CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 124Academic integrity and plagiarismArtificial Intelligence in EducationMisinformation and Its Impacts

Teachers’ reflections on academic dishonesty in EFL students’ writings in the era of artificial intelligence

Open access
Mohammadkarimi, Ebrahim·2023·Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching
DOI 10.37074/jalt.2023.6.2.10
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This research study examines teachers’ perceptions of academic dishonesty in the writings of EFL students in the context of AI. The study involved 67 teachers who provided their perspectives through questionnaires and interviews. The findings indicate a mixed perception among teachers regarding the benefits of AI technologies for students, with some acknowledging advantages while others expressed concerns about its impact on academic integrity. Teachers unanimously agreed on the negative influence of AI on students’ commitment to academic honesty, perceiving it as enabling dishonesty and hindering skill development. The study highlights the role of teachers in detecting AI-generated assignments and emphasizes the need for addressing ethical implications. Strategies identified include problem-solving activities, plagiarism detection tools, and integration of AI in teaching practices. While some teachers acknowledged challenges in detecting AI-related academic dishonesty, the study underscores the importance of comprehensive training and support for teachers to utilize AI effectively while preserving academic integrity. The study concludes by calling for institutions and policymakers to prioritize ethical considerations and develop guidelines for the responsible use of AI in education.

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 · 10.37074/jalt.2023.6.2.10

Cites

38 of 38 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?

  • High CR estimates suggest that the individual items within each factor measure the underlying construct consistently and with minimal measurement error.

    “High CR estimates suggest that the individual items within each factor measure the underlying construct consistently and with minimal measurement error (Fornell & Larcker, 1981;Mohammadkarimi, 2023).”

    From Psychometric validation of the artificial intelligence anxiety scale: A confirmatory factor analysis for academic research (2025) · cites this paper as Mohammadkarimi, 2023

    The Research design section reports a questionnaire reliability check using Cronbach’s alpha (0.87). It does not discuss composite reliability (CR), factor-level item consistency, or measurement error; searches for those terms found no supporting passage in our copy. No page number was provided for the section. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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. Creely, E., Henriksen, D., & Henderson, M. (2023, March). Artificial intelligence, creativity, and education: Critical questions for researchers and educators. In Society for information technology & teacher education international conference (pp. 1309-1317). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
  2. Koraishi, O. (2023). Teaching English in the age of AI: Embracing ChatGPT to optimize EFL materials and assessment. Language Education and Technology, 3(1), 55- 72.
  3. Sevimel-Sahin, A. (2023). Academic integrity in online foreign language assessment: What does current research tell us?. In R. S. Suman, S. Moccia, K. Chinnusamy, B. Singh, & R. Regin (Eds.), Handbook of research on perspectives in foreign language assessment (pp. 306-328). IGI Global. Copyright: © 2023.
  4. Ebrahim Mohammadkarimi. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Mohammadkarimi, E.
Affiliations
University of Raparin (IQ)
Corresponding author
Mohammadkarimi, Ebrahim
ORCID
Mohammadkarimi, Ebrahim
Venue
Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching
Publisher
Open Access Publishing Association
Published
2023-07-16
Volume
6
Issue
2
Pages
105-113
ISSN
2591-801X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.37074/jalt.2023.6.2.10
OpenAlex
W4384465778
Cited by
90
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 6
FWCI
22.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
Keywords
academic dishonesty, artificial intelligence in education, EFL learners, academic integrity, teacher perceptions, AI-generated text detection, plagiarism detection software, teacher professional development, AI ethics in education, writing development

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