Karen Smith We're taking a view that the AI report alone is not sufficient to have that conversation. A "magic number" and no way to explain how that number has been reached is not a good basis to be making accusations - however gently they are framed. 

Our approach is to require some additional evidence, such as falsified references or differences in writing style or standard of English compared with previous work before we act on the report, mainly because we don't want to damage staff-student relationships with this kind of conversation based on something that we can't back up and where it's the student's word against the Turnitin algorithm.

Steve Bentley Yes, exactly. Many of our resources speak to the need for other data points. If I were still in the classroom, that number would nudge me to look more closely and have the conversations if it seems warranted. 

Angelo Marin I concur with you. His articles suggest that these apps often misjudge content. His tests show AI texts seem entirely human, while older texts appear 80% AI-generated. This highlights detection tools' inadequacy and potential for false accusations.

David Silver Thank you for joining us! I think there are a few things to unpack here. Firstly, it's important to say that the AI detection indicator, just like the Similarity score is just one part of the conversation regarding possible misconduct.

It seems like you have already engaged in a conversation with the student regarding their work. And I would say that if the student is adamant that this is their own work it might be worth asking our Support team to take a look at the paper. You can contact them by emailing tiisupport@turnitin.com.

Additionally you may find some of our resources on false positives useful. Firstly this blog post and video from our Product team. Additionally some of our pedagogic resources from my colleagues on the TLI team. 

Esther Jubb Potentially yes, but who knows as the detection tool doesn't show its working.

John Conner I recommend the following info on false positives: The first blog from March and the second blog from June of this year.

As for the student use, I would say to use the score as a discussion starter with students: How did they use the tool and why? Did it fit into the parameters of the paper, etc. From there it's easier to discuss what consequences are appropriate. Which may be a rewrite or it may require some disciplinary measures. But it's only a starting point, not a definitive or solo data point.

ren casey 

ren casey There appears to be two versions of Grammarly - the free version which is AI, and the paid-for version which is not AI.

The (free) AI version now can do what AI LLMs such as ChatGPT does - it generates text.

That is what I learnt from students and the seminars I attended on the topic (and the people at TurnItIn. In discussions I have asked students who used the free (AI) version of Grammarly about the content of what they have written, and they do not have a clue - prompting me to think it has generated the text for them. It does not merely check grammar, spelling, style, etc. I therefore think that, indeed, the free version of Grammarly is a form of AI and students should declare its use.

As well, we are supposed to teach students the skill of writing and we fail in doing that if a robot merely does the writing for them.

But others may disagree with me?

Annelize McKay Oh, and yes, in my experience it seems TuirnItIn picks up Grammarly as AI.

Annelize McKay One can use grammarly for spelling and grammar help without using their AI feature but in using the AI feature, there is the possibility of it entirely writing a piece for you based on whatever you prompt it with. Thank you for your response, but the instance which I'm referring to does not include text generated fully by AI, instead submitted and prompted to "improve" the work. 

ren casey I think this is something the IBO would need to give you guidance on. The following statement may be useful.