Book Review of Tricia Bertram Gallant and David A. Rettinger, The Opposite of Cheating: Teaching for Integrity in the Age of AI, volume 4 in the Teaching, Engaging, and Thriving in Higher Ed Series
by Beth Petitjean, Digital Learning Specialist, Reinert Center
Happy January, dear readers. This time of year is always a bit unsettling. Although the transition from month-to-month is like any other, the transition from one year to the next might leave us feeling a bit unbalanced. We may still have one foot in 2025, while the other one is striding into 2026. The Fall semester is over, and the Spring one has just begun. It seems appropriate that this transitional month is named after the ancient Roman God, Janus…the two-faced deity of beginnings and endings, transitions, and thresholds.
I couldn’t help but think about the two-sided nature of Janus while reading The Opposite of Cheating: Teaching for Integrity in the Age of AI, volume 4 in the Teaching, Engaging, and Thriving in Higher Ed Series.* Beyond sharing initials, academic integrity and artificial intelligence are inextricably linked. While academic integrity prioritizes student thought and skill-building, the other AI seeks to make learning facile by outsourcing the process of learning to a generative platform. One side reflects a human; the other, a machine. How can academic integrity exist when artificial intelligence is faster and easier than doing the hard work of thinking and learning? How can artificial intelligence support the learner while encouraging original thought? Janus is back, readers, no longer garbed in a toga but lurking in every chatbot we come across.
In the book, the authors, Tricia Bertram Gallant and David A. Rettinger, approach this Janus by considering why students use AI, which the authors equate with cheating, and the ways instructors can prioritize integrity (broadly speaking) within courses. Fitting in with the aim of the series, this book blends theory with practical suggestions. Gallant and Rettinger suggest reading chapter 1 on why students cheat, then moving in random order to the other chapters that discuss how to embed integrity in areas such as course design, assessments, and ethics.
Chapter 1 goes beyond what may be our usual assumptions for cheating, such as procrastination or motivation, to posit the student mindset behind cheating. Gallant and Rettinger suggest that student confidence, or self-efficacy, is a contributing factor for whether students cheat or not. They define self-efficacy as “a relative to self-esteem but [one that] is more closely connected to a single task or domain and focuses more on one’s confidence in performing specific tasks than on overall self-worth” [12]. Consequently, “students who believe that they can complete academic work successfully…are less likely to cheat” [12]. Having a fixed or growth mindset seems to be at the heart of self-efficacy; if a student thinks they can’t do something, cheating is an option less scary than failing, according to the authors.
Another highlight of this chapter is the section on contract cheating services, which seem to be everywhere these days and offer students “help” with everything from exam prep to dissertation writing. The authors consider how embedding “help” within advertisements mimics the legitimate “help” offered by student success offices and instructors at every institute of higher education. This section reveals the dangers young people face online and, perhaps, prompts engagement in the larger conversation about internet usage and exposure for all students, not just those in K-12.
The point that resonated most with me was how the role of the instructor plays into students’ considerations in determining whether or not to cheat on an assessment. Gallant and Rettinger cite a study which found students who had a connection with the instructor, with their classmates, and with the content were less likely to cheat. From this, Gallant and Rettinger conclude, “There appears to be nothing magical about reducing cheating. Good pedagogy, at least as perceived by the students themselves, makes a difference in reducing cheating” [28]. Instructor presence matters, as does the intentionality of course design. Students notice these things, even if we think they don’t.
This concept was a significant talking point among the participants at the Reinert Center’s Winter Institute workshop earlier this month. During a large group discussion about the book, participants spoke about the importance of the relationship between students and instructors; students find it less appealing to cheat on a particular project or exam when they have a positive relationship with the professor. That relationship is a key part of the learning process, positioning the instructor as a learning partner rather than just the “sage on the stage.” Another talking point from the discussion was that AI can help focus instructors on learning outcomes; what do we really want the students to learn during our course, and what tasks could be outsourced to genAI without compromising those outcomes. Hence, one participant stressed the importance of clarity on when and when not students could use genAI within assessments. The onus falls on the instructor to bring that clarity as many times it isn’t clear to students. A final talking point was about reinforcing why students are at SLU in the first place; if the answer is to learn (and we hope it is!), then ask students why they would want to give that precious learning experience to a machine. This might also include asking students to consider their own integrity and the ethical implications of using AI, or not, in their future careers.
Regardless of where you land on academic integrity and artificial intelligence, one thing is clear. This Janus of the 21st century is giving us the opportunity to pause and reflect on teaching broadly, and our own teaching practices, specifically. In that regard, maybe AI isn’t such a bad thing? It reminds us that one thing will never change about teaching…the humans involved in this process.
Resources:
Bertram, T. B. and Rettinger, D.A. (2025). The Opposite of Teaching: Teaching for Integrity in the Age of AI. Volume 3 in the Teaching, Engaging, and Thriving in Higher Ed Series. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 2025.
For more information or to discuss how you might incorporate these ideas into your courses, contact the Reinert Center by email or submit a consultation request form.
The Notebook 