Notes on Academic Integrity and Paper Revision Process

Introduction to Discussions on Literacy Narrative and Book Review

  • The conversation occurs between two individuals, Daniel and a professor or instructor discussing academic work.

Concerns about AI Detection in Papers

  • The instructor raises concerns about AI content detected in Daniel's literacy narrative and book review.
  • The instructor mentions using Turnitin and another program to check for AI-generated content, indicating different percentages of possible AI influence:
    • Turnitin indicates below 20% AI-generated content.
    • Another program reports 30% AI-generated content.
    • Specific concern raised regarding the Serviceberry paper with a 49% AI detection rate.

Student's Response

  • Daniel defends his work, stating that he has done all the work himself and possesses supporting quotes and notes for the Serviceberry paper.
  • Emphasizes he did not use AI for either paper, characterizing the situation as bizarre.

Instructor's Requests and Suggestions

  • The instructor stresses the importance of clarifying the situation.
  • Questions Daniel about his use of writing tools:
    • Inquires about the use of Grammarly or similar tools. Daniel confirms he does not use Grammarly.
    • Asks about other web-based tools or thesauruses. Daniel admits to using online resources for ideas but not for copying and pasting.

Suggested Action to Rectify AI Detection

  • The instructor provides a solution involving retyping the papers.
  • Steps for retyping:
    1. Print the original paper.
    2. Open a fresh Word document (not web-based).
    3. Manually retype the content, avoiding copy-pasting.
  • Reassures Daniel that this method has helped resolve similar issues in the past.
  • Emphasizes that AI presence in a final submission could lead to academic penalties.

Clarifications and Final Steps

  • Daniel agrees to follow the instructor’s advice by retyping the Serviceberry paper first.
  • The instructor confirms that Daniel should submit the retyped paper as a draft and not the final version.
  • Discussion of due dates: Instructor mentions a deadline for the Serviceberry paper and allows flexibility.

Discussion on Paper Structure

  • Instructor provides feedback on paper formatting:
    • Advises against using subheadings in shorter papers as they serve as shortcuts for transitions.
    • Encourages improving transitions within the text instead of relying on subheadings.

Conclusion and Next Steps

  • Instructor expresses empathy for the situation and offers support for future writing assignments.
  • Daniel is encouraged to reach out for help before submitting final drafts in future courses to avoid similar issues.
  • The conversation concludes with Daniel agreeing to make the necessary changes and notify the instructor once completed.