1) How have the ways you work in investigating misuse of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) changed, or not changed, over the past few years?
Justin: As LLMs have developed and their outputs have improved, the task of investigating misuse of Gen AI has gotten more challenging. The methods we used for investigations have not changed significantly over the past few years. Rather, the question of what constitutes valid or sufficient evidence of misuse of Gen AI has become more complicated.
Mike: Some of the early cases involving GenAI were pretty blatant – the student including the introduction from the response “Thanks for asking ChatGPT, here is a summary of…” - so those did not require too much investigation. Then when the early GenAI detectors came out, faculty relied on these reports and percentages almost exclusively. Now that it’s generally accepted detectors are not terribly reliable, investigations include looking for things like time on task (a multi-page paper created in just a few minutes), citations that cannot be actually located (hallucinations) and levels of writing way above the expected skill of a first-year student.
2) How have you seen the discourse about student misuse of GenAI evolve, or not, over the past few years?
Justin: Public discourse, at least in Ireland, where I work, remains narrowly focused on the fact that GenAI enables cheating and that that is a bad thing. Coupled with widespread discourse about the inevitability of AI, this is a recipe for resignation and fatalism. I would like to see civic discourse shift to a more meaningful and practical consideration of the consequences of student misuse of GenAI and the measures we can take to address it.
Mike: At first, there were calls to “ban all GenAI completely.” That’s not very realistic, given how embedded GenAI has become. Much of the discussion now is how to appropriately use it, as it can be helpful tool for learning, both for specific course material, but also for developing students’ AI literacy. Part of the role of faculty and staff is to prepare students for success after college and employers are definitely looking for candidates who know how to use GenAI ethically and efficiently.
3) What kind of intervention or approach to student use or misuse of GenAI have you used that worked well? Have you tried anything that did not work well?
Justin: We use the Courageous Conversations model at my university: an open conversation between a student suspected of misconduct and an academic integrity advisor before a formal investigation begins. We have found this nonjudgmental and educationally-oriented intervention to work well, with many students freely admitting to misconduct at this point, avoiding the need for a formal investigation.
Mike: I have tried to increase proactive education about GenAI use. I work closely with our First Year Seminar coordinator, which has a required segment on academic honesty, so I worked to include more about GenAI use, including touching on proper citation of GenAI material. Our library staff created a short online GenAI module (what it is, how it works, good prompt generation) which has been assigned in many cases. There hasn’t been anything new that’s been a total flop, thankfully.
4) What has most challenged or frustrated you?
Justin: A perception—generally unconscious—that detection of student misconduct is the primary or default means of upholding academic integrity. As the task of detecting misuse of GenAI becomes more challenging, higher education must redouble its focus on effective deterrence measures to preserve academic integrity.
Mike: It’s frustrating when it is clear - at least to me - that a student used GenAI inappropriately (yes, there still is the occasional assignment with the AI prompt response remnant) and they choose to dispute responsibility. I realize part of this might be related to maturity and their still-developing brains, but it is still disheartening that students are not taking accountability for their decisions.
5) What has given you hope?
Justin: The changes required to reinforce assessment security can genuinely strengthen the teaching, learning, and assessment experience for students and educators, if approached in the right spirit. A small but growing recognition of the adverse environmental, cognitive, and social impacts of Gen AI among young people also gives me hope.
Mike: One educational sanction assigned in most cases is an online reflection activity. In that, we ask students to identify who was impacted by their dishonesty and what the students will do to regain the lost trust with those people. Many students have been very thoughtful and expressed how they impacted not only others (parents, faculty, etc.) but also themselves. This demonstrates increased self-awareness, which is one of those intrinsic skills we hope to teach students while they are with us.
Dr Justin Tonra is Academic Integrity Officer at the University of Galway, and Deputy Chairperson of the National Academic Integrity Network (NAIN) of Ireland.
Dr Michael Fernbacher is Assistant Director of Community Standards & Conflict Resolution and Assistant Dean of Students at the University of Delaware, and Community of Practice Co-Chair for Academic Integrity, ASCA.
The authors' views are their own.
Thank you for being a member of ICAI. Not a member of ICAI yet? Check out the benefits of membership and consider joining us by visiting our membership page. Be part of something great!
EDITOR’S NOTE:
This is the third of our blogs is to accompany the ICAI Summer Series of webinars. Justin and Mike will be delivering the third webinar on ‘Investigating misuse of AI’ on June 25 at 12pm EST.
Here is some recommended pre-reading for the webinar:
Required reading:
Bassett, M. A., Bradshaw, W., Bornsztejn, H., Hogg, A., Murdoch, K., Pearce, B., & Webber, C. (2026). Heads we win, tails you lose: AI detectors in education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2026.2622146
Mills, A. (2026). A brief update: Why I’m still using AI detection after all, alongside many other strategies. Substack. February 2026. https://annamills.substack.com/p/a-brief-update-why-im-still-using
NAIN Framework for academic misconduct investigation and case management (2023) https://www.qqi.ie/sites/default/files/2023-09/NAIN%20Framework%20for%20%20Academic%20Misconduct%20Investigation%20and%20Case%20Management%202023.pdf
Recommended further reading:
Palmer, K. (2026). Writing faculty push for the right to refuse genAI. Inside Higher Education. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/tech-innovation/teaching-learning/2026/03/16/writing-faculty-push-right-refuse-ai