Forum menu
For me, it's not the words as such, it's the sentence structure and grammar. It's just too good 😊
Devil's advocate here but the writing didn't exactly strike me as world-beating and potentially someone may be adept at explaining something in written form and poor at verbally expressing themselves, especially if they're young.
On the other hand, yeah they probably used ChatGPT. I mean if you've no way of ascertaining this, not surprising that's what they've done.
Or reward for sensible use of AI..?
In this case clearly not, "sensible" would be ask the AI to do something, then proof read it for accuracy. If you don't already know the answer then it's not sensible.
In complex technical cases, the outcome frequently depends on the testimony provided by an expert, be it a medical specialist or a forensic scientist.
Essentially, these experts are expected to possess superior knowledge in their respected fields compared to legal professionals or laypeople, like jurors
Well this is not an accurate statement of what an expert witness is in the eyes of a court in E&W. The technical distinction between an expert witness and an ordinary witness is that experts are allowed to give their opinion (in areas within their expertise), ordinary witnesses aren't.
I remember when I was doing my final year project, I went to talk to my professor about it - at the time I knocked on his door he was grading some work from the first years and he showed me one of the submissions. A quick Google and it pulled up the exact paper that the student had cribbed the entire piece from, word for word. The first sentence was a giveaway - students just don't write like that.
I wouldn't fancy trying to be a teacher now with AI tools but that is too fluid a writing style. The words I can give or take but the flow and style of the writing is too good to be an A-level or first year uni student. It reads like it's been through - at the very least - a good sub-editor, if not entirely crafted from grammerly or a full AI writing tool.
That's the sort of piece that gets submitted to subject specialist publications.
[i]then proof read it for accuracy.[/i]
I'd say, rewrite it in your own words
they said it was, with a thesaurus,
Which thesaurus?
Walk me through how you found that word.
Psychological studies including research by lotfus et al, indicate that factors like the timing of the event, discussion with others, the passage of time and questioning methods in court can influence witness’ memory and testimony. This casts doubt on the validity of eye witness evidence, as memories may lack accuracy, especially over extended periods or in heightened focus on specific details such as ‘weapon focus’. In complex technical cases, the outcome frequently depends on the testimony provided by an expert, be it a medical specialist or a forensic scientist. Essentially, these experts are expected to possess superior knowledge in their respected fields compared to legal professionals or laypeople, like jurors
Presumably the difficult words aren't in this extract? And this:
I’ve never studied Criminology but reckon I could explain what that passage meant if asked to.
Is it possible that they've asked a parent for some input? I often help my kids out with school/uni work, but am conscious that anything I tell them will sound very different from what they'd write themselves.
Is it possible that they’ve asked a parent for some input?
I would put that quality of sentence construction beyond all but a few of the parents too. There is something too perfectly cadenced about it.
What’s the answer? Qualifications more exam based? Or reward for sensible use of AI..?
I would imagine they would have to go down the more exam based results - that way the qualification issuing body, be it school or university know it's a true reflection of the students ability.
Speaking as someone who did better at Uni in reports I could write / an edit at leisure compared to exams it does kinda suck though
.. and can’t quite verbal explain some of the harder vocabulary and phrasing used
Are we just glossing over this? I blame the teaching if the kids are going to AI tools to generate their work 😉 (Autocorrect I'm sure).
Talk to them about how impressed you are with their work, tell them you are recommending them for a specially selected group where they'll get to write similar pieces with other talented kids, in exam like conditions of course, see if the blood drains out of their face or not. Or commend them for completing the essay to a higher than usual grade that made you suspicious of the standard but that no tools could prove wrong doing, you'll remain focussed on their tool use in future though (if they don't even get the reference to the original text more fool them).
Grammarly, tutor or parent.
Grammarly would be fine no? Writing doesn't look anything world beating to me.
Chat GPT is not able to knock out an essay on any subject that would fool anyone with expert knowledge, yet. Right now ask it for 1,000 words and it will give you 500 and tell you to do the rest yourself to save on compute cost.
This students writing is good, but not this good.
But their use of apostrophes is spot on. Sorry. I tried to resist. Also plenty of folks on here use words and terms whilst being somewhat hazy as to their meanings.
Though looking at the quoted piece I don't see any difficult vocab, besides maybe "forensic" which gets used incorrectly so much these days its meaning has pretty much drifted to just meaning detailed/accurate/logical.
Would AI have failed to capitalise “loftus” and not punctuated “et al” correctly?
"OK, rewrite that but include a couple of punctuation mistakes"
TBH if it is AI then they're not very good at using it as they should have asked it to be written in the style of a teenager.
Which probably points more to the fact that they have used AI.
No easy answer at the moment as content checkers are prone to getting things wrong.
Seems to me that we're in a transitional phase at the moment and many will sneak through. Answer eventually has to be to work with these systems, have students debate and challenge AI (using journals/books and the "field"), and make better use in-class discussions. Landing spot has to be better equipped students that are able to dissect and solve problems (be these criminology-based or otherwise), critically evaluate AI and other sources and, hopefully(!), use the wealth of tools to come up with new and better insights and solutions.
https://www.tutor2u.net/psychology/reference/example-answer-for-question-10-paper-1-a-level-psychology-june-2017-aqa Rookie error not to put the year of the paper in the reference. Looks AI to me, but I learned about the study today.
Surely parents willing to put in a decent level of help will at least make the kid write it in their own words at least. It's too sharp and too well edited to be from an A-level student who has never previously produced work of that caliber.
As for the defence that they used a thesaurus without even understanding the the resulting words and then produced that. Nonsense.
They claimed they used an online thesaurus
Not technically lying as ChatGPT is pretty much a thesaurus? Chapeau I say considering it's a criminal class.
They were fine on the themes- as I would expect, they are smart and have had it explained in class.
OK - so since you are not really marking the English would it be cheating if they said to ChatGPT - write me a paragraph that explains: "Lofus' studies on witness memory, and mentions time and weapon focus, then describes the importance of expert witnesses." Sometimes to get sensible output form AI you are going to need to give it useful input. The knowledge you are hoping your students can demonstrate is the right input!
I've not tried but I assume you can give AI an essay and ask it to improve the English? Is that different from the kid with interested / intelligent / committed parents asking them to go review an essay? or someone with a Tutor who is "over coaching" (a very real issue for coursework I believe)? or if the student is really interested in the topic and ask a friend of a parent for some input? what if the friend was not a criminologist but just provided the english?
Whilst i think its right to highlight the bits they wrote about but don't understand a counterview might be that there is a danger that everyone in your class is now not going to bother putting in the effort in case you accuse them of cheating? Its bad enough in schools with other pupils thinking it is not cool to be smart without the teacher implying the same.
They used cited, rationales, encompass, parties (as in court room) and unconcious assumptions and couldn’t explain them verbally.
Ah now I understand why Borris kept saying there were no parties...
Parental help- maybe. But they didn’t mention it when questioned … Which might harm their defence…
Did you caution them before you started your quasi-judicial process? You could ask them to right an essay on how that could jeopardise their right to a fair hearing and see what they produce!
Defo looks like ChatGPT to me
Have they ever used the phrase 'be it' before? In that context I would have expected most children to say 'such as' (I think!)
AI was my initial thought, although I have zero experience of it.
If you're looking to ascertain whether it's AI or adult written (i.e. not his work) surely you need to look at how it compares to his other work & use of language. I suspect that it will stand out by it's differences.
Whether you can prove it, to the satisfaction of a third party, is something else entirely.
I assume you can give AI an essay and ask it to improve the English? Is that different from the kid with interested / intelligent / committed parents asking them to go review an essay? or someone with a Tutor who is “over coaching” (a very real issue for coursework I believe)?
This is a good and interesting point - AI for reducing inequalities based on parental interest and input. Also a kid using AI is also using their initiative more than one coached by a parent.
I have had similar stuff with marking engineering apprentices work. If you can't prove it then in reality you probably have to let it slide. If as you say the student is failry average then one piece of work with a high grade is not really going to affect his overal grade.
Does it matter in the grand scheme of things, if you have no access to turnitin then you've been open to plagiarism for the entire time, so maybe worth less focus on the specific and more discussion on the generic within your school.
Was the reference provided in the report, or is this a classic case of lifting a reference to a scientific paper without actually referencing it in their report, or as a footnote at least in a smaller report?
Use of a thesaurus is usually what you do when you're plagiarising to try and cheat turnitin, so is he practicing for uni as well 🤣
If you’re looking to ascertain whether it’s AI or adult written (i.e. not his work) surely you need to look at how it compares to his other work & use of language. I suspect that it will stand out by it’s differences.
This is a quantum leap better than the previous work. The previous work was good, not better than the textbook good.
Is that different from the kid with interested / intelligent / committed parents asking them to go review an essay? or someone with a Tutor who is “over coaching”
I'd hope all those people would get them to write the information in their own words.
I’d be giving them bonus marks for using the tools they will be using when they get out in the big bad world.
I suggested several times if that is their writing, they should be considering a job involving writing. They said something along the lines of I hate writing and will not be doing that for a living. Yet wrote the excellent prose above.
Whether you can prove it, to the satisfaction of a third party, is something else entirely
Yep, that's my question. I'm quite sure it's not theirs. I wasn't sure enough to outright accuse them of using ai before running it through the checker Brucewee linked to.
I don't think the checker counts as proof, but it's pretty convincing in conjunction with the previous work.
"
Did you caution them before you started your quasi-judicial process? You could ask them to right an essay on how that could jeopardise their right to a fair hearing and see what they produce!
Applause!
No I did not, it's not going to a court of law!
OK – so since you are not really marking the English would it be cheating if they said to ChatGPT – write me a paragraph that explains: “Lofus’ studies on witness memory, and mentions time and weapon focus, then describes the importance of expert witnesses.”
It is be cheating as they have handed it in as their own work and said they have written it. And said to my face when questioned yes I have written it.
@greyspoke
Free Member
In complex technical cases, the outcome frequently depends on the testimony provided by an expert, be it a medical specialist or a forensic scientist.Essentially, these experts are expected to possess superior knowledge in their respected fields compared to legal professionals or laypeople, like jurors
Well this is not an accurate statement of what an expert witness is in the eyes of a court in E&W. The technical distinction between an expert witness and an ordinary witness is that experts are allowed to give their opinion (in areas within their expertise), ordinary witnesses aren’t
Oh, I should have spotted that in! Too busy wondering about the suddenly awesome writing.
Have you tried putting the essay question into Chat GPT?
It looks un-naturally written. AFAIK ChatGPT will construct prose based on what is plausible, by assigning a weighting to words and where they are used in a sentence. This is why it's good for popular topics, but has a tendency to invent facts or get stuck on very niche subjects.
It reads like it’s been through – at the very least – a good sub-editor, if not entirely crafted from grammerly or a full AI writing tool.
I specifically asked and they said they had not used grammerly. I've not tried grammerly, but I've had to watch a lot of adverts for it.
I got so sick of over quoting and poor referencing in assessments that I binned take- home assessments in one module I taught (Law Masters). Students got a question in advance but could only take into the exam room a list of references they submitted in advance for vetting. It wasn't perfect, but it was fairer overall I think. This was both for essay and problem type questions.
There was still the problem of the dissertation though.
Is this assessed work for a vocational course?
Not having turnitin or equivalent is a PITA. It really annoys me that Pearsons and OFSTED don’t ask what plagerism checker you’re using when they do in inspection or external verification
The only thing that’s not been suggested that I’ve heard of people trying is asking them to read it allowed.
Or ask for earlier edits. If they used word and cloud storage they did be able to show you a pre thesaurus edit
I’ve also been told you can really polish your work by addressing every grammar issue raised by word
Does your employer have a plagerism policy for you to follow?
Maybe time to take things up a level on the questioning...
Is criminology the qualification with the 6 hours of writing under controlled conditions? Just say you expect the same standard in both
Ask them what “et al” means
Well durrrrr... It's the Israeli national airline init? Everyone know that. Tsssk 🙃
I'm reminded of when my brother and his wife and my niece were up for christmas a few years back. There was input from a least 3 adults into the coursework she was doing over the hols. I suppose if you have an experienced teacher and other professionals more or less writing your assignment it will be a good effort.
My niece did subsequently get a maths degree from Oxford so the help at home presumably did no harm.
Which is why I think an assessment under proper exam conditions is essential. Not everyone has the same quality of assistance at home.
I've not read the whole thread, so forgive me if I'm repeating someone, but you just need to do a viva on the student. Get them in face-to-face and ask them direct questions.
If they have coherent answers then there is evidence that they have understood the topic and possibly done the work.
If they can't answer a thing then it's all b****x.
This is how it will be going at university soon (I'm a lecturer).
ps I once wrote an essay on eyewitness testimony, but it was a long time ago so I can't say if that's my essay, sorry.
I was once asked to proofread and give feedback on an MSc student's dissertation. I was terribly flattered to find whole paragraphs that had been copied word-for-word from a journal paper that *I* had written...
call his bluff and go large - tell him that given it’s the best work you’ve ever seen you are inviting professors from oxbridge to come and evaluate him for genius qualities and early entry, and that you have scheduled him to give a q&a in front of the school so anyone can ask questions about his prowess and amazing writing and knowledge skills - and you’ll get the press in to cover it for the local news - invite his parents too - it really is outstanding work that needs to be rewarded
Ai, then something like quillbot to rewrite it
It's unlikey to be plagiarised given the errors a peer reviewer would pick up on first read:
like = such as
loftus et al, = Loftus et al.,
witness' memory = witness memory
eye witness = eyewitness
like jurors = such as jurors
The commas in the sentence starting "This casts..." make it hard to read.
As for A.I. or whatever, no idea. It reads fine, it's just good use of language with nothing particuarly specialist in the way of vocabulary; which words couldn't they explain? I'm sure I used words I'd have had trouble explaining in my uni exams but I remembered them and knew I was placing them correctly in the sentences.
This juror votes not guilty.
It’s unlikey to be plagiarised given the errors a peer reviewer would pick up on first read:
you can plagiarise stuff that has not been peer reviewed
peer reviewers consider the substance not the grammar (unless it makes the substance unclear) - journal editors may or may not make such changes, I’ve reviewed about 30 papers for science journals - perhaps 20 have been outright rejections, half the rest have had major corrections, but even the remaining 10% ish have mostly not been as well written as this and I don’t go through arguing whether like should be such as etc.
A sub editor would likely fix Eyewitness and Loftus et al, but I’ve seen worse in print!
IMHO witness’ is correct in the context.
Just set the same question as a quick test after the holidays.
They claimed they used an online thesaurus.
I was suspicious.
Using a thesaurus without understanding leads to really clunky writing which that isn’t.
Have you spoken to other teachers? Particularly any that have taught them English over a period of years?
I got a philosophy essay from a pupil a few years back (pre AI) and my first thought was, 'this is either the best piece of work I've ever received from a pupil or the most skillfully plagiarised'. Either way i was impressed.
I took it to an English teacher who'd taught them for a few years and they said it was definitely their's, they had demonstrated exceptional writing ability from the start of high school.