Misaligned GenAI Use

Gather your thoughts about what makes you suspect the student used GenAI.  Keep in mind that none of the methods below are incontrovertible proof:

• Students actually paste part of their conversation with GenAI into the assignment (only true proof aside from them admitting it)
• Language level and vocabulary exceeds usual capacity and/or is unnaturally flawless
• Inconsistent voice
• Generic responses: lack of personalized insights/reflection, weak connections to course concepts/lectures/discussions/speakers, ideas that sound plausible but lack disciplinary nuance, unsupported claims
• Incorrect content/references:  reference doesn't exist (major red flag and likelihood of GenAI use) or exists but does not actually say what is written in the assignment
• Formulaic structure:  excessive headings or bullet points, inconsistent formatting from previous work
• Document history/timing:  document history shows mostly copy/paste elements, student is not logged into Canvas long and quiz/assignment was completed too quickly
• AI similarity "detection" software results.  Click here to learn more about AI similarity "detection"

1. Ask the student about how they approached the assignment (i.e. what was their process) and/or to explain their process live. 
2. Recognize that there may be alternative explanations rather than GenAI use:  
   1. Language level and use of vocabulary exceeding usual capacity can be due to tutoring, Grammarly, revision, more time spent on assignment, outside reading.  
   2. Inconsistent voice can be associated with peer feedback and multiple drafts
   3. Generic responses/incorrect content may result from students not understanding the assignment/content, and/or weak research and/or communication skills
   4. Formulaic structure could be because students followed a template
   5. Document history/timing:  a student may have completed the task in a different platform and copied over. 

1. Within this process, you will make a plan for the student.  Depending on the severity of the misuse, you may want to consider different consequences.  For example, deliberate misuse without remorse may warrant weightier consequences than misunderstanding a policy with remorse.  The instructor can choose to: 
   1. Send student to Academic Integrity school (student also agrees).
   2. Require course sanctions, such as
      1. Student submits an assignment reflecting on the course policy, their use of GenAI, and what they will do differently in the future.  Note, you may want to consider submissions that are difficult for GenAI to produce, such as a video or hand-written response during office hours.  
      2. One-time resubmit option where the student must redo the assignment and show their process
      3. Student receives a zero for the assignment.  
      4. For multiple or severe offenses, course failure, removal from program, or university may be considered.
   3. The Office of Student Conduct may convene an Academic Hearing Panel depending on the offense.  You can learn more about the entire process by clicking here.  

If a course learning outcome explicitly states GenAI use or AI literacy (i.e. awareness and use), an alternative assignment is generally not appropriate.  Instead of a "What can I do instead" conversation, you'll want to circle back on course policy and support.

1. Clarify the objectives:  Explain why this use of GenAI is essential for their degree or future workforce readiness.  
2. Mitigate privacy & ethical concerns:  Offer workarounds such as allowing students to use a burner email or fake name when signing-in.  You could also allow students to use a different LLM that is focused on sustainable energy source.  Learn about other LLMs here.  
3. Advise on fit:  If the students holds an unyielding stance against GenAI use, the conversation may turn into an advising one.  The student should talk with an advisor to discuss whether this specific course aligns with the current academic goals or if an alternative course is better suited.  

If GenAI is an one way that students can support their learning but is not the learning objective, you may want to consider offering an equivalent, non-GenAI alternative.  

1.   Instructor-provided GenAI output:  If the goal is to teach critical evaluation, fact-checking or editing GenAI work, the student doesn't have to generate the text themselves.  You could provide the student with the GenAI output.  
2.   Process-drive metacognitive alternatives:  When GenAI is assigned to speed up ideation, drafting, or practicing their knowledge, you could offer a human-based alternative.  You could set-up time in class where students discuss with a peer and take notes or reflect on that experience with their peer.  

If Gen-AI is deeply embedded throughout your course, it may be best if the student takes an alternative course.  In this case, you should help connect the student with an advisor and/or another instructor who teaches the same course that does not integrate GenAI into assignments.