Universities across the UK are facing a rapidly growing challenge: how to deal with students using artificial intelligence in their academic work.
Recent figures reported by the Guardian show a sharp increase in students being found to have misused AI tools such as ChatGPT. This reflects the reality that AI is now widely available and increasingly used by students for brainstorming, summarising, structuring essays, proofreading and in some cases, generating written work.
Universities are understandably concerned about academic integrity. Degrees must retain their value, assessments must be fair and institutions need to ensure that work submitted by students is genuinely their own. However, the way universities respond to suspected AI use is becoming just as important as the issue itself.
One of the biggest concerns is the increasing reliance on AI detection tools. Many universities now use software which claims to identify whether written work has been generated by AI. These tools may seem attractive because they offer a quick answer to a complex problem. In reality, they are far from foolproof.
AI detection is not the same as traditional plagiarism detection. With plagiarism, there is often a source text that can be compared against the student’s work. With AI, there may be no original source to identify. A detector is effectively making a prediction based on patterns in language. That prediction can be wrong.
This creates obvious risks for students. A student may be accused of academic misconduct despite having written the work themselves. The risk may be particularly serious for students who write in a formal or structured style, students whose first language is not English, or students who use assistive technology for legitimate reasons. Some students with dyslexia, ADHD, autism or other learning differences may also use AI tools to help organise their own thoughts without intending to cheat.
The consequences of an allegation can be severe. A finding of academic misconduct can affect a student’s marks, progression, degree classification, professional ambitions and mental wellbeing. For students on courses leading to regulated professions, such as law, medicine, teaching, nursing or social work, the impact may extend beyond university.
That is why universities should not treat an AI detector score as proof. It should be only one part of a wider investigation. Students should be given a fair opportunity to respond, see the evidence against them, explain their working process and provide drafts, notes, research records or version history where available.
Students should also be clear about their university’s AI policy before using any tool. Some institutions allow AI for limited purposes, such as idea generation or proofreading, while others impose stricter rules. The difficulty is that policies are developing quickly and are not always clearly understood.
How we can help
We can advise students who have been accused of academic misconduct involving AI. We can review the university’s evidence, consider whether the correct procedure has been followed, help prepare written representations and advise on supporting evidence such as drafts, notes, metadata or medical and disability-related information. We can also assist with appeals where a decision has already been made.
AI is now part of academic life. Universities must protect academic standards, but they must also ensure that students are not unfairly penalised on the basis of unreliable evidence.
If you would like to discuss this in more details, please contact our team to arrange a consultation.
DISCLAIMER
The content of this page is for information only. It is not intended to be construed as legal advice and should not be treated as a substitute for specific advice. Gibson Kerr Ltd accepts no responsibility for the content of any third party website to which this webpage refers. Gibson Kerr Ltd is regulated by the Law Society of Scotland.