Dignity, Grief, and the Case of Jason Arday

August 16, 2026

I have been quiet about the case of Dr. Jason Arday, who previously worked at Cambridge University and left his job following allegations of plagiarism and questions about other claims in his life story. The reason is not lack of interest in the case, but rather because my family recently lost my brother and we have been mourning.

Aaron Edward Eaton: A Brief Background on Recent Events

First, a personal statement. A couple of weeks ago the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) (Canada’s national police) issued a missing person alert for my brother. Once the RCMP released the alert on social media, the matter immediately became public. We received messages of support from around the world.

On August 3, my brother was found deceased and this was also publicly announced on social media and via a newspaper article. I won’t go into the details, but suffice to say that the phrase, ‘found deceased’ is often a euphemism for ‘died by suicide’. Society hides behind vague and passive language rather than being direct about what really happened. I’ve never been fond of circumlocutions, but society has its rules.

Although we have deeply appreciated the support, having a private family matter become public changes the experience. Emotional energy is directed into reading, replying, and also taking a step away from technology to process quietly.

In any case, my lack of response about the Arday case was not due to indifference, but rather because I was focused on family matters.

Jason Arday: ‘Found Deceased’

I did not know Jason Arday. I have no basis on which to conclude whether misconduct occurred in his academic work, and that question is not the subject of this post. News of his passing hit me in a visceral and raw way. My deepest condolences to his family and friends. As is so often the case when someone is ‘found dead’, those left behind have many questions, deep grief, and sometimes, a feeling that it didn’t have to end the way it did. I can only imagine that Dr. Arday’s family and friends are experiencing with the level of public spectacle we have seen.

So, I will not be weighing in on questions relating to misconduct allegations. What concerns me are different questions: What do we, as a society, owe a person who is being investigated for misconduct during — and after — an investigative process? A related question also hovers: How can we ensure that a person’s dignity is preserved in the process of a misconduct investigation?

A Resignation Is Not a Verdict

Dr. Arday resigned his professorship at the University of Cambridge on August 5, 2026, after weeks of public scrutiny over plagiarism allegations and questions about other claims in his life story [McArthur, 2026]. He was found dead at his home in south London nine days later. Prime Minister Andy Burnham called the death “a tragedy on so many levels”. Arday’s family said that “the campaign of misinformation was too much for Jason”.

Iryna Pavlova, writing for our Postplagiarism blog, makes a valuable observation: reading the resignation as proof of guilt and reading it as proof of persecution involve the same error, which is treating an outcome as though it settles a question not yet answered by a thorough and fair investigation. I would add a further question to Iryna’s: Why should we let public persecution stand in for fair process? (Short answer: We shouldn’t.)

What a Process Without Dignity Looks Like

Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights establishes a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Article 12 protects a person against arbitrary attacks on their honour and reputation.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to all persons, everywhere. Full stop.

An individual alleged to have engaged in misconduct should be investigated by professionals with the skills and training to undertake the matter in a fair and just way. Being judged in the public sphere, with dozens if not hundreds or even thousands of people chiming in as armchair judges, turns due process into a public spectacle. A misconduct investigation, carried out in a professional and dignified manner, and a public trial by social media are not the same venue. Treating them as equivalent lets institutions (and quite frankly, members of society) off the hook for their own conduct.

Comment sections do not offer due process. Let me be clear: this is not an argument for shielding scholars from scrutiny. It is an argument for insisting that scrutiny happens in a manner that does not deprive individuals of their human rights.

Call to Action

A human‑rights‑by‑design approach to misconduct policy does not soften findings of wrongdoing; it separates the question of what happened from the question of how a person is treated while questions remain open (Eaton, 2024). I have yet to find a university or college anywhere that has explicitly adopted a human-rights centred approach to misconduct policy or process. I am not talking here about due process or procedural fairness. I am talking about misconduct policies and procedures that intentionally and explicitly commit to upholding human rights as a foundation for due process. (If you know such an institution, drop me a note.)

Institutions can commit to clear and private procedures rather than adjudication by the media. When we allow public persecution to prevail, we discard dignity and human rights.

Institutional leaders can communicate with the accused promptly. No one should wait in uncertainty for weeks. Institutional leaders should provide mental health and wellbeing support throughout the process, at no extra cost to the individual. Counsellors should be available alongside the investigation, not after it. We, as members of higher education institutions and as members of society, can also exercise restraint. We can wait for a review to conclude before we comment publicly, rather than posturing and pontificating. In Arday’s case, many people did not show that restraint.

Whatever the historical record eventually shows about Arday’s scholarship, the record already shows how his case was handled while questions remained open, which has been deplorable. The way in which the matter has been handled deserves as much scrutiny as the plagiarism allegations themselves.

May Dr. Jason Arday rest in peace. May his family, friends, and those who cared about him find solace and healing.

References

Ahmed, A. (2026, August 15). Tributes paid to Jason Arday after former Cambridge professor’s death. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/aug/15/jason-arday-tributes-paid-to-former-cambridge-professor

Eaton, S. E. (2024). Future-proofing integrity in the age of artificial intelligence and neurotechnology: prioritizing human rights, dignity, and equity. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 20(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-024-00175-2

Hui, S. (2026, August 15). UK’s leader calls for reflection after the death of former Cambridge professor accused of plagiarism. Associated Press. https://apnews.com/article/britain-jason-arday-cambridge-death-burnham-b9e2463ca6b474ac90cc6196ed668238

McArthur, T. (2026, August 14). Jason Arday, ex-Cambridge professor at centre of plagiarism row, found dead. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1j1ye6n30no

Pavlova, I. (2026, August 12). Beyond “Did He Plagiarize?”: What the Jason Arday Case Reveals About Academic Integrity in a Postplagiarism Era. Postplagiarism Blog. https://postplagiarism.com/2026/08/12/beyond-did-he-plagiarize-what-the-jason-arday-case-reveals-about-academic-integrity-in-a-postplagiarism-era

Red Deer Advocate Staff. (August 4, 2026). Missing Red Deer man found deceased. Red Deer Advocate. https://reddeeradvocate.com/2026/08/04/missing-red-deer-man-found-deceased/

United Nations. (2021). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

___________

Share this post – Dignity, Grief, and the Case of Jason Arday – https://drsaraheaton.com/2026/08/16/dignity-grief-and-the-case-of-jason-arday/

Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, is a Professor and Research Chair in the Werklund School of Education at the University of Calgary, Canada. Opinions are my own and do not represent those of my employer.

Comments Off on Dignity, Grief, and the Case of Jason Arday | academic integrity, education, plagiarisim | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Sarah Elaine Eaton, Ph.D.

Consequences of Teacher Cheating: A Canadian Case Study

July 3, 2026

A British Columbia arbitrator recently confirmed what the Vernon School District 22 board decided in 2024: Tasha Whitney, a continuing contract teacher at W. L. Seaton Secondary School, will not return to the classroom (Assman, 2026b). The arbitrator dismissed the union’s grievance and upheld her termination for cause. The ruling offers a case study in how academic integrity violations by educators differ from those committed by students, and why the consequences differ, too.

The facts, as reported by Assman (2026a, 2026b), are straightforward. Whitney invigilated a mandatory Grade 12 literacy assessment in June 2024. When one student, identified as CD, joked about having someone else write his exam, Whitney suggested other students who might do it. On the day of the exam, another student, AB, used CD’s login credentials to complete both his own assessment and CD’s, running out the clock on one screen with a video game while completing the other exam on a second screen. Whitney signed documents certifying that both students had written their own assessments. When a colleague noticed the irregularity, Whitney fabricated an explanation. She continued to minimize her role throughout the district investigation and the arbitration hearing that followed.

The arbitrator’s reasoning matters as much as the outcome. Had Whitney told the truth from the outset, the arbitrator indicated that termination would have been excessive; the district could have treated the incident as a serious error made under personal strain, with progressive discipline restoring her employment (Assman, 2026b). The union presented medical evidence that Whitney had experienced post-traumatic stress disorder and anxiety following a violent workplace incident in October 2023, and a psychiatric assessment acknowledged that this anxiety likely affected her decision-making. The assessment found no causal link between the diagnosis and the fraudulent conduct itself. Dishonesty, sustained over months and through a formal investigation, severed the trust her employment required.

This distinction between error and deceit connects to an argument I make with my co-author Zeenath Reza Khan in our own work on ethics in teacher training. Zeenath and I contend that teacher training programs must include explicit instruction in ethical decision-making, not compliance training alone, because teachers model integrity for the students in their care (Eaton & Khan, 2022). The arbitrator’s finding in the Whitney case reflects this same principle, holding that facilitating cheating violated Whitney’s fiduciary duty to model ethical behaviour for the youth in her charge (Assman, 2026b).

A student who cheats on an exam violates a rule. A teacher who helps a student cheat, then invigilates the fraud, signs false certification documents, and misleads colleagues and investigators, violates the basis on which the school entrusts her with that role. I have written, with Zeenath Reza Khan, that academic integrity education for pre-service teachers remains inconsistent internationally, with many programs offering little beyond a brochure or a single workshop (Eaton & Khan, 2022). The Whitney case suggests what happens when that gap is left unaddressed at the level of professional judgement, particularly when a person under stress reaches for concealment rather than disclosure.

The arbitrator’s finding leaves a narrow but clear lesson for the profession: honesty in the aftermath of a mistake changes what an institution can offer in response. Whitney’s initial decision to encourage a workaround may have originated in a lapse of judgement. Her subsequent choice to lie repeatedly, to a colleague, to school administrators, and to an independent investigator, closed the door that honesty could have left open.

References

Assman, B. (2026a, February 10). Vernon teacher fired for helping student cheat on an exam. Castanet. https://www.castanet.net/news/Vernon/598708/Vernon-teacher-fired-for-helping-student-cheat-on-an-exam

Assman, B. (2026b, June 23). Vernon teacher’s firing upheld, after facilitating exam cheating and lying to cover it up. Castanet. https://www.castanet.net/news/Vernon/621104/Vernon-teacher-s-firing-upheld-after-facilitating-exam-cheating-and-lying-to-cover-it-up

Eaton, S. E., & Khan, Z. R. (2022). Ethics in teacher training: An overview. In S. E. Eaton & Z. R. Khan (Eds.), Ethics and integrity in teacher education (pp. 1–11). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16922-9_1

___________

Share this post – Consequences of Teacher Cheating: A Canadian Case Study https://drsaraheaton.com/2026/07/03/consequences-of-teacher-cheating-a-canadian-case-study/

Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, is a Professor and Research Chair in the Werklund School of Education at the University of Calgary, Canada. Opinions are my own and do not represent those of my employer.

Comments Off on Consequences of Teacher Cheating: A Canadian Case Study | academic integrity, education | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Sarah Elaine Eaton, Ph.D.

The University of Toronto Settlement Is a Turning Point for Academic Integrity in Canada

May 22, 2026

On April 1, 2026, Justice Meaghan M. Conroy of the Federal Court of Canada issued a consent judgment confirming that the Easy EDU tutoring companies infringed the copyright of the University of Toronto and three named professors: Robert Gazzale, Lisa Kramer, and Ai Taniguchi. Joe Friesen covered the story for The Globe and Mail (paywalled, but worth tracking down). The settlement requires Easy EDU to pay $1 million in damages, plus HST and interest. A counterclaim by Easy EDU against the university was dismissed without costs. The case had been before the courts since 2022.

Friesen reported that Easy EDU reproduced course outlines, slide presentations, lecture notes, and assignments without authorization. In some instances, the company provided tests written by faculty with answers included, placing students at direct risk of academic misconduct violations. One published adjudication described how 180 students received a study package containing 22 questions that corresponded directly to questions a professor had written for an assessment. The student named in that case received a grade of zero and a 28-month suspension.

This case matters beyond copyright law and anyone who works in academic integrity in Canada should be paying attention Why? Because the case could set a precedent for how Canadian institutions respond when students use file-sharing services, term paper mills, or engage so-called academic consultants.

What the Settlement Exposes

Let’s be clear: the Easy EDU case did not emerge in isolation. The case reflects a pattern I and others have documented extensively. In Academic Integrity in Canada: An Enduring and Essential Challenge, which Julia Christensen Hughes and I edited and published with Springer in 2022, our contributors wrote about contract cheating in Canada in a number of chapters. Collectively, we traced the commercialization of academic support services as part of a broader commodification of higher education. The volume includes chapters on contract cheating in Canada and on EdTech-enabled contract cheating, both of which point to the same structural condition that made Easy EDU possible: a market for services that operates in parallel to formal education, targeting students under pressure, with few regulatory constraints.

Canada has no legislation against contract cheating companies. The U of T settlement is a copyright remedy, not a criminal one. Easy EDU was not shut down because what it did was illegal under a contract cheating statute. It was held responsible for reproducing materials that belonged to the university and its faculty. This distinction is important here because copyright law filled a gap that academic integrity policy could not. 

The Platformization of Academic Misconduct 

A recent 2026 study published in the British Educational Research Journal adds another dimension to this picture. My PhD student Gengyan Tang led this study, with Wei Cai and me as co-authors. Tang, Cai, and I examined commercial academic misconduct appeal services operating in China’s digital marketplace and found that these agencies target Chinese international students through platforms such as Xiaohongshu (RED). These services operate in a regulatory and ethical grey zone, packaging appeal support as a marketable product and translating case outcomes into metrics like success rates.

Tang, Cai, and I conceptualize this process as self-platformization: commercial actors reorganizing educational assistance in alignment with platform economies. The same logic applies to tutoring services like Easy EDU. These are not tutoring companies in any traditional sense. They are platform-aware businesses that use algorithms, social media, and scale to insert themselves into students’ academic lives at precisely the moments when students are most vulnerable.

The students in the U of T case were not, for the most part, bad actors. Many were international students navigating unfamiliar institutional systems, in some cases at risk of losing their study permits. Easy EDU identified that vulnerability and built a business model around it. One student, identified only by initials in the published adjudication, faced a 28-month suspension, not because they set out to deceive, but because a commercial service supplied unauthorized materials and they used them.

In our study, Tang, Cai, and I argue that institutions have invested heavily in prevention and detection but have largely ignored the post-violation stage. That gap is where commercial services can operate with relative ease because there is nothing stopping them from doing so. Universities focus on catching misconduct. Academic consulting services (i.e., contract cheating companies) profit from what happens next, whether that means supplying unauthorized test answers before an assessment or, as we found in our research, or coaching students through misconduct hearings afterward.

So What’s Next?

The U of T injunction permanently restrains Easy EDU from making further use of the university’s course materials. The university has committed to directing settlement proceeds toward student academic supports. These are constructive outcomes, and also insufficient on their own.

In Academic Integrity in Canada: An Enduring and Essential Challenge, I, together with other contributors, called for legislation that would deter contract cheating firms from operating in Canada. That call has gone largely unanswered. The U of T case demonstrates that copyright enforcement can achieve results where academic integrity policy alone cannot, but copyright litigation is expensive, slow, and available only to institutions with the resources to pursue it. The case took four years to resolve, an in the financial climate we are in today, many institutions simply cannot absorb that kind of cost.

What the settlement does accomplish is normative because it establishes, through a federal court consent judgment, that reproducing course materials for commercial tutoring purposes constitutes copyright infringement. It names the professors whose intellectual property was taken and affirms, as U of T vice-provost Heather Boon stated, in Friesen’s article, that faculty own the copyright in their course materials and the university will support them in protecting it. That is a meaningful public statement. It signals that institutions are prepared to act, and that the legal tools to do so exist.

The Bigger Picture

Academic integrity is not simply a student conduct problem, but rather a structural problem shaped by institutional design, assessment practice, resource inequity, and the commercialization of educational support. The Easy EDU case sits at the intersection of all of these.

The students who attended those tutoring sessions needed academic support. Easy EDU positioned itself as that help, at a price, with materials it had no right to distribute. The university’s commitment to redirecting settlement funds to student supports is the right response. It will not be enough without sustained investment and clearer procedural guidance for students facing misconduct allegations. Institutions across our country happily received international student tuition fees, on the assumption that students are admitted have the academic skills and preparation they need to succeed. By and large, we still tend to blame the students if they lack academic skills or knowledge of how to navigate the higher education system. When the students turn to third parties whom they believe can help them fill their skills gap, historically, it is the students who are held responsible while companies operating in the background simply line their pockets with profits without any repercussions. This is the first time, to my knowledge, that a commercial supplier of academic services operating in Canada has faced a monetary penalty for facilitating academic misconduct.

Better institutional supports, clearer procedural guidance for students facing misconduct allegations, and platform-aware integrity education are not peripheral concerns. They are the conditions under which commercial exploitation becomes less attractive. In our study, Tang, Cai, and I call for a post-violation framework that attends to digital infrastructures and addresses students during crisis moments, not only before them. I continue to believe that work is overdue.

Kudos to the team at U of T for pursuing this case. You’ve now set a precedent that others can follow.

References

Eaton, S. E., & Christensen Hughes, J. (Eds.). (2022). Academic integrity in Canada: An enduring and essential challenge. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83255-1

Friesen, J. (2026, May 22). University of Toronto reaches settlement for $1-million in damages from tutoring company. The Globe and Mail. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-university-of-toronto-reaches-settlement-1-million-damages-tutoring  

Tang, G., Eaton, S. E., & Cai, W. (2026). Academic misconduct appeal services in China: Platform logics, self-platformization and implications for integrity education. British Educational Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.70130

______

Share this post: The University of Toronto Settlement Is a Turning Point for Academic Integrity in Canada – https://drsaraheaton.com/2026/05/22/the-university-of-toronto-settlement-is-a-turning-point-for-academic-integrity-in-canada/

Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, is a Professor and Research Chair in the Werklund School of Education at the University of Calgary, Canada. Opinions are my own and do not represent those of my employer.

Comments Off on The University of Toronto Settlement Is a Turning Point for Academic Integrity in Canada | education, academic integrity, contract cheating, higher ed | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Sarah Elaine Eaton, Ph.D.

Interfacing with the Future: Reflections on the National Day of Learning 2026

April 1, 2026

On March 28, 2026, I had the pleasure of joining educators from across Canada for the National Day of Learning, hosted by Let’s Talk Science. This one-day, nation-wide professional learning event brought together K–12 teachers, post-secondary educators, and policy leaders to explore some of the most pressing issues shaping education today, with artificial intelligence high on the agenda.

I was invited to deliver a session titled “Interfacing with the Future: Wearable AI and Academic Integrity for K–12 and Higher Ed.” What follows are a few reflections and key ideas from that conversation, hosted by Dr. Alec Couros.

Moving into the Postplagiarism Era

One of the central ideas framing my talk is postplagiarism. In this reality, artificial intelligence is no longer an external tool that students occasionally use, but rather, it is embedded into everyday life and learning.

Students are already engaging with AI in ways that challenge traditional notions of authorship, originality, and academic work. The question is no longer if students will use AI, but how.

This shift requires a corresponding change in how we think about academic integrity. Detection and surveillance, long relied upon as primary strategies, are no longer sufficient. Instead, we must rethink how we design learning environments that foster integrity from the ground up.

From Tools to Wearables: How AI is Advancing

A key focus of my presentation was the rapid evolution from AI tools to AI wearables — particularly smart glasses and other forms of cosmetically invisible interfaces. The talk was based, in part, on our recent article in Canadian Perspectives on Academic Integrity. 

Wearable technologies integrate AI directly into our physical experience of the world. Rather than pulling out a device, users can access real-time information, transcription, and prompts seamlessly through their field of vision.

This shift introduces both opportunities and tensions:

  • Cognitive offloading: Learners can reduce mental load by accessing information instantly. (Phill Dawson has done some great work on cognitive offloading that I recommend reading.)
  • Enhanced presence: Wearables allow users to maintain eye contact and engagement without device distraction.
  • Efficiency gains: Tasks such as note-taking or translation can be automated in real time.

At the same time, these benefits come with real challenges including information overload, privacy concerns, and technical limitations. More importantly for educators, they fundamentally disrupt assumptions about what it means to “know” something independently.

New Technology ≠ Cheating

One of the most important messages I emphasized is this: new technology does not automatically equal academic misconduct.

If a tool is permitted, then its use is not cheating. The real issue lies in unauthorized use or misuse in ways that create unfair advantage. 

We must also remain attentive to equity and accessibility. Some wearable technologies may be used as accommodations, making it essential that our integrity policies are inclusive and nuanced rather than rigid and punitive.

Designing for Integrity (Not Surveillance)

Rather than doubling down on detection, I encourage educators to shift their focus toward designing for integrity.

This means:

  • Prioritizing assessment validity: If an AI system can complete a task without genuine understanding, then the task itself needs to be rethought.
  • Moving beyond “gotcha” approaches: Surveillance-based strategies erode trust and are increasingly ineffective.
  • Supporting diverse learners: Students bring different technological access, needs, and experiences. Our designs must reflect that.
  • Building a culture of integrity: Integrity is not enforced; it is cultivated through meaningful learning experiences.

Bridging K–12 and Post-Secondary Education

Another key theme was the gap between K–12 and post-secondary expectations.

In K–12 environments, students are often encouraged to explore technology as part of their learning. In contrast, post-secondary institutions frequently operate under the assumption that students already understand complex academic integrity rules.

As AI continues to evolve, this gap becomes more pronounced. We need stronger alignment across educational sectors to ensure that students are supported, rather than being set up for failure, as they transition between systems. (Myke Healy has a great paper on the topic of GenAI in the K-12 context that is worth reading.) 

Looking Ahead

If there is one takeaway from this experience, it is this: wearable AI is not a future scenario. It is already here.

As educators, we are being called to respond not with fear, but with thoughtful, research-informed approaches. The challenge is not simply to manage technology, but to reimagine teaching, learning, and assessment in ways that remain meaningful in an AI-integrated world.

Events like the National Day of Learning remind me of the power of community. Bringing educators together to share ideas, ask difficult questions, and explore new possibilities is essential as we navigate this rapidly changing landscape.

Thank you to Let’s Talk Science and to Dr. Alec Couros for the opportunity to be part of this important conversation, and to all the educators who continue to lead with curiosity, courage, and care.

______________

Share this post: Interfacing with the Future: Reflections on the National Day of Learning 2026 –  https://drsaraheaton.com/2026/04/01/interfacing-with-the-future-reflections-on-the-national-day-of-learning-2026/

Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, is a Professor and Research Chair in the Werklund School of Education at the University of Calgary, Canada. Opinions are my own and do not represent those of my employer.

Comments Off on Interfacing with the Future: Reflections on the National Day of Learning 2026 | education, technology | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Sarah Elaine Eaton, Ph.D.

ChatGPT is in classrooms. What now?

February 2, 2026

“What should we be assessing exactly?” This was a question one of our research participants asked when we interviewed them as part of our project on artificial intelligence and academic integrity, sponsored by a University of Calgary Teaching Grant.

In an article published in The Conversation, we provide highlights of the results from our interviews with 28 educators across Canada, as well as our analysis of 15 years of research that looked at how AI affects education. (Spoiler alert: AI is a double-edged sword for educators and there are no easy answers.)

Alt text: Screenshot of The Conversation website showing a blurred smartphone screen with the ChatGPT app icon. Overlaid headline reads, “ChatGPT is in classrooms. How should educators now assess student learning?”
Screenshot from The Conversation.

We emphasize that, “in a post-plagiarism context, we consider that humans and AI co-writing and co-creating does not automatically equate to plagiarism.” Check out the full article in The Conversation.

You can check out the scholarly paper that we published in Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education that goes into more detail about the methods and findings of our interviews.

I’d like to give a shoutout to all the project team members who worked with us on various aspects of this research: Robert (Bob) Brennan (Schulich School of Engineering, University of Calgary), Jason Weins (Faculty of Arts, University of Calgary), Brenda McDermott (Student Accessibility Services, University of Calgary), Rahul Kumar (Faculty of Education, Brock University), Beatriz Moya (Instituto de Éticas Aplicadas, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile) and the student research assistants who helped along the way (who have now all successfully graduated and moved on to the next phase of their careers): Jonathan Lesage, Helen Pethrick, and Mawuli Tay.

Related posts:

What Should We Be Assessing in a World with AI? Insights from Higher Education Educators – https://drsaraheaton.com/2025/11/25/what-should-we-be-assessing-in-a-world-with-ai-insights-from-higher-education-educators/

______________

Share this post: ChatGPT is in classrooms. What now? https://drsaraheaton.com/2026/02/02/chatgpt-is-in-classrooms-what-now/

Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, is a Professor and Research Chair in the Werklund School of Education at the University of Calgary, Canada. Opinions are my own and do not represent those of my employer.

Comments Off on ChatGPT is in classrooms. What now? | academic integrity, artificial intelligence, education, postplagiarism | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Sarah Elaine Eaton, Ph.D.

« Previous Entries