The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Teachers’ reflections on academic dishonesty in EFL students’ writings in the era of artificial intelligence
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“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
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.
Citations
Cites
Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT
Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2024) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148 · Cited by 3,087
Chatting and Cheating. Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT
Cotton, D., Cotton, P., & Shipway, J. R. (2023) · doi:10.35542/osf.io/mrz8h · Cited by 3,079
ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education?
(2023) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.9 · Cited by 1,806
A comprehensive AI policy education framework for university teaching and learning
Chan, C. K. Y. (2023) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-023-00408-3 · Cited by 1,577 · cited 1×
“This aligns with the scholarly perspective presented by Chan (2023).”
BackgroundA SWOT analysis of ChatGPT: Implications for educational practice and research
Farrokhnia, M., Banihashem, S. K., Noroozi, O., & Wals, A. (2024) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/14703297.2023.2195846 · Cited by 1,384
Lim, W. M., Gunasekara, A., Pallant, J. L., Pallant, J. I., & Pechenkina, E. (2023) · The International Journal of Management Education · doi:10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100790 · Cited by 1,261
ChatGPT and other large language models are double-edged swords
Shen, Y., Heacock, L., Elias, J., Hentel, K. D., Reig, B., Shih, G., & Moy, L. (2023) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.230163 · Cited by 1,008
Revolutionizing education with AI: Exploring the transformative potential of ChatGPT
Adiguzel, T., Kaya, M. H., & Cansu, F. K. (2023) · Contemporary Educational Technology · doi:10.30935/cedtech/13152 · Cited by 975 · cited 1×
“However, instructors may maintain integrity by remaining educated, advocating ethical behavior in the classroom, and conducting proactive interventions (Adiguzel et al., 2023; Kooli, 2023).”
BackgroundChatGPT 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×
“Teachers may struggle to distinguish between genuine effort and fraud as a consequence of learners’ capacity to adapt AI-generated content to seem as if it was their original work (Farrokhnia et al., 2023; Sullivan et al., 2023).”
BackgroundPerkins, M. (2023) · Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice · doi:10.53761/1.20.02.07 · Cited by 839
Dergaa, I., Chamari, K., Zmijewski, P., & Ben Saad, H. (2023) · Biology of Sport · doi:10.5114/biolsport.2023.125623 · Cited by 796
Chatbots in Education and Research: A Critical Examination of Ethical Implications and Solutions
Kooli, C. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su15075614 · Cited by 666 · cited 1×
“However, instructors may maintain integrity by remaining educated, advocating ethical behavior in the classroom, and conducting proactive interventions (Adiguzel et al., 2023; Kooli, 2023).”
BackgroundChan, C. K. Y., & Lee, K. K. W. (2023) · Smart Learning Environments · doi:10.1186/s40561-023-00269-3 · Cited by 634
The role of ChatGPT in higher education: Benefits, challenges, and future research directions
(2023) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.29 · Cited by 561 · cited 1×
“This implication aligns with the findings of multiple scholarly investigations conducted by Cotton et al. (2023), Rasul et al. (2023), and Rudolph et al. (2023b).”
ResultCrawford, J., Cowling, M., & Allen, K.-A. (2023) · Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice · doi:10.53761/1.20.3.02 · Cited by 547 · cited 1×
“Some of the AI-powered tools that have made academic misconduct simpler than ever for today's students include essay generators, online essay mills, and custom writing services (Crawford et al., 2023).”
Background(2023) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.23 · Cited by 421
Will generative AI replace teachers in higher education? A study of teacher and student perceptions
Chan, C. K. Y., & Tsi, L. H. Y. (2024) · Studies in Educational Evaluation · doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2024.101395 · Cited by 387 · cited 3×
“These findings agree with various studies (Chan & Hu, 2023; Chan & Tsi, 2023; Dergaa et al., 2023; Manley, 2023), where the collective concern regarding the prevalence of academic dishonesty was evident.”
BackgroundResultMohamed, A. M. (2024) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-023-11917-z · Cited by 387
The AI Revolution in Education: Will AI Replace or Assist Teachers in Higher Education?
Chan, C. K. Y., & Tsi, L. H. Y. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.01185 · Cited by 387
Will ChatGPT get you caught? Rethinking of Plagiarism DetectionPreprint
Khalil, M., & Er, E. (2023) · Interacción · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.04335 · Cited by 369
The use of ChatGPT in the digital era: Perspectives on chatbot implementation
Limna, P., Kraiwanit, T., Jangjarat, K., Klayklung, P., & Chocksathaporn, P. (2023) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.32 · Cited by 294
The role of ChatGPT in scientific communication: writing better scientific review articles.
(2023) · PubMed Central · Cited by 289
Fitria, T. N. (2023) · ELT Forum: Journal of English Language Teaching · doi:10.15294/elt.v12i1.64069 · Cited by 283
Will ChatGPT get you caught? Rethinking of Plagiarism Detection
Khalil, M., & Er, E. (2023) · doi:10.35542/osf.io/fnh48 · Cited by 259
ChatGPT and other artificial intelligence applications speed up scientific writing
Chen, T.-J. (2023) · Journal of the Chinese Medical Association · doi:10.1097/jcma.0000000000000900 · Cited by 240
Artificial Intelligence, Chatbots, Plagiarism and Basic Honesty: Comment
Kleebayoon, A., & Wiwanitkit, V. (2023) · Cellular and Molecular Bioengineering · doi:10.1007/s12195-023-00759-x · Cited by 188
Sison, A. J. G., Daza, M. T., Gozalo-Brizuela, R., & Garrido-Merchán, E. C. (2024) · International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2023.2225931 · Cited by 169
A Computer Wrote this Paper: What ChatGPT Means for Education, Research, and WritingPreprint
Shaver, L. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4338981 · Cited by 156
Singer, J. B., Báez, J. C., & Rios, J. A. (2023) · Journal of Social Work Education · doi:10.1080/10437797.2023.2189878 · Cited by 105
Zhou, T., Cao, S., Zhou, S., Zhang, Y., & He, A. (2023) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2023.103141 · Cited by 94
An analysis of university academic integrity policies in New Zealand
Möller, A. (2022) · Journal of Further and Higher Education · doi:10.1080/0309877x.2022.2130195 · Cited by 39
Chan, C. K. Y., & Lee, K. K. W. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.02878 · Cited by 32
THE IMPACT OF CHAT GPT ON STUDENT'S WRITING SKILLS: AN EXPLORATION OF AI-ASSISTED WRITING TOOLS
Abdullayeva, M., & Muzaffarovna, M. Z. (2023) · Zenodo · doi:10.5281/zenodo.7876800 · Cited by 30
The use of text-matching software’s similarity scores
Manley, S. (2021) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989621.2021.1986018 · Cited by 24
Sisón, A. J. G., Daza, M. T., Gozalo-Brizuela, R., et al. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.11215 · Cited by 12
IS CHAT-GPT A SILVER BULLET FOR SCIENTIFIC MANUSCRIPT WRITING?
Shah, F. A. (2023) · Journal of Postgraduate Medical Institute · doi:10.54079/jpmi.37.1.3219 · Cited by 9
Zhang, Y., Chu, S. K. W., Liu, Y., & Lu, X. (2023) · DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · doi:10.30191/ets.202304_26(2).0001 · Cited by 7
Zhou, T., Cao, S., Zhou, S., Zhang, Y., & He, A. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.11812
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- 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).
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
Law, L. (2024) · Computers and Education Open · doi:10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100174 · Cited by 689
A Primer on Generative Artificial Intelligence
Kalota, F. (2024) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci14020172 · Cited by 225
Higher Education's Generative Artificial Intelligence Paradox: The Meaning of Chatbot Mania
Rudolph, J., Mohamed Ismail, F. M., & Popenici, S. (2024) · Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice · doi:10.53761/54fs5e77 · Cited by 189
Brandão, A., Pedro, L. F. M. G., & Zagalo, N. (2024) · Digital Education Review · doi:10.1344/der.2024.45.151-157 · Cited by 146
Chatbots and AI in Education (AIEd) tools: The good, the bad, and the ugly
Ifelebuegu, A. O., Kulume, P., & Cherukut, P. (2023) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.2.29 · Cited by 109
Metadata
- Authors
- Mohammadkarimi, E.
- Affiliations
- University of Raparin (IQ)
- Corresponding author
- 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)
- 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
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Social Sciences › Education › 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