engagement” scored 56% and “security” scored 39%. Those were the top three. By thirty points, the respondents were more concerned with cheating than security.
The survey also says that in the fall of 2023, “concern” about student use of AI for cheating was 72%. In this survey, it was 84%.
In other words, more.
Class Notes:
I missed the entirety of last week due to my increased focus on my new startup. When it launches, which ought to be in just a few days, I will share it with everyone. Even though it has absolutely zero to do with education.
I’m trying to keep up with The Cheat Sheet, and news about academic integrity. There’s been plenty — so much I still plan to get to. Thanks for sticking with me and, as always, thanks for reading and sharing.