CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 38Academic integrity and plagiarismArtificial Intelligence in EducationEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Addressing student use of generative AI in schools and universities through academic integrity reporting

Open access
Peterson, Steven·2025·Frontiers in Education
DOI 10.3389/feduc.2025.1610836
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The aim of this theoretical article is to explore frameworks contributing to reasonable and applicable definitions of artificial intelligence (AI), human intelligence, and generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), as well as propose a framework for an efficient, transparent, and scalable approach to assess and address inappropriate use of GenAI resources in an academic environment.The integration of artificial intelligence technologies in academic environments has transformed how students engage with learning materials, complete assignments, and demonstrate formative knowledge. The opportunities AI-enhanced resources offer for personalized learning and robust academic experiences are comingled with significant challenges related to appropriate student use. Although automated content generators can enhance productivity and understanding, they also raise complex questions about academic integrity and the role educators must play in shaping its ethical use. AI-powered tools provide students with grammar correction, citation management, language translation, research abstracts, and a wide-range of enhanced learning support when used appropriately (Dwivendi et al., 2021). These tools also assist non-native speaking students with accessibility to learning modalities throughout the world (Karakas, 2023). It is when these tools are used to circumvent academic effort that concerns quickly emerge. Large language models (LLMs) capable of generating human-quality text and creative content have blurred the lines of authorship and academic integrity. Students have unprecedented access to resources capable of completing assignments, writing essays, and solving complex problems with minimal personal effort. This raises strong opinion about the assessment of student learning (Luo, 2024), determination of plagiarism (Bittle et al., 2025), and efficacy of performance outcomes (Weng et al., 2024).Luo's critical policy analysis published in 2024 examined the institutional frameworks guiding the use of GenAI in assessment at twenty world-leading universities. Employing Bacchi's "What's the problem represented to be" (WPR) methodology, the research sought to critically analyze how these institutions articulate the challenges posed by GenAI within an evolving academic landscape.The core critique identified a dominant, nearly universal policy paradigm that frames GenAI as a potential threat to academic integrity and the intellectual originality of student submissions. By designating these resources as a form of external assistance separate from the student's contribution, this prevailing policy structure suggests a critical silence regarding the increasingly distributed and collaborative nature of modern, technology-mediated knowledge production (Luo, 2024). This research suggests a redefinition of "originality" to effectively accommodate and integrate human-AI collaborative endeavors.The potential effects of these prevailing integrity-focused policies are significant: they risk stigmatizing students utilizing GenAI resources for legitimate purposes and may transform faculty into punitive "gatekeepers" whose focus is policing misconduct rather than empowering robust student learning experiences (Luo, 2024). Notwithstanding its theoretical utility, Luo's study exhibits key research gaps. A primary limitation is the absence of empirical data concerning the lived effects of the policies, specifically lacking both student perspectives on their resultant impact and real-world faculty implementation data across varied disciplines. This reliance on a limited, purposed sample of elite universities undermines the generalizability of findings, neglecting distinct policy challenges faced by diverse institutional types, such as community colleges, proprietary and non-profit institutions. Finally, a key absence is the inclusion of alternative policy models, specifically in-depth case studies on institutions that have successfully moved beyond the punitive model to implement progressive, integrated GenAI policies.A systematic literature review was conducted to effectively assess how GenAI technologies influence the demonstration of formative knowledge, balancing both educational benefits and associated risks to academic honesty (Bittle et al., 2025). This comprehensive analysis encompassed 41 studies gathered from key databases, including the IEEE Xplore and JSTOR.Core findings suggest a profound impact of GenAI resources in higher education environments. The opportunities AI-enhanced resources offer for customized learning and robust educational engagement are comingled with significant challenges related to appropriate student use. Large language models capable of generating human-quality assignments and creative content have blurred the lines of authorship, enabling the evasion of conventional plagiarism tools and raising complex questions about academic integrity. This review suggests that immediate actions are required to effectively mana

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/feduc.2025.1610836

Cites

51 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Inappropriate AI usage stems from socio-academic pressures including overloaded schedules, work pressure, and high-stakes grading systems.

    “Inappropriate usage stems from socio-academic pressures including overloaded schedules, work pressure, and high-stakes grading systems (Hanh and Duyen, 2025; Peterson, 2025).”

    From Reimagining writing assessment for the AI era: a systematic review on balancing AI support and authentic skill growth (2026) · cites this paper as Peterson, 2025

    The Introduction and Domain III: literacy education (page unavailable) identify busy schedules and homework overload as contributors to academic-integrity problems. The paper does not identify work pressure or high-stakes grading systems as causes of inappropriate AI use; its discussion of schedules and overload is also broader than AI use specifically. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Students operating under intense time constraints, managing multiple competing obligations, and facing high-stakes assessment systems make pragmatic decisions where immediate survival needs override abstract commitments to long-term skill development.

    “Students operating under intense time constraints, managing multiple competing obligations, and facing high-stakes assessment systems make pragmatic decisions where immediate survival needs override abstract commitments to long-term skill development (Hanh and Duyen, 2025; Peterson, 2025).”

    From Reimagining writing assessment for the AI era: a systematic review on balancing AI support and authentic skill growth (2026) · cites this paper as Peterson, 2025

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Faculty concerns stem partly from limited familiarity with AI paraphrasing capabilities and perceived student inability to synthesize information independently.

    “These concerns stem partly from limited familiarity with AI paraphrasing capabilities and perceived student inability to synthesize information independently (Peterson, 2025).”

    From Reimagining writing assessment for the AI era: a systematic review on balancing AI support and authentic skill growth (2026) · cites this paper as Peterson, 2025

    The Introduction (page unavailable) links concerns about AI to students completing work with minimal personal effort, and describes difficulty with independent synthesis as a scholarly skill deficit. It does not say that faculty concerns stem from limited familiarity with AI paraphrasing capabilities. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Many students engage in unauthorized AI use not from malicious intent but from genuine uncertainty about boundaries between legitimate support and prohibited delegation.

    “Particularly significant is the finding that many students engage in unauthorized AI use not from malicious intent but from genuine uncertainty about boundaries between legitimate support and prohibited delegation.”

    From Reimagining writing assessment for the AI era: a systematic review on balancing AI support and authentic skill growth (2026) · cites this paper as Peterson, 2025

    The Introduction says unawareness of academic instructions can reflect inadequate guidance rather than malice, and Domain II calls for clear policies distinguishing AI as a learning aid from AI used for dishonesty. But the paper does not report a finding that many students use AI without authorization specifically because they are uncertain where that boundary lies; it is a theoretical article, not a study of those students' motives. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The AIR framework emphasizes coaching and literacy education, distinguishing deliberate cheating from "functional failure" in synthesis skills.

    “The “Six Domains of Academic Integrity Reporting” (AIR) emphasizes coaching and literacy education, distinguishing deliberate cheating from “functional failure” in synthesis skills (Peterson, 2025).”

    From Reimagining writing assessment for the AI era: a systematic review on balancing AI support and authentic skill growth (2026) · cites this paper as Peterson, 2025

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Cong-Lem, N., Soyoof, A., and Tsering, D. (2025). A systematic review of the limitations and associated opportunities of ChatGPT. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 41, 3851-3866.
  2. ch012 · DOI
  3. v13n5p156 · DOI
  4. Sabrina, F., Azad, S., Sohail, S., and Thakur, S. (2022). Ensuring Academic Integrity in Online Assessments: A Literature Review and Recommendations.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Peterson, S.
Affiliations
Arizona State University (US)
Corresponding author
Peterson, Steven
Venue
Frontiers in Education
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2025-11-07
Volume
10
ISSN
2504-284X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/feduc.2025.1610836
OpenAlex
W4415982871
Cited by
30
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 30
FWCI
30.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
generative AI, academic integrity, large language models, plagiarism, originality, human-AI collaboration, AI policy in higher education, AI in K-12 education

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