Artificial Intelligence’s Role in Student Plagiarism: A Graduate University’s Model of Best Practices
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33423/jlae.v21i3.7208Keywords:
leadership, accountability, ethics, AI, plagiarism, model of best practices, Turnitin, Grammarly, trainingAbstract
This white paper discusses a model of best practices to better identify and address plagiarism issues with students using AI. It serves as an example to help younger institutions that may not have a policy in place to recognize the importance of hitting this head-on. By creating a taskforce, we were able to quickly come to a resolution for a university that has three campuses in Chicago, Online, and in Vancouver, BC. We also share best practices that will help current professors and core faculty alike in dealing with plagiarism from students using AI in their work. We end with a discussion of examples that support this effort.
References
Alharbi, M.A., & Al-Hoorie, A.H. (2020). Turnitin peer feedback: Controversial vs. non-controversial essays. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), 17.
Alkhaqani, A.L. (2023). ChatGPT and future of medical research writing. J of Med & Clin Nursing & Health, 1(1), 01–04.
Alua, M.A., Asiedu, N.K., & Bumbie-Chi, D.M. (2023). Students’ perception on plagiarism and usage of Turnitin anti-plagiarism software: The role of the library. Journal of Library Administration, 63(1), 119–136.
Ashrafganjoe, M., Rezai, M.J., & Elhambakhsh, S.E. (2022). Providing computer-based feedback through Grammarly® in writing classes. Journal of Language and Translation, 12(2), 163–176.
Ding, L., & Zou, D. (2024). Automated writing evaluation systems: A systematic review of Grammarly, Pigai, and Criterion with a perspective on future directions in the age of generative artificial intelligence. Education and Information Technologies, pp. 1–53.
Elkhatat, A.M., Elsaid, K., & Almeer, S. (2023). Evaluating the efficacy of AI content detection tools in differentiating between human and AI-generated text. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 19(1), 17.
Fitria, T.N. (2021). Grammarly as AI-powered English writing assistant: Students’ alternative for writing English. Metathesis: Journal of English Language, Literature, and Teaching, 5(1), 65–78.
Foster, A. (2023). Can GPT-4 Fool TurnItIn? Testing the Limits of AI Detection with Prompt Engineering. Presentation at Kenyon College.
Gooch, D., Waugh, K., Richards, M., Slaymaker, M., & Woodthorpe, J. (2024). Exploring the profile of university assessments flagged as containing AI-Generated material. ACM Inroads, 15(2), 39–47.
Gutierrez-Aguilar, O., Huarsaya-Rodriguez, E., Torres de Manchego, V., & Duche-Pérez, A. (2023, November). Predictors of Academic Satisfaction Through Activities with Turnitin. In XVIII Multidisciplinary International Congress on Science and Technology (pp. 327–338). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.
Hu, G. (2023). Challenges for enforcing editorial policies on AI-generated papers. Accountability in Research, pp. 1–3.
Ismail, I., & Jabri, U. (2023). Academic integrity: Preventing students’ plagiarism with Turnitin. Edumaspul: Jurnal Pendidikan, 7(1), 28–38.
Koca, Ş., Pekdağ, B., & Gezgin, U.B. (2023). Turnitin, plagiarism, AI similarity index and AI-generated content: A discussion.
Laflen, A. (2023). Exploring how response technologies shape instructor feedback: A comparison of Canvas Speedgrader, Google Docs, and Turnitin GradeMark. Computers and Composition, 68, 102777.
Li, M. (2018). Online peer review using Turnitin PeerMark. Journal of Response to Writing, 4(2), 99–117.
Li, M., & Li, J. (2017). Online peer review using Turnitin in first-year writing classes. Computers and Composition, 46, 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2017.09.001
Meo, S.A., & Talha, M. (2019). Turnitin: Is it a text matching or plagiarism detection tool? Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia, 13(Suppl 1), S48.
Mukasa, J., Stokes, L., & Mukona, D.M. (2023). Academic dishonesty by students of bioethics at a tertiary institution in Australia: An exploratory study. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 19(1), 1–15.
Natale, N. (2023). A-literacy and digital orality: A figure/ground relation for our digital dilemma. New Explorations: Studies in Culture and Communication, 3(2).
Nketsiah, I., Imoro, O., & Barfi, K.A. (2023). Postgraduate students’ perception of plagiarism, awareness, and use of Turnitin text-matching software. Accountability in Research, pp. 1–17.
Perkins, M., Roe, J., Postma, D., McGaughran, J., & Hickerson, D. (2024). Detection of GPT-4 generated text in higher education: Combining academic judgement and software to identify generative AI tool misuse. Journal of Academic Ethics, 22(1), 89–113.
Perkins, M., Roe, J., Postma, D., McGaughran, J., & Hickerson, D. (2023). Game of tones: Faculty detection of GPT-4 generated content in university assessments. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.18081
Siswanto, D.H., Setiawan, A., Wahyuni, N., & Prasetyo, P.W. (2024). Enhancement of students’ writing skills through training in scientific article writing. Indonesian Journal of Society Development, 3(2), 63–74.
Turnitin. (2023). AI Writing & Pedagogy. Retrieved from https://turnitin.forumbee.com/t/g9hcsxv/ai-detection-and-Grammarly
Walters, W.H. (2023). The effectiveness of software designed to detect AI-generated writing: A comparison of 16 AI text detectors. Open Information Science, 7(1), 20220158.
