{"id":9522,"date":"2023-04-12T16:03:10","date_gmt":"2023-04-12T20:03:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.montclair.edu\/faculty-excellence\/?page_id=9522"},"modified":"2026-07-08T11:58:39","modified_gmt":"2026-07-08T15:58:39","slug":"ai-writing-detection","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.montclair.edu\/faculty-excellence\/ofe-teaching-principles\/clear-course-design\/practical-responses-to-chat-gpt\/ai-writing-detection\/","title":{"rendered":"Automatic Detection of AI Writing"},"content":{"rendered":"

As automated AI detection remains unreliable, Montclair has not approved or licensed any AI detection tools for evaluating student work at this time.<\/strong> Because these systems frequently both miss AI-generated content and incorrectly identify human-written work as AI-generated, their results should not be used as evidence of academic integrity violations.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, AI-detecting software in its present state often raises equity and privacy concerns.\u00a0 Research suggests<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0that AI detectors are more likely to flag content that was created by non-native English writers. Studies are underway to see if there is a similar bias against neurodivergent writers. This makes automatic AI detection potential liability for educators and institutions.<\/p>\n

Turnitin <\/strong>and Other Tools for AI Detection<\/h3>\n

The AI detection functionality, previously available to Canvas users at Montclair, was officially discontinued on November 2023 (Provost’s Memorandum on Turnitin AI Detection Functionality from 11\/14\/2023<\/strong><\/a>). This decision was made following similar ones by many other universities, including Vanderbilt, Michigan State, Northwestern, and the University of Texas at Austin. Turnitin has\u00a0acknowledged<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0that its product may have a higher error rate than was initially suggested.\u00a0There is no plan to bring this functionality back at this time.<\/strong><\/p>\n

For the purposes of protecting student work and student data, we advise against sharing student writing in any format with any AI detection tools and platforms not licensed for institutional use.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

______________________________________________________________________________<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

What to Do Instead<\/h3>\n

If you suspect that one of your students\u2019 submissions is AI-generated, we recommend the following:<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

1. Check manually for the red flags that are typical for AI writing<\/strong><\/h4>\n
Red flags include major factual errors in combination with uncharacteristically competent and confident writing; disciplinary knowledge far beyond expected course level and\/or the specific student’s typical performance; excessive wordiness and inefficiency of written expression (the writing is polished, but demonstrates little to no knowledge or learning tied to the course or assignment goals).<\/div>\n

2. Consider the big picture<\/strong><\/h4>\n
\n
Each of these red flags individually may occasionally occur in human work and writing. However, if you see multiple red flags in a submission, that’s more informative, especially if coming from a student whose work in your course raises other concerns.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

3. Talk to the Student<\/strong><\/h4>\n
\n

In AI-rich environments, products of student work may no longer demonstrate learning reliably and efficiently. However, a conversation with a student about the\u00a0process that led to their submission\u00a0can be informative and insightful. Here are a few tips to help facilitate a successful conversation.<\/p>\n