SINGAPORE: Nanyang Technological University (NTU) has upheld the zero mark awarded to a student who was accused of using generative artificial intelligence (AI) in her work.
The case emerged after the student posted on Reddit on Jun 19 about being penalised for using AI in a final essay for a module because she made citation errors and used a reference organiser.
After that, NTU convened a panel with AI experts to assess her appeal. She was one of three university students penalised for using the technology.
NTU said on Friday (Jul 18) that the panel identified 14 instances of false citations or data in the submitted essay, noting that non-existent sources were cited and they were not “mere typos”.
“The panel stipulated that citing non-existent sources is a serious form of academic misconduct as the accurate citation of sources is the foundation of academic research and writing. False citations of this nature are often due to factual inaccuracies generated by generative AI,” said NTU in its statement.
All cases of academic misconduct are documented in the internal records of the students, the university said.
“The outcome of the appeal panel is final. We urge everyone to respect the integrity of the appeals process and refrain from making personal attacks against any individual involved.”
Responding to questions from CNA about the outcome of her appeal, the student, who requested to remain anonymous, said the school confirmed to her that she was given a zero mark because of the mistakes in her essay, rather than for the use of AI.
“Their entire talk with me during the meeting was on how I can avoid making essay mistakes in the future, didn’t tackle AI usage at all,” she told CNA.
According to the student, the zero mark was upheld because of the professor’s standards around writing. While she was reassured that there will be no permanent record, she still felt the situation was unfair.
“I’m just upset that there’s no AI found so the goalpost shifted from AI to my writing standard,” she said.
The student had admitted to using a reference organiser, which is a tool that collects and organises references and citations. She found the alphabetical order sorter online when she searched “citation sorter A-Z”.
“They didn’t bring up my citation sorter at all, which was initially one of the things I was penalised for,” she told CNA.
As part of her appeal, she provided proof of her writing process. She paid for Draftback, a Google Chrome extension that records keystrokes, to retroactively show that she typed her essay out by hand instead of copying and pasting it from ChatGPT.
When asked about the mistakes and why the school may have said they were not “mere typos”, the student declined to share a full list of the 14 mistakes because she was not sure if the document is confidential.
Addressing the non-existent sources, she added: “It’s only non-existent because of the typos. And frankly writing citations wrongly is quite common amongst undergraduates. I just got unlucky.”
She shared some examples of her mistakes – misspelling an author’s last name as Lee instead of Li and two instances of getting the citation date wrong.
“Frankly speaking I’m too tired to fight any further and exhausted all my avenues. So I think I’ll just move on, at least I know in my heart I didn’t use AI and they couldn’t prove it,” she said.
Continue reading...
The case emerged after the student posted on Reddit on Jun 19 about being penalised for using AI in a final essay for a module because she made citation errors and used a reference organiser.
After that, NTU convened a panel with AI experts to assess her appeal. She was one of three university students penalised for using the technology.
NTU said on Friday (Jul 18) that the panel identified 14 instances of false citations or data in the submitted essay, noting that non-existent sources were cited and they were not “mere typos”.
“The panel stipulated that citing non-existent sources is a serious form of academic misconduct as the accurate citation of sources is the foundation of academic research and writing. False citations of this nature are often due to factual inaccuracies generated by generative AI,” said NTU in its statement.
All cases of academic misconduct are documented in the internal records of the students, the university said.
“The outcome of the appeal panel is final. We urge everyone to respect the integrity of the appeals process and refrain from making personal attacks against any individual involved.”
MISTAKES AND TYPOS
Responding to questions from CNA about the outcome of her appeal, the student, who requested to remain anonymous, said the school confirmed to her that she was given a zero mark because of the mistakes in her essay, rather than for the use of AI.
“Their entire talk with me during the meeting was on how I can avoid making essay mistakes in the future, didn’t tackle AI usage at all,” she told CNA.
According to the student, the zero mark was upheld because of the professor’s standards around writing. While she was reassured that there will be no permanent record, she still felt the situation was unfair.
“I’m just upset that there’s no AI found so the goalpost shifted from AI to my writing standard,” she said.
The student had admitted to using a reference organiser, which is a tool that collects and organises references and citations. She found the alphabetical order sorter online when she searched “citation sorter A-Z”.
“They didn’t bring up my citation sorter at all, which was initially one of the things I was penalised for,” she told CNA.
As part of her appeal, she provided proof of her writing process. She paid for Draftback, a Google Chrome extension that records keystrokes, to retroactively show that she typed her essay out by hand instead of copying and pasting it from ChatGPT.
When asked about the mistakes and why the school may have said they were not “mere typos”, the student declined to share a full list of the 14 mistakes because she was not sure if the document is confidential.
Addressing the non-existent sources, she added: “It’s only non-existent because of the typos. And frankly writing citations wrongly is quite common amongst undergraduates. I just got unlucky.”
She shared some examples of her mistakes – misspelling an author’s last name as Lee instead of Li and two instances of getting the citation date wrong.
“Frankly speaking I’m too tired to fight any further and exhausted all my avenues. So I think I’ll just move on, at least I know in my heart I didn’t use AI and they couldn’t prove it,” she said.
Continue reading...