I& #39;ve seen quite a few complaints: students being flagged for excessive eye movements is the worst for me. It& #39;s ridiculous. Perhaps we should rethink testing methods rather than build systems that assume every student is trying to cheat? https://twitter.com/devon_cantwell/status/1311166671315447808">https://twitter.com/devon_can...

I spent most of my academic career at a Uni that traditionally had a final exam that made up 60% of the overall grade for courses - part of the justification being that the exam was the only time we knew for sure that it was the student doing the work.

Went to a Liberal Arts Uni in the US where they had a sort of honor code and where we were encouraged to make final exams worth only 20% of the overall grade. Even to give open book exams. Was an adjustment for me - but one that worked well.

I would set open book tests but ensured questions tested critical thinking skills: ability to find the right information; synthesis; analysis. Results were as desired: a few of the best students got A& #39;s; the majority got B+& #39;s and B& #39;s; and a few got C/D/F& #39;s.

And I didn& #39;t have to stand guard over any of them.

I know that for certain types of tests, there may be other considerations. But I do think that largely, a system that trusts students (even though it will have built in checks like Turnitin) is better than one that inherently distrusts students.