Actually, a student is claiming to submit course work as their own that is created and submitted by AI – likely ChatGPT Custom. I provided Gemini with some work samples and described the situation. Gemini not only confirmed my suspicions, pointed out a number of identifying characteristics of the submissions, then provided a very detailed step by step explanation of the prompts and tools used to write the responses AND SUBMIT them to the Canvas learning management system.
At some level, I’m impressed by the innovation. I am dismayed by the blatant academic dishonesty.
I checked with the department administration. I can only report the student with proof of violations of rules and restrictions that I previously published. The horse is long gone and now I have figure out what happened, then put rules in place that could have prevented or exposed a situation that wasn’t possible to do 3-6 months ago. Right.
Other students occasionally submit work that is probably AI-written. It is pretty obvious. They get a zero or points off and are asked for more information if they want the additional points. Usually, no response but the submissions are their own from then on.
So here goes… In the future, the Syllabus will include a specific reference to the DeAnza Academic Policies on Academic Integrity. This is the Announcement now published in the Canvas course.
** As of TODAY *** July 18, 2026 ** Subject to updates as appropriate
The Use of AI in This Course
In general, I’m not opposed to the use of AI. I use Gemini frequently. I use ChatGPT and Claude occasionally.
However, we need to set some boundaries (not exactly rules) about what are acceptable submissions and use of AI by students in this course.
- Discussion posts and assignment submissions must be your original work and in your own words.
- Stay within any stated limits for submissions
- If you use AI for searching for resources, say so.
- If you copy directly from a resource, say so.
Academic Integrity / Dishonesty. is now explicitly referenced in the Syllabus. DeAnza’s Academic Policies on Academic Integrity include a section on AI use. https://www.deanza.edu/policies/academic-integrity.html
If you have AI do significant portions of the course work for you, you will not meet the Student Learning Outcomes for this course which state students will
- Analyze the effect of the Internet, computers, and cellular communications on individuals, culture, and society.
- Analyze the effects of the Internet, computers, and cellular communications on institutions, including education, business, economics, and politics.
- Judge the effect of the the Internet and computers on law and ethics.
Your grade for the course depends on your ability to demonstrate these Student Learning Outcomes. AI generated work does not meet these criteria.
Some of the activity descriptions are being updated (with Gemini’s help) to prompt your own critical thinking and personal comments about the important topics addressed throughout the course.
If you submit work that appears to be overly assisted by AI and/or a directed workflow, your work will receive a grade of ZERO until you either resubmit something more acceptable or show me why I should accept your work as is.
If you have questions or comments, please let me know.
* This is in response to discussions with the DeAnza department administration about requirements for further action on issues of Academic Dishonesty and support for a failing grade in the course.
… So, now I’m following up with the suggestions from Gemini to end-run some of the assignment descriptions that could be exploited. This is clearly just the beginning of the next “game of school” with new players and new rules and new cheats.
Most of the other students are willing to do the work and it is a great learning experience for all of us. All these diverse interests bring a wealth of information that is shared and makes up a significant portion of the course content. I’m “the guide on the side”. The online asynchronous discussion format is flexible to accommodate the students’ demands of family, work and school. It allows us to explore new technologies as they emerge, often here first in Silicon Valley. Local knowledge and personal experiences provide context. AI misses all the good bits.
There have been many changes happening to education over the decades. They have been ignored, rejected and even embraced. This one will be particularly challenging.
I’m disappointed and sad for the student who clearly is not deriving anything interesting and important from the course content. Just the same old “what do I have to do to get an A?”
2026.7.19 additional thought – For the most part over the years, I haven’t had problems with “cheating”. Most of the assignments and discussions required individual research, selecting an online resource and making a comment in response to a specific prompt. Canned answers are not readily available.
Occasionally, a student appeared to take the work of another student in the class and submit it as their own. As I usually grade these as a group, I can often tell if something sounds familiar and check. Submissions are date and time stamped, so it is pretty easy to see which was the original work. Students will sometimes rat on another student, alerting me to a copying incident.
This is something completely different. AI workflows are a “thing” – set up the prompts and the hand-off points, provide user names, password and access to another process and set it in motion. It isn’t very hard to do. Lots of people with very little prior technical knowledge have published reports of their accomplishments. I’m just surprised that it has happened this soon and in MY course. I admit I shouldn’t be. We are in the epicenter of technical innovation.
The last big disrupter in education was searchable essays and TurnItIn. Not a problem for my courses. There are no fixed assignments with high-stakes testing or essays. Demonstrate that you got something about each topic by doing all the activities, submit them on time, get an A. That has worked great for years, until now.
Educators and students alike have access to the free or cheap AI and associated processing tools. The stakes are high – college credits at minimum effort and cost vs the institution’s reputation, academic integrity and accountability for student learning outcomes. It is going to be interesting.
2026.7.21 .. to Barbara’s friend Chesa
So here’s my problem. I had a zoom meeting with the student yesterday – audio only, he never turned on his camera although I had mine on initially.
He claims that he does all the course work himself. He is taking 5 classes in summer session and had taken 8 in Spring. He claims to have spent 12 hours on the midterm alone (worth 6 points in a course total of 200+).
Most of his discussion and assignment submissions are 3-5 times longer than required and/or compared with other good students. Lots of AI-checker red flags throughout all his work. He never provides the replies to other students that are required and graded.
He swears he is just a really good student, getting all As because he wants to go to Stanford or Berkeley. He claims that the academic writing proves that he is a very good student. Personally, I have my doubts.
I suggested that I would accept less formal, more personal submissions that would take him less time, acknowledging his very heavy summer schedule. Nope, can’t do that.
Gemini provided a step-by-step set of prompts for a workflow that would take a page with the module activities and assignments, do the research, write the responses, save them as Google docs and pdfs AND submit them to Canvas. These connectors didn’t exist 3-6 months ago. This is probably something new as he could not have done this before.
Have you come across anything similar? Do you or others have suggestions for dealing with this and/or other AI-related forms of academic dishonesty? Detecting isn’t difficult. Need help figuring out what to do about it. Gemini described it as “a game of cat and mouse”.
lectric library 