Students being accused of using AI

5

Hi, I'm an MA student at City, University of London writing about how AI is changing UK Higher Education for my final project. In particular, I'm looking at how detection software is being used at some universities, and the issues created by false positives it can throw out. I'd love to hear from you if you have been falsely accused of using AI by your uni, and how that affected you – feel free to reply here or send me a PM if you want to share your story, it would really help me out.

Reply 1

UEA Rep Daniel

12

Original post

by bethan._

Hi, I'm an MA student at City, University of London writing about how AI is changing UK Higher Education for my final project. In particular, I'm looking at how detection software is being used at some universities, and the issues created by false positives it can throw out. I'd love to hear from you if you have been falsely accused of using AI by your uni, and how that affected you – feel free to reply here or send me a PM if you want to share your story, it would really help me out.

Hi there,

That sounds like a fascinating and very timely project. While I haven’t personally experienced a false accusation of AI use, I’m happy to share some broader context from within the higher education sector, particularly at UEA, where I’m currently a PhD student. There’s definitely growing concern about the reliability of AI detection tools, especially when used without proper human oversight.

I've heard of cases where students were flagged based solely on detection scores from tools like Turnitin’s AI checker, even when their work was entirely original. This creates a lot of anxiety, especially for students who may already struggle with confidence, academic expression, or writing in a second language. Universities need to tread carefully, false positives can really undermine trust and put undue pressure on students.

Reply 2

Sarah Wating

1

This has just happened to my son. Despite no issues on his Foundation year nor any other first year assignments, suddenly the whole class were told there were “record numbers” of AI detected on this one assignment. Straight away that was a red flag to me. What is unclear is precisely how “Turnitin” is being applied. Is it a blanket application to all students or is there “human” scrutiny first to flag if the student’s work looks suspicious? My fear is it was just blanket applied to the whole class. So far there has been no explanation of the process of application. What do others know of the process in their universities? I’d find this very useful.

1.

Do they randomly select a cluster of assignments and apply “Turnitin” regardless of human suspicion? Essentially a quality control exercise?

2.

Do they apply “Turnitin” on all assignments/modules or only some? Again like a quality control on a certain percentage of the course work?

From what I have read if policy for the University the rules of application are very vague indeed. The “false positives” that are evidentially happening are hugely distressing to students and the impact on mental well being could be massive. Even if the punishment is a downgrade or resubmission rather than the extreme of expulsion, the impact of a false accusation is massive. Anyone accused is bound to want to clear their name and even if they do they could be permanently affected by the trauma of the process.

I also find it ironic that teaching staff can apply automated checking tools alone and take the “human” scrutiny out of the process whilst punishing students for use of automated systems in their work.

Reply 3

Kingston Eve

Official Rep

13

Original post

by Sarah Wating

This has just happened to my son. Despite no issues on his Foundation year nor any other first year assignments, suddenly the whole class were told there were “record numbers” of AI detected on this one assignment. Straight away that was a red flag to me. What is unclear is precisely how “Turnitin” is being applied. Is it a blanket application to all students or is there “human” scrutiny first to flag if the student’s work looks suspicious? My fear is it was just blanket applied to the whole class. So far there has been no explanation of the process of application. What do others know of the process in their universities? I’d find this very useful.

1.

Do they randomly select a cluster of assignments and apply “Turnitin” regardless of human suspicion? Essentially a quality control exercise?

2.

Do they apply “Turnitin” on all assignments/modules or only some? Again like a quality control on a certain percentage of the course work?

From what I have read if policy for the University the rules of application are very vague indeed. The “false positives” that are evidentially happening are hugely distressing to students and the impact on mental well being could be massive. Even if the punishment is a downgrade or resubmission rather than the extreme of expulsion, the impact of a false accusation is massive. Anyone accused is bound to want to clear their name and even if they do they could be permanently affected by the trauma of the process.
I also find it ironic that teaching staff can apply automated checking tools alone and take the “human” scrutiny out of the process whilst punishing students for use of automated systems in their work.

Hey @Sarah Wating,

I can't comment on your son's university specifically, but during my undergraduate degree (and currently during my postgrad degree) all assignments were automatically checked by Turnitin once they were uploaded to the submission portal. The check usually took a few hours to return a score, but I remember being told it could take up to a day. If a high Turnitin score was returned, lecturers/markers would then manually check the work. I received a few yellow scores in my time for assignments that were particularly quote heavy, but as all quotes were clearly referenced and cited they likely didn't cause a problem if/when manually checked.

Hope this helps,
Eve (Kingston Rep).

(edited 1 month ago)

Reply 4

hallamstudents

Official Rep

18

Original post

by Sarah Wating

This has just happened to my son. Despite no issues on his Foundation year nor any other first year assignments, suddenly the whole class were told there were “record numbers” of AI detected on this one assignment. Straight away that was a red flag to me. What is unclear is precisely how “Turnitin” is being applied. Is it a blanket application to all students or is there “human” scrutiny first to flag if the student’s work looks suspicious? My fear is it was just blanket applied to the whole class. So far there has been no explanation of the process of application. What do others know of the process in their universities? I’d find this very useful.

1.

Do they randomly select a cluster of assignments and apply “Turnitin” regardless of human suspicion? Essentially a quality control exercise?

2.

Do they apply “Turnitin” on all assignments/modules or only some? Again like a quality control on a certain percentage of the course work?

From what I have read if policy for the University the rules of application are very vague indeed. The “false positives” that are evidentially happening are hugely distressing to students and the impact on mental well being could be massive. Even if the punishment is a downgrade or resubmission rather than the extreme of expulsion, the impact of a false accusation is massive. Anyone accused is bound to want to clear their name and even if they do they could be permanently affected by the trauma of the process.
I also find it ironic that teaching staff can apply automated checking tools alone and take the “human” scrutiny out of the process whilst punishing students for use of automated systems in their work.

Hi there,

This sounds like a stressful situation so I understand that you would be worried about this.

At Hallam, I am sure the process is similar to what Eve has suggested at Kingston. Each assignment is checked by the Turnitin system and then if it is flagged particularly high, the tutors will then look through it and check which parts are flagged as plagiarism and whether they think it is plagiarised or not. Sometimes things such as the reference list are, or specific quotes but as long as everything is referenced correctly it should be okay.

If it does end up being taken further, as long as the referencing is correct and it can be shown that the readings have been read and it genuinely hasn't been plagiarised it will be fine.

It is a tricky one as AI is so new so I think the processes around it are not fully refined everywhere yet, and it is scary to think you could be flagged as AI/plagiarism when it genuinely isn't. However, I am sure the tutors know this too, and if lots of people got a high score it should be flagged up as being incorrect.

I hope some of this helps,

Lucy -SHU student ambassador.

Reply 5

theover50student

2

Original post

by bethan._

Hi, I'm an MA student at City, University of London writing about how AI is changing UK Higher Education for my final project. In particular, I'm looking at how detection software is being used at some universities, and the issues created by false positives it can throw out. I'd love to hear from you if you have been falsely accused of using AI by your uni, and how that affected you – feel free to reply here or send me a PM if you want to share your story, it would really help me out.

Is this still something you are working on?
Two years ago I resat my GCSE English Language. I couldn't get the same info from the provided paragraphs that the tutor was pulling out, and I kept missing loads. So I sat with AI and asked for help with the texts. I learned how to look for and get the info I needed then passed the invigilated exams with a grade 6.
I've since used AI for loads of things except any work that needs to be submitted.
The last time I attended college was for an HNC in Computer Studies. My lecturer named me “the butcher” as I provided unstructured, butchered work that worked but looked messy.
I've recently submitted a piece of Level 3 work that I was stupid enough to do 24 hours after a hospital procedure. I cannot recall what the lecturer said, but it was 70+ percent flagged as AI. She sat and asked me had I used AI, and I replied no. She continued, asking “have you used this and that,” but as she searched on Google I realised I had used the first response Google gives, which does use AI. I only used the references from there, not the text, but I lost 6 credits on a 6‑credit unit.
I'm devastated but don't have a leg to stand on. My laptop was repaired so I don't have my history and timestamps; however, I handwrote 60+ percent of it on printed copies of the research papers I used to create my assessment. I had to redo the whole assessment and it was capped at a pass. I have since fed the original into AI and it suggested mostly my long sentences, missing or incorrect citations may have triggered false flags. Now I write a lot of short sentences and try to cite every sentence where I can. This fear of future work being flagged has changed how I write going forward. I have children who are graduates, one of them checks my work and said my work had come along loads but since this false flag my writing has gone downhill mainly with my short sentences. Absolutely gutted

Students being accused of using AI

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Articles for you

How The Student Room is moderated