AI in schools and how cheating got fancy: Wyn Drabble

Wyn Drabble says cheating at school used to be simpler. Photo / NZME

Opinion

Wyn Drabble is a teacher of English, writer, public speaker and musician. He is based in Hawke’s Bay.

OPINION

Cheating at school in the 1950s and 60s was rather unsophisticated.

You could glance over and see what a neighbour had written but this had potential problems. If you had a nerdy neighbour, he or she would have covered the answers, or the answer your eye managed to spot and copy could have been for a different question than the one you were struggling with.

Question: Which Dutch explorer sailed to New Zealand in 1642?

Copied answer: Photosynthesis.

A few bold schoolkids would have had some key words or formulae written on the upper leg (ROYGBIV, BODMAS, Abel Tasman etc), all that was required was a discreet sliding up of shorts or skirt.

The trouble with this and all other forms of cheating – apart from any feelings of guilt – was that the teacher could legally dish out corporal punishment if you were caught. This took various forms, such as a ruler across the knuckles, the cane, or six of the best with a leather strap. I had a teacher at school who even had a name for his leather strap - Bertie.

Boys feared Bertie but creative ones would slide an exercise book down the inside of their shorts to soften the blow a little. If the teacher was discerning enough to notice the different tone (thuddy and cardboardy rather than fleshy), he might order the removal of the protective barrier and the addition of more blows to the punishment.

Modern cheating is quite different. For a homework assignment, today’s pupils can simply ask artificial intelligence to write it for them.

Pupil: May I please have a 600-word essay on the effectiveness (or otherwise) of corporal punishment in schools?

ChatGPT: Yes, I can do that but I’ve had a busy day so would prefer to do something a little simpler like the life cycle of a frog. I could provide illustrations.

Of course, schools have to step in to counter this. Some have already abandoned take-home essays and the like because of the number of pupils using AI to cheat and many staff have found that AI detectors do not work effectively.

Such schools have reverted to … horror word alert … hand-written responses. This has to be done under supervision and without access to technology. It must be collected by the teacher for sake-keeping overnight.

Even if they type up their final copy, the teacher has the hand-written original so they can check it is the same piece of work, only neater. Authenticity can be reasonably ensured.

Without taking such measures, the result could be:

Teacher (waggling a printed copy of pupil’s essay): This isn’t your own work, Perkins.

Perkins: Please sir, yes it is. I stayed up all night to write it.

Teacher: But it’s all paragraphed and written in grammatically correct sentences! You’ve never done that before.

Perkins (adopting conciliatory posture): Please sir, I’ve learned my lesson.

Teacher: Overnight? And here you’ve used a colon. You’ve never done that before.

Perkins: I just thought it looked good with the two little dots arranged one on top of the other like that.

So there was I wondering, as indeed are most schools around the country, what to do about the possibility of cheating in this technological age. Then the answer hit me like a brutal blow from Bertie on a boy’s bare bottom. Why not ask AI?

Me: Hello, Chat (I hope you don’t mind my using that rather informal but friendly diminutive). How do you suggest schools tackle the problem of potential cheating in this technological age?

ChatGPT: I think your best bet is a rap over the knuckles with a firm ruler.