Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT

References

• Ahsan, K., Akbar, S., & Kam, B. (2022). Contract cheating in higher education: A systematic literature review and future research agenda. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(4), 523–539. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1931660
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barber, M., Bird, L., Fleming, J., Titterington-Giles, E., Edwards, E., & Leyland, C. (2021). Gravity assist: Propelling higher education towards a brighter future. Office for students. https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/publications/gravity-assist-propelling-higher-education-towards-a-brighter-future/
   Google Scholar
• Bommasani, R., Hudson, D. A., Adeli, E., Altman, R., Arora, S., von Arx, S., Bernstein, M. S., Bohg, J., Bosselut, A., Brunskill, E., Brynjolfsson, E., Buch, S., Card, D., Castellon, R., Chatterji, N., Chen, A., Creel, K., Davis, J. Q., Demszky, D. … Liang, P. (2021). On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07258.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, T. B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., Agarwal, S., Herbert-Voss, A., Krueger, G., Henighan, T., Child, R., Ramesh, A., Ziegler, D. M., Wu, J., Winter, C., and Amodei, D. (2020). Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33, 1877–1901. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2020
   Google Scholar
• Dawson, P., & Sutherland-Smith, W. (2018). Can markers detect contract cheating? Results from a pilot study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(2), 286–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1336746
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dawson, P., Sutherland-Smith, W., & Ricksen, M. (2020). Can software improve marker accuracy at detecting contract cheating? A pilot study of the Turnitin authorship investigate alpha. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(4), 473–482. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1662884
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dehouche, N. (2021). Plagiarism in the age of massive generative pre-trained transformers (GPT-3). Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 2, 17–23. https://doi.org/10.3354/esep00195
   Google Scholar
• Duval, A., Lamson, T., de Kérouara, G. D. L., & Gallé, M. (2020). Breaking writer’s block: Low-cost fine-tuning of natural language generation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.03216.
   Google Scholar
• Elkins, K., & Chun, J. (2020). Can GPT-3 pass a Writer’s turing test? Journal of Cultural Analytics, 5(2), 17212. https://doi.org/10.22148/001c.17212
   Google Scholar
• Floridi, L., & Chiriatti, M. (2020). GPT-3: Its nature, scope, limits, and consequences. Minds and Machines, 30(4), 681–694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09548-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gao, J. (2021). Exploring the feedback quality of an automated writing evaluation system Pigai. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 16(11), 322–330. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v16i11.19657
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gao, C. A., Howard, F. M., Markov, N. S., Dyer, E. C., Ramesh, S., Luo, Y., & Pearson, A. T. (2022). Comparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to original abstracts using an artificial intelligence output detector, plagiarism detector, and blinded human reviewers. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.12.23.521610
   Google Scholar
• Gierl, M., Latifi, S., Lai, H., Boulais, A., & Champlain, A. (2014). Automated essay scoring and the future of educational assessment in medical education. Medical Education, 48(10), 950–962. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12517
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hern, A. (2022, December 4) AI bot ChatGPT stuns academics with essay-writing skills and usability. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/dec/04/ai-bot-chatgpt-stuns-academics-with-essay-writing-skills-and-usability
   Google Scholar
• Hopp, C., & Speil, A. (2021). How prevalent is plagiarism among college students? Anonymity preserving evidence from Austrian undergraduates. Accountability in Research, 28(3), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2020.1804880
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaimovitch-López, G., Ferri, C., Hernández-Orallo, J., Martínez-Plumed, F., & Ramírez-Quintana, M. J. (2022). Can language models automate data wrangling? Machine Learning, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10994-022-06259-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, A. (2022, July 10-15). Multimodal large language models for inclusive collaboration learning tasks. Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies: Student Research Workshop, Washington, 202–210.
   Google Scholar
• Lines, L. (2016). Ghostwriters guaranteeing grades? The quality of online ghostwriting services available to tertiary students in Australia. Teaching in Higher Education, 21(8), 889–914. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.1198759
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, C., & Xing, W. (2021). Natural language generation using deep learning to support MOOC learners. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 31(2), 186–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-020-00235-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lucy, L., & Bamman, D. (2021, June 11). Gender and representation bias in GPT-3 generated stories. Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Narrative Understanding, Mexico City, 48–55.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell, A. (2022, December 26). Professor catches student cheating with ChatGPT: ‘I feel abject terror’. New York Post. https://nypost.com/2022/12/26/students-using-chatgpt-to-cheat-professor-warns/
   Google Scholar
• Perez, S., Massey-Allard, J., Butler, D., Ives, J., Bonn, D., Yee, N., & Roll, I. (2017). Identifying productive inquiry in virtual labs using sequence mining. In E. André, R. Baker, X. Hu, M. M. T. Rodrigo, & B. du Boulay Eds., Artificial intelligence in educationVol. 10(331), pp. 287–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61425-0_24
   Google Scholar
• QAA. (2020) . Contracting to cheat in Higher Education – How to address contract heating, the use of third-party services and essay mills. Quality Assurance Agency (QAA).
   Google Scholar
• Roscoe, R. D., Wilson, J., Johnson, A. C., & Mayra, C. R. (2017). Presentation, expectations, and experience: Sources of student perceptions of automated writing evaluation. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.076
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stokel-Walker, C. (2022). AI bot ChatGPT writes smart essays — Should professors worry? Nature, d41586-022-04397-7. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-04397-7
   Google Scholar
• Transformer, G.G.P, Osmanovic Thunström, A., & Steingrimsson, S. (2022). Can GPT-3 write an academic paper on itself, with minimal human input? https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03701250/document
   Google Scholar
• Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, L., & Polosukhin, I. (2017, December 4-9). Attention is all you need. Proceedings of NeurIPS, Longbeach, California USA. 5998–6008.
   Google Scholar
• Yang, M. (2023, January 6). New York City schools ban AI chatbot that writes essays and answers prompts. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/06/new-york-city-schools-ban-ai-chatbot-chatgpt
   Google Scholar
• Yeadon, W., Inyang, O. O., Mizouri, A., Peach, A., & Testrow, C. (2022). The death of the short-form physics essay in the coming AI revolution. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.11661. https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.11661
   Google Scholar
• Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education – Where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar