1 of 8

AI Plagiarism�and Cheating

Ben Trachtenberg�Director, MU Office of Academic Integrity

Missouri Online

2 of 8

Rules and Sources of Authority

CRR 200.010 (Standard of Conduct); see especially Section C.1
The University prohibits “Academic dishonesty, including but not limited to cheating, plagiarism, unauthorized use of artificially generated content, or sabotage” (amended as of August 2023 re: AI)
CRR 200.020 (Rules of Procedures in Student or Student Organization Conduct Matters)
“in cases of academic dishonesty, … the Chief Academic Administrator [i.e., the Provost] is the Primary Administrative Officer”
The Provost “may appoint designee(s)” (that’s the OAI Director)

OFFICE OF ACADEMIC INTEGRITY

The “Big Three” Prohibited Activities

use by paraphrase or direct quotation of the published work of another source without properly crediting the author
unacknowledged use of materials prepared by another person or agency

OFFICE OF ACADEMIC INTEGRITY

More about “Unauthorized use of artificially generated content”

use of artificial intelligence tools or other tools that generate artificial content in taking quizzes, tests, examinations, or other assessments without permission from the instructor
submitting work for evaluation as one’s own that was produced in material or substantial part through use of artificial intelligence tools or other tools that generate artificial content without permission from the instructor
using artificial intelligence tools or other tools that generate artificial content in a manner contrary to instructions from the instructor
other use of AI to cheat, plagiarize, etc.

OFFICE OF ACADEMIC INTEGRITY

Recent Events/Trends Related to Academic Integrity and AI

Anecdotally, faculty report a rise in suspicious submissions by students (i.e., things that look like the product of generative AI); not a ton of formal reports
Often (but not always!) there is minimal hard evidence (no smoking gun showing obvious use of a bot, like the gray box or pasting the prompt)
Discussions with students often resolve cases (faculty-student conversation, or student meeting with MU OAI director), but brazen deceit is tough
Students are (seemingly) becoming savvier about using (and concealing use of) AI tools in violation of University policy (but savviness is not uniformly distributed)

OFFICE OF ACADEMIC INTEGRITY

What Mizzou OAI Has Been Telling Students and Faculty

Make your expectations clear (perhaps repeatedly)
Unclear writing may indicate unclear thinking. If you are not communicating expectations clearly, perhaps you are unsure of them.

Be sure you know what is allowed/desired
Expectations will vary among classes/professors, and even among assignments within a course
Don’t know what’s allowed? ASK QUESTIONS!

OFFICE OF ACADEMIC INTEGRITY

The Bigger Picture

New Mizzou Task Force on AI and the Learning Environment (BT is co-chair)
Whether for the institution, a department, or an individual professor, the focus should not be entirely (or even mostly) on catching rule-breakers
Think: What should I (or my department, or my university) be teaching? Is technological development changing the answer to that question, as it has so often before?
Think: How should I (or my department, or my university) be teaching? Is technological development changing the answer to that question, as it has so often before?
What resources do we need?

OFFICE OF ACADEMIC INTEGRITY