CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 34Academic integrity and plagiarismArtificial Intelligence in EducationMisinformation and Its Impacts

Is AI Changing the Rules of Academic Misconduct? An In-depth Look at Students' Perceptions of 'AI-giarism'

Open access
Chan, Cecilia Ka Yuk·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2306.03358arXiv 2306.03358
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This pioneering study explores students' perceptions of AI-giarism, an emergent form of academic dishonesty involving AI and plagiarism, within the higher education context. A survey, undertaken by 393 undergraduate and postgraduate students from a variety of disciplines, investigated their perceptions of diverse AI-giarism scenarios. The findings portray a complex landscape of understanding, with clear disapproval for direct AI content generation, yet more ambivalent attitudes towards subtler uses of AI. The study introduces a novel instrument, as an initial conceptualization of AI-giarism, offering a significant tool for educators and policy-makers. This scale facilitates understanding and discussions around AI-related academic misconduct, aiding in pedagogical design and assessment in an era of AI integration. Moreover, it challenges traditional definitions of academic misconduct, emphasizing the need to adapt in response to evolving AI technology. Despite limitations, such as the rapidly changing nature of AI and the use of convenience sampling, the study provides pivotal insights for academia, policy-making, and the broader integration of AI technology in education.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2306.03358

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • many instructors found that they did not have a complete understanding of either the systems used by the students or the metrics provided by AI detectors-a situation which could lead to overly aggressive and pedagogically counter-productive responses concerning their use in an institutional context that, at the time, suggested that the use of AI in writing assignments was synonymous with academic

    “In this context, many instructors found that they did not have a complete understanding of either the systems used by the students or the metrics provided by AI detectors-a situation which could lead to overly aggressive and pedagogically counter-productive responses concerning their use in an institutional context that, at the time, suggested that the use of AI in writing assignments was synony”

    From “Scarlet Cloak and the Forest Adventure”: a preliminary study of the impact of AI on commonly used writing tools (2025) · cites this paper as Chan, 2023

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Chan, C. K. Y.
Corresponding author
Chan, Cecilia Ka Yuk
ORCID
Chan, Cecilia Ka Yuk
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2306.03358
arXiv
2306.03358
OpenAlex
W4379919637
Cited by
29
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 4
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
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 misconduct, academic dishonesty, AI-generated content, plagiarism, student perceptions, higher education, artificial intelligence in education, scale 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