Academic integrity is a foundational component of English 100. While our syllabus statement discusses academic honesty, the framework of academic integrity versus misconduct reframes the conversation from one of “right and wrong” to one that emphasizes responsibility, respect for others’ ideas, and personal growth and learning. English 100 emphasizes process-based writing and the value of writing to learn. As such, avoid centering conversations of plagiarism, cheating, and overuse of generative AI tools on an Academic Dishonesty Framework, which emphasizes surveillance and policing; instead, consider an Academic Integrity Framework that invites a broader discussion about the respect, responsibility, and transparency involved in academic conversations.

English 100’s Academic Integrity Policy (on Syllabus)

The University of Wisconsin-Madison and the English 100 Program expect students to (1) present their own work honestly and transparently, and (2) to credit others responsibly and with care. University policy states: “Academic honesty and integrity are fundamental to the mission of higher education and of the University of Wisconsin system” (Wisconsin Administrative Code 14.01).

Plagiarism and academic dishonesty are serious offenses, and they can occur in drafts as well as in final papers. They can also happen intentionally and unintentionally. Because this course relies heavily on sharing knowledge and information in the learning and writing processes, it is important that [students] learn how to work with sources without plagiarizing. Be sure to read about the definitions of plagiarism in the course reading on “Policies.” If [students] have questions about citing sources or what constitutes academic misconduct, please talk with [instructor].

The University of Wisconsin-Madison has established a range of penalties for students guilty of plagiarism or academic dishonesty. Appropriate penalties include a reduced grade, a failing grade for an assignment, a failing grade for the course, or even suspension or expulsion from the university. All instances of suspected plagiarism are reported to the English 100 administration and may be reported to the Dean of Students. For more information, see http://students.wisc.edu/doso/acadintegrity.html.

Academic Integrity Tools

Policing student behavior can have negative effects on student engagement and overall development, particularly in the case of Generative AI. Studies have shown AI writing detectors are often inaccurate (particularly for second-language learners and other speakers of alternative Englishes), and their use can reward more technologically savvy and privileged students who are able to use strategies to evade detection. Ultimately, Generative AI will always evolve to evade detection, so we suggest alternative approaches and methods if improper use of tools and/or sources is suspected.

If you would like to use detection tools, make sure you are transparent about this action. Submitting student work to software like Turnitin should only be done with explicit permission from students, since submissions will be archived in these programs. If you know you will use Turnitin or other detection softwares, you should indicate so on your syllabus and provide students an opportunity to decline their use.

Academic Integrity Procedure

If you encounter Academic Integrity issues — whether plagiarism or Generative AI use — we recommend the following process. We also recommend telling students from the start of the semester how you will deal with issues of possible academic misconduct.

Have a Conversation with the Student

Ask the student to meet during your office hours. Approach the subject conversationally, rather than combatively. The goal is to build on the instructor-student relationships, rather than dismantle it. At the same time, we recognize that situations like this put strain on that relationship and affect instructors emotionally. It’s common to feel a sense of betrayal, frustration, or disbelief when encountering instances that may be academic misconduct. So, wait to email the the student until you have taken some time to acknowledge and work through any negative emotions. Try to start from a place of generosity, support, and collaboration. If you feel the need for a mediator, feel free to reach out to a member of the E100 admin team; be aware, though, that any additional participants in the conversation might cause the student to feel defensive.

Ask the Student to Explain Their Writing Process in Detail

Start with questions about the student’s approach to the assignment, their drafting process, and the help they may have received on the project, particularly if 1) there are elements of the writing process missing (i.e. drafts or process work) or 2) the reflective components of the project are underdeveloped or disconnected from the work you see. Ask the student to speak specifically and concretely about their process and the steps they took. You may find that they struggled with aspects of the project or got overwhelmed, and they either inadvertently or purposefully used a tool in a way that does not reflect academic integrity. At that point, you can discuss opportunities for revision and recommendations for adjusting the student’s process to avoid similar situations.

Ask the Student to Explain Their Rhetorical Choices

Invite the student to talk about their ideas they are expressing in this project and the rhetorical choices they made throughout the assignment. Ask them to connect those ideas to the learning outcomes or the goals of the assignment. If they are struggling to do so, this doesn’t automatically mean they received outsized assistance; they might be nervous or unsure. Consider giving them time to read through their work and rephrase it. Ask them to connect the work on the page with their writing process.

Discuss the Assignment Itself:

How the Assignment Differs from the Student’s Previous Writing

Students are often unaware of their personal writing voices and how their instructors come to know their writing styles throughout the semester. Be specific about where you see this assignment diverging from their norm. However, if you cannot point to anything specific, then avoid taking this route. If you are able to identify clear differences, ask the student why they made these rhetorical choices, and how they came to these decisions.

Articulate What Aspects of the Work may Reflect Plagiarized or Generative AI Writing

In the case of plagiarism or misuse of sources, show students where in their work they faltered, perhaps also showing the plagiarized text in conjunction with the student’s work. Often misuse of sources is unintentional, and so show students how to fix their errors and provide them with the chance to revise (either for full credit or at a penalty, depending on assignment guidelines, assessment criteria, and previous feedback). If the misuse is egregious, discuss next steps (you may want to reach out to the E100 admin team to talk options).

In the case of Generative AI, talk about the qualities of poor AI writing: vagueness, repeated phrases, hyperbole, source hallucinations, etc. Show where these exist in the assignment. Be aware that some of these qualities can also be hallmarks of second-language writers or inexperienced writers as they work to sound confident and “academic.” To that end, avoid taking an accusatory stance, but connect what you see with the outcomes of the assignment.

Be Specific about How the Assignment Does Not Accomplish the Outcomes of the Assignment

Our main suggestion is to always focus on the connection between the assignment and the learning outcomes for both the sequence and the assignment itself. Ultimately, if you are in this situation, the assignment likely is not a strong piece of writing that reflects significant implementation of the learning outcomes, regardless of plagiarism and/or Generative AI use. If that is the case, discuss the goals of the assignment with the student, and ask them to consider how the assignment does or does not accomplish these goals. Additionally, you may point to the AI guidelines, which should be on the assignment sheet. Talk through how the student may have used these tools and what the impact was of that usage, in regard to the outcomes.

Discuss Next Steps

Your goal should be to foreground the student’s learning. Even if the student does not admit to academic misconduct, the assignment still likely does not reflect the outcomes of the assignment. After your discussion, articulate the next steps for the student. If the situation happens in the midst of the semester, we recommend allowing the student to rewrite and resubmit the assignment, either for full credit or for a slight grade deduction. If the student does not wish to do so, let them know what the outcome will be, in terms of both grades and future procedures; make sure your grading is consistent across all students. Additionally, let the student know what will happen if future issues emerge.

If the academic misconduct occurs at the end of the semester, you have less time for restitution; you may not even be able to get in touch with the student. At this point, feel free to discuss the situation with the English 100 admin team to discuss options, either during or outside of the final grade check-in.

Department Academic Misconduct Procedures
(from David Zimmerman, director of Undergraduate Studies, English Department)

If you suspect a student of academic misconduct (e.g., plagiarism), you must go through the formal steps outlined here. After meeting with the student, if you determine they committed academic misconduct and you intend to apply a sanction (e.g., no credit on the assignment), you must follow the formal process outlined on the link. This process gives students a formal opportunity to contest the charges or choose a restorative route.

In the case of Generative AI, if the student violates your course policy, and if you wish to sanction the student for it (after meeting with the student, etc.), then it should go through the official UW process. This is in part an equity issue: students should have the right to contest a charge they feel is inaccurate. (These cases are not appealed at the department-level but are instead appealed at the university-level.)

However, if you have questions or are unsure if you should go through the above process, please reach out to a member of the E100 administrative team. We’d be happy to figure out a plan with you.