Shannon Frizzell Hi! Could you create a support ticket by emailing tiisupport@turnitin.com, please? Please include the paper ID of both submissions, for us to investigate further. Once you submit a ticket, if you share it with me, we can have the product team look into it.

Thanks!

Karen Smith Here is the support ticket ID:  Case #22307752

Shannon Frizzell Thank you - I'm passing it on to someone who can possibly give us a response.

Ahmed Al-Alousi An interesting take and I agree with quite a lot of what you say. But I wonder on the point about being a load bearing relief pillar if actually staff under the strain of workloads are more likely to ignore potential misconduct rather than deal with it sloppily?

Steve Bentley It cuts both ways. The same staff are likely to just let it slide, and accept the AI usage report as gospel, rather than take it all in context. In reality, no AI is going to replace a person; if you're not up to the job, and/or your heart's not in it, the answer is not to turn to an automaton for help - it's more either skill up, shape up, or get up and change jobs. And this is coming from a computer scientist - yours truly.

Patrick Kelly I can cite tens of examples to the contrary, for each of your 6 students. If you, as an educator, can't work out who's who in your class, and who's capable of what, to have these conversations (something our own teachers managed beautifully, without the horrible RE/pattern matching/robots we have today, thank you very much); if you can't actually do that, then why are you an educator in the fist place? job too stressful? too little pay? walk away man !! there are other challenges in life, and other ways to make a living !!
But for anyone to turn around and claim that what's alarmingly common practice in education of using this form of tool as a yardstick, by which such critical decisions as someone's pass/fail (i.e. life impacting) is actually somehow OK, is absolutely and utterly a whitewash.
Let me give another example from my other engagement as a full-time enterprise architect, working in a really sensitive and people focused consulting position in the UK government; you get them green as grass out of university, and they're eager to please - so you uneducated them, educate and train them again, and you have your next gen practitioners taking on real world challenges - that's how it's done, and I think this is just preaching to the converted. Come tools like ChatGPT, Bard-aka-Gemini and Claude; they'll generate the so-called material, and one look at it tells you it's moronic and bland - just one look; you send them back packing, and they do the work from first principles; that, on its own, is a lesson in life, and a lesson in education. So if it was going to add to the workload to have to do that for a calls, which I also teach part time, then so be it; and if that workload became too much for the pay, then it's a conversation with your employer, and that conversation doesn't include using the likes of Turn-it-In's AI detection tools to relieve your workload, let alone the massive privacy infringement that the system's very existence represents - by what right are these databases carrying so much PII, comparing against and coming back with reports of such critical nature? by what right, for example, are tools like Turn-it-In, and others, are allowed to keep mine, yours and everyone else's IP, under the guise of plagiarism detection? simply because someone way back when discovered that RE can be used to recognise regular expressions and occurrences? well, guess what: the main goal and  reason for RE matching was created was to compile and process programming languages, by machines; and I don't care what "PhD thesis" is being used to justify the status quo: this is utter madness.

Rhonda Snover Here is the thing: any detector will only analyze the final text and check for words that are used in a specific sequence unlikely for humans and that is all. It will not tell you if the student asked an AI to generate the whole text from scratch or if he used it to rephrase what he already wrote for more clarity. As rephrasing is done by a software and not a human it will most likely be always detected and you will not know if this was just rephrasing or entirely generated. Now the question: is rephrasing a plagiarism ? Also this practice of using Turnitin is ethically not right: back at the time when there was a big doubt that a student essay was written by someone else nobody was going to punish him based only on this assumption without proofs- it was always investigated. Here we are talking about the same thing: high probability but not a definitive proof.

Dictionary Tech Grammarly is paid for on many colleges and universities as a way to enhance the students writing.  I have heard of many, many instances of Turnitin and other AI detection tools flagging student essays as 100% AI. I am fairly sure this is a much bigger issue than originally thought--we have colleges accusing students of cheating --when it may very well be the program Grammarly (school supplied) that is creating the problem. 

Kelly Morgan I have told my students that, although I value grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure I appreciate solid, original, organic thought and analysis even more.  I have advised them to keep two versions of their submissions: the original and the one they "correct" via Grammarly.  This takes no extra effort on their part, and then if I suspect an A.I. invasion they can always produce the original to redeem themselves.  We cannot relinquish all leverage to the student by showing "good faith" at all times.  I believe we must protect ourselves and our students from leaning too heavily on these products for the sake of education as a whole.  (I'm not saying, by any means, that you disagree with these two final points, just that they need to be made...)

GHAZAL AB Contact Turnitin to schedule a consultation.