Policy Update and How to Handle AI Academic Dishonesty Cases
Erin Mendoza-Laude, Rebecca Gidjunis Amy Huddell, Kelsey Hess, and Burke Rea
Turnitin Updates
Our document false positive rate - incorrectly identifying fully human-written text as AI-generated within a document- is less than 1% for documents with 20% or more AI writing.
Our sentence-level false positive rate is around 4%. This means that there is a 4% likelihood that a specific sentence highlighted as AI-written might be human-written. The incidence for this is more common in documents that contain a mix of human- and AI-written content, particularly in the transitions between human- and AI-written content.
~Annie Chechitelli, Chief Product Officer, Turnitin
What these Turnitin Updates mean...
We have more reliable means of documenting AI-related academic dishonesty, especially when the percentage is high.
We need to continue to recognize the (very slight) possibility of false positives.
We are able to create a clearer policy for academic integrity as it relates to AI usage and corresponding academic consequences.
Documentation
Recognition
Policy
AI Update + Syllabus Statement
Use technology responsibly. Unless explicitly stated in the assignment guidelines, students are prohibited from using AI or AI-enabled generative tools to replace aspects of academic assessments, including but not limited to full or partial automated text generation, plagiarism detection evasion, or unauthorized data analysis. Students must not submit content generated by AI systems without proper attribution and citation. The use of AI tools to aid in content creation should be within the bounds permitted by the instructor, and must be used only to supplement, and not replace, the student's own knowledge, understanding, and effort.
Policy Walk-Through (with a focus on AI)
Articulate any acceptable use of generative software (e.g. large-language model AI) for each assessment.
Unless explicitly stated in the assignment guidelines, students are prohibited from using AI or AI-enabled generative tools.
TIER ONE: use of AI or AI-enabled generative tool(s) to replace aspects of an assignment
TIER TWO: Using a chatbot to generate or modify >50% of an essay's wordcount
Expectations for Faculty
Tiers of Academic Dishonesty
Expectations for Student
The Process for Adjudicating
Process for Adjudicating (with a focus on AI)
01
04
02
05
03
06
Conversation with student
Conversation between instructor and dean (if unsure of how to proceed)
Preliminary Academic Integrity Form to determine # of times student has committed offense
Academic Integrity Form
Deliver Academic Consequences
Student has option to appeal through Grade Appeal Process
The Faculty-Student Conversation
Describe your overall approach to communicating with a student about academic dishonesty, especially as it involves AI. How do you tend to initiate that conversation? What kinds of questions do you ask?
What tips do you have for other instructors in regard to assignment design, course content, rapport building, or other forms of proactive academic integrity work in regard to your pedagogy?
Give an example of a conversation you had with a student about academic dishonesty that had a positive outcome. What strategies did you use to cultivate a learning experience instead of a shaming experience for the student through your communication?
Question 1
Question 2
Question 3