I've seen quite a few complaints: students being flagged for excessive eye movements is the worst for me. It'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

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's; the majority got B+'s and B's; and a few got C/D/F's.

And I didn'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.