Accused: How students respond to allegations of using ChatGPT on assessments
Open accessAbstract
This study investigates student responses to allegations of cheating using ChatGPT, a popular software platform capable of generating coherent text on various topics. Data comprising 49 Reddit posts and discussions between December 2022 and June 2023 were collected. Students shared their experiences, often asserting false accusations, and discussed strategies to navigate these situations. Thematic analysis identified five key themes: adopting a legalistic stance with argumentation and evidence; higher education's role as a societal gatekeeper; vicissitudes of trust in students vs. technology; questions of what constitutes cheating; and the need to rethink assessment. These findings will aid educators and institutions in crafting more meaningful assessments in the age of AI and establishing guidelines for student usage of ChatGPT and similar tools.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Some students expressed profound disillusionment with the higher education system itself as a result of these experiences.
“Some students even expressed profound disillusionment with the higher education system itself as a result of these experiences”
From ARE AI DETECTORS FAIR TO EFL LEARNERS? A LIBRARY RESEARCH ON DETECTION BIAS AND ACADEMIC INTEGRITY (2026) · cites this paper as Gorichanaz, 2023
Students subjected to AI-based misconduct investigations report experiencing hostility, anxiety, fear, and defeat, alongside a lasting erosion of trust in both the accusing instructor and the institution.
“Students subjected to AI-based misconduct investigations report experiencing hostility, anxiety, fear, and defeat, alongside a lasting erosion of trust in both the accusing instructor and the institution”
From ARE AI DETECTORS FAIR TO EFL LEARNERS? A LIBRARY RESEARCH ON DETECTION BIAS AND ACADEMIC INTEGRITY (2026) · cites this paper as Gorichanaz, 2023
A simple search on social media reveals thousands of reports of similar cases across all ages and levels.
“A simple search on social media-Instagram, Reddit, TikTok-reveals thousands of reports of similar cases across all ages and levels (Gorichanaz, 2023).”
From Generative AI detection in higher education assessments (2025) · cites this paper as Gorichanaz, 2023
ChatGPT has the potential to encourage cheating and academic dishonesty.
“The major concern is that ChatGPT has the potential to encourage cheating and academic dishonesty (Crawford et al., 2023; Currie et al., 2023; Gorichanaz, 2023; Naidu & Sevnarayan, 2023).”
From A Scoping Review on How Generative Artificial Intelligence Transforms Assessment in Higher Education (2024) · cites this paper as Gorichanaz, 2023
Traditional examinations and assignments may become obsolete due to AI-generated content.
“as traditional examinations and assignments may become obsolete due to AI-generated content (Geerling et al., 2023; Gorichanaz, 2023).”
From A Scoping Review on How Generative Artificial Intelligence Transforms Assessment in Higher Education (2024) · cites this paper as Gorichanaz, 2023
Cites
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012) · APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol 2: Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological. · doi:10.1037/13620-004 · Cited by 10,299 · see citing works
ChatGPT in higher education: considerations for academic integrity and student learning
(2023) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.17 · Cited by 853 · cited 1× · see citing works
“The anxieties around ChatGPT in higher education center on academic integrity, learning and skill development, limitations of LLMs, policy and social concerns, and workforce challenges (Li et al., 2023; Sullivan et al., 2023).”
BackgroundFACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH CHEATING AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS: A Review
Whitley, B. E. (1998) · Research in Higher Education · doi:10.1023/a:1018724900565 · Cited by 782 · see citing works
Contract cheating: a survey of australian university students
Bretag, T., Harper, R., Burton, M., Ellis, C., Newton, P., Rozenberg, P., Saddiqui, S., & van Haeringen, K. (2019) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075079.2018.1462788 · Cited by 476 · see citing works
Bruckman, A. (2002) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1023/a:1021316409277 · Cited by 402 · see citing works
Learning from the Literature on Collegiate Cheating: A Review of Empirical Research
Crown, D. F., & Spiller, M. S. (1998) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1023/a:1017903001888 · Cited by 330 · see citing works
Newton, P. M. (2018) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2018.00067 · Cited by 289 · see citing works
Circumstances surrounding cheating: A questionnaire study of college students
Genereux, R. L., & McLeod, B. A. (1995) · Research in Higher Education · doi:10.1007/bf02208251 · Cited by 238 · see citing works
McCabe, D. (2017) · doi:10.1353/book.18818 · Cited by 203 · see citing works
Lang, J. (2013) · Harvard University Press eBooks · doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674726239 · Cited by 162 · see citing works
Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected?
Sadasivan, V. S., Kumar, A., Balasubramanian, S., Wang, W., & Feizi, S. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.11156 · Cited by 161 · cited 1× · see citing works
“And they can be gamed by using more precise prompts or by asking ChatGPT to rewrite the text, such as by specifying that it should use less expected language (Sadasivan et al., 2023; Wiggers, 2023).”
BackgroundMellar, H. G., Peytcheva-Forsyth, R., Koçdar, S., Karadeniz, A., & Yovkova, B. (2018) · International Journal for Educational Integrity · doi:10.1007/s40979-018-0025-x · Cited by 157 · see citing works
Self-Reports of Student Cheating: Does a Definition of Cheating Matter?
Burrus, R. T., McGoldrick, K., & Schuhmann, P. (2007) · The Journal of Economic Education · doi:10.3200/jece.38.1.3-17 · Cited by 147 · see citing works
Digital Cheating and Plagiarism in Schools
Jane, H., Wan, G., & Lu, E. Y. (2008) · Theory Into Practice · doi:10.1080/00405840802153809 · Cited by 134 · see citing works
Why Professors Ignore Cheating: Opinions of a National Sample of Psychology Instructors
Keith-Spiegel, P., Tabachnick, B. G., Whitley Jr., B. E., & Washburn, J. (1998) · Ethics & Behavior · doi:10.1207/s15327019eb0803_3 · Cited by 123 · see citing works
Can markers detect contract cheating? Results from a pilot study
Dawson, P., & Sutherland‐Smith, W. (2017) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2017.1336746 · Cited by 93 · see citing works
Contract cheating in higher education: a systematic literature review and future research agenda
Ahsan, K., Akbar, S., & Kam, B. (2021) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2021.1931660 · Cited by 85 · see citing works
When Opportunity Knocks: College Students' Cheating Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic
Jenkins, B. D., Golding, J. M., Le Grand, A. M., Levi, M. M., & Pals, A. M. (2023) · Teaching of Psychology · doi:10.1177/00986283211059067 · Cited by 85 · see citing works
Examining Online College Cyber Cheating Methods and Prevention Measures.
Moten, J., Fitterer, A., Brazier, E., Leonard, J. S., & Brown, A. (2013) · The Electronic Journal of e-Learning · Cited by 80 · see citing works
Turning a Blind Eye: Faculty Who Ignore Student Cheating
Coren, A. (2011) · Journal of Academic Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10805-011-9147-y · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Students Reported for Cheating Explain What They Think Would Have Stopped Them
Beasley, E. (2013) · Ethics & Behavior · doi:10.1080/10508422.2013.845533 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Amigud, A., & Lancaster, T. (2019) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2019.1670780 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
‘Mess, stress and trauma’: students’ experiences of formal contract cheating processes
Pitt, P., Dullaghan, K., & Sutherland‐Smith, W. (2020) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2020.1787332 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Cheating Academic Integrity: Lessons from 30 Years of Research
Furr, L. A. (2022) · The Department Chair · doi:10.1002/dch.30502 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Cheating in Online Courses: The Student Definition.
Raines, D. A., Ricci, P., Brown, S. L., Eggenberger, T., Hindle, T., Schiff, M., & Florida, B. R. (2011) · The Journal of Effective Teaching · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Changes in the Tradecraft of Cheating: Technological Advances in Academic Dishonesty
Krienert, J. L., Walsh, J. A., & Cannon, K. D. (2021) · College Teaching · doi:10.1080/87567555.2021.1940813 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
How do I know if they're cheating? Teacher strategies in an information age
Williams, S. (2001) · The Curriculum Journal · doi:10.1080/09585170122039 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Cheating in the Academic Environment
Lancaster, T. (2022) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-99680-2_52 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Scoping Review on How Generative Artificial Intelligence Transforms Assessment in Higher Education
Xia, Q., Weng, X., Ouyang, F., Lin, T. J., & Chiu, T. K. F. (2024) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-024-00468-z · Cited by 493 · see citing works
The Influence of ChatGPT on Student Engagement: A Systematic Review and Future Research Agenda
Lo, C. K., Hew, K. F., & Jong, M. S.-Y. (2024) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105100 · Cited by 392 · see citing works
Kofinas, A. K., Tsay, C. H., & Pike, D. (2025) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13585 · Cited by 207 · see citing works
Luo (Jess), J. (2025) · Teaching in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/13562517.2024.2341005 · Cited by 85 · see citing works
Generative AI detection in higher education assessments
Ardito, C. G. (2025) · New Directions for Teaching and Learning · doi:10.1002/tl.20624 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
Nelson, A. S., Santamaría, P. V., Javens, J. S., & Ricaurte, M. (2025) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci15050611 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Stone, B. W. (2025) · Teaching of Psychology · doi:10.1177/00986283241305398 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Personality and acceptance as predictors of ChatGPT use
de Winter, J., Dodou, D., & Eisma, Y. B. (2024) · Discover Psychology · doi:10.1007/s44202-024-00161-2 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Almanea, M. (2026) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2024.2410158 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Engineering Educators' Perspectives on the Impact of Generative AI in Higher Education
Dewan, U., Hingle, A., McDonald, N., & Johri, A. (2025) · 2025 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) · doi:10.1109/educon62633.2025.11016518 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Luo, J. (., & Dawson, P. (2026) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075079.2025.2552825 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Examining Student and Teacher Perspectives on Undisclosed Use of Generative AI in Academic Work
Adnin, R., Pandkar, A., Yao, B., Wang, D., & Das, M. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3713393 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Bordalejo, B., Pafumi, D., Onuh, F., Khalid, A. K. M. I., Pearce, M. S., & O’Donnell, D. P. (2025) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-025-00505-5 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
“The group acknowledged the growing power of easily accessible and consumer-friendly LLMs (especially ChatGPT, developed by OpenAI and released on November 30, 2022; Gorichanaz, 2023).”
Ellison, C., Coulby, C., Saunders, S., Lindsay, R., & Hands, C. (2026) · Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/13603108.2025.2505883 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
ARE AI DETECTORS FAIR TO EFL LEARNERS? A LIBRARY RESEARCH ON DETECTION BIAS AND ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
Patty, J., & Matatula, M. Y. (2026) · J-Shelves of Indragiri (JSI) · doi:10.61672/jsi.v8i1.3557
“Students subjected to AI-based misconduct investigations report experiencing hostility, anxiety, fear, and defeat, alongside a lasting erosion of trust in both the accusing instructor and the institution (Crockett & Howe, 2024; Gorichanaz, 2023).”
- Authors
- Gorichanaz, T.
- Affiliations
- Drexel University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Gorichanaz, Tim
- ORCID
- Gorichanaz, Tim
- Venue
- Learning: Research and Practice
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2023-07-03
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 183-196
- ISSN
- 2373-5082 (ISSN-L)
- 2373-5090
- OpenAlex
- W4386603887
- Cited by
- 79
- References
- 28
- Citations by year
- 2026: 23 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 2
- FWCI
- 19.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Learning Research and Practice (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal Issues in Education
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, student response, artificial intelligence in higher education, assessment design, trust in technology, gatekeeping, AI-generated text, AI use guidelines
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
