Latest news with #SabrinaLuk
The Star
4 hours ago
- The Star
Panel with AI experts to review appeal of Singapore university student penalised for academic misconduct
SINGAPORE: A panel with artificial intelligence experts convened by the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) will assess the appeal of one of the three university students who were penalised for AI usage in their submitted work. All three of them were given zero marks for an essay as part of a module on health, disease outbreaks and politics at the School of Social Sciences. In response to queries, NTU said on June 26 that it had met two of the students in separate face-to-face consultations this week to discuss their cases. The objective of the consultation for the first student was to assess the grounds for appeal and not to make any conclusions about the specifics of her case, said a spokeswoman. For the second student, her request for an appeal was rejected, as 'the student had admitted to using Gen AI for the essay and had shared how it was used prior to the preliminary inquiry in April', she added. The third student told The Straits Times that he did not submit an appeal. NTU said the first student has formally submitted her appeal to the university, adding that details cannot be provided while this process is ongoing. This student had first recounted her experience of being questioned if she had used AI for an essay by her instructor, Assistant Professor Sabrina Luk, in a Reddit post on June 19. In the post, she claimed she was accused of using AI for a final essay for a particular module because she had made errors in her citations and used a reference organiser. A reference organiser is a software tool that helps collect and organise references and citations. The student, who is in her third year reading public policy and global affairs, said she had provided proof of her writing process but was not met with leniency. This included a time-lapse of her writing recorded by Draftback, a Google Chrome extension that records one's writing process. She was told she had committed academic fraud, resulting in a permanent academic warning and a drop in her grade point average. She requested to remain anonymous. She told ST that during this week's consultation, a panel consisting of senior academics reviewed her essay paragraph by paragraph and allowed her to explain her writing process, and show how she used the reference organiser. In a Reddit post on June 26, she said that she would do her best to get grades for the other components of the assignment apart from the citations. 'But if this last attempt fails, then I'll treat this as a lesson that sometimes things are unfair, but we move forward,' she said. The second student told ST that she felt 'hopeless' at the outcome of her request for an appeal. She said she had used AI only for background research and did not include any generated responses from ChatGPT in her essay. Her ChatGPT history and essay was shown during the proceedings. She said she was not aware that using ChatGPT for background research was not allowed because of NTU's AI policy and was not asked to submit any academic integrity form. In general, students are allowed to use Gen AI in their assignments, the spokeswoman told ST. 'As part of academic integrity, students are asked to declare any use of AI and how they are being used,' she said. 'When using AI, students are ultimately responsible for the content generated. They must ensure factual accuracy and cite all sources properly.' She added that some instructors may disallow the use of Gen AI for specific pedagogical reasons. In this case, the professor had disallowed AI use for a specific written assignment to assess students' research skills, their originality and independent thinking. The professor's briefing slides to students, which were seen by ST, said: 'The use of ChatGPT and other AI tools are not allowed in the development or generation of the essay proposal or the long essay. 'You will receive a zero mark for the assignment if you are caught using ChatGPT and other AI for writing assignments.' The spokeswoman said the university remains committed to its goal of equipping students with the knowledge and skills to use AI technologies 'productively, ethically and critically'. 'If AI is not allowed, the reasons are communicated to students, so they understand the course instructor's desired learning outcomes.' - The Straits Times/ANN
AsiaOne
8 hours ago
- AsiaOne
Panel with AI experts to review appeal of NTU student penalised for academic misconduct, Singapore News
SINGAPORE - A panel with artificial intelligence experts convened by the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) will assess the appeal of one of the three university students who were penalised for AI usage in their submitted work. All three of them were given zero marks for an essay as part of a module on health, disease outbreaks and politics at the School of Social Sciences. In response to queries, NTU said on June 26 that it had met two of the students in separate face-to-face consultations this week to discuss their cases. The objective of the consultation for the first student was to assess the grounds for appeal and not to make any conclusions about the specifics of her case, said a spokeswoman. For the second student, her request for an appeal was rejected, as 'the student had admitted to using Gen AI for the essay and had shared how it was used prior to the preliminary inquiry in April', she added. The third student told The Straits Times that he did not submit an appeal. NTU said the first student has formally submitted her appeal to the university, adding that details cannot be provided while this process is ongoing. This student had first recounted her experience of being questioned if she had used AI for an essay by her instructor, Assistant Professor Sabrina Luk, in a Reddit post on June 19. In the post, she claimed she was accused of using AI for a final essay for a particular module because she had made errors in her citations and used a reference organiser. A reference organiser is a software tool that helps collect and organise references and citations. The student, who is in her third year reading public policy and global affairs, said she had provided proof of her writing process but was not met with leniency. This included a time-lapse of her writing recorded by Draftback, a Google Chrome extension that records one's writing process. She was told she had committed academic fraud, resulting in a permanent academic warning and a drop in her grade point average. She requested to remain anonymous. [[nid:719386]] She told ST that during this week's consultation, a panel consisting of senior academics reviewed her essay paragraph by paragraph and allowed her to explain her writing process, and show how she used the reference organiser. In a Reddit post on June 26, she said that she would do her best to get grades for the other components of the assignment apart from the citations. 'But if this last attempt fails, then I'll treat this as a lesson that sometimes things are unfair, but we move forward,' she said. The second student told ST that she felt 'hopeless' at the outcome of her request for an appeal. She said she had used AI only for background research and did not include any generated responses from ChatGPT in her essay. Her ChatGPT history and essay was shown during the proceedings. She said she was not aware that using ChatGPT for background research was not allowed because of NTU's AI policy and was not asked to submit any academic integrity form. University's stance on using AI In general, students are allowed to use Gen AI in their assignments, the spokeswoman told ST. 'As part of academic integrity, students are asked to declare any use of AI and how they are being used,' she said. 'When using AI, students are ultimately responsible for the content generated. They must ensure factual accuracy and cite all sources properly.' She added that some instructors may disallow the use of Gen AI for specific pedagogical reasons. In this case, the professor had disallowed AI use for a specific written assignment to assess students' research skills, their originality and independent thinking. The professor's briefing slides to students, which were seen by ST, said: 'The use of ChatGPT and other AI tools are not allowed in the development or generation of the essay proposal or the long essay. 'You will receive a zero mark for the assignment if you are caught using ChatGPT and other AI for writing assignments.' The spokeswoman said the university remains committed to its goal of equipping students with the knowledge and skills to use AI technologies 'productively, ethically and critically'. 'If AI is not allowed, the reasons are communicated to students, so they understand the course instructor's desired learning outcomes.' [[nid:676571]] This article was first published in The Straits Times . Permission required for reproduction.
Straits Times
17 hours ago
- Straits Times
Panel with AI experts to review appeal of NTU student penalised for academic misconduct
The student is one of three who were given zero marks for an essay as part of a module on health, disease outbreaks and politics. ST PHOTO: KEVIN LIM SINGAPORE - A panel with artificial intelligence experts convened by the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) will assess the appeal of one of the three university students who were penalised for AI usage in their submitted work. All three of them were given zero marks for an essay as part of a module on health, disease outbreaks and politics at the School of Social Sciences. In response to queries, NTU said on June 26 that it had met two of the students in separate face-to-face consultations this week to discuss their cases. The objective of the consultation for the first student was to assess the grounds for appeal and not to make any conclusions about the specifics of her case, said a spokeswoman. For the second student, her request for an appeal was rejected, as 'the student had admitted to using Gen AI for the essay and had shared how it was used prior to the preliminary inquiry in April', she added. The third student told The Straits Times that he did not submit an appeal. NTU said the first student has formally submitted her appeal to the university, adding that details cannot be provided while this process is ongoing. This student had first recounted her experience of being questioned if she had used AI for an essay by her instructor, Assistant Professor Sabrina Luk, in a Reddit post on June 19. In the post, she claimed she was accused of using AI for a final essay for a particular module because she had made errors in her citations and used a reference organiser. A reference organiser is a software tool that helps collect and organise references and citations. The student, who is in her third year reading public policy and global affairs, said she had provided proof of her writing process but was not met with leniency. This included a time-lapse of her writing recorded by Draftback, a Google Chrome extension that records one's writing process. She was told she had committed academic fraud, resulting in a permanent academic warning and a drop in her grade point average. She requested to remain anonymous. She told ST that during this week's consultation, a panel consisting of senior academics reviewed her essay paragraph by paragraph and allowed her to explain her writing process, and show how she used the reference organiser. In a Reddit post on June 26, she said that she would do her best to get grades for the other components of the assignment apart from the citations. 'But if this last attempt fails, then I'll treat this as a lesson that sometimes things are unfair, but we move forward,' she said. The second student told ST that she felt 'hopeless' at the outcome of her request for an appeal. She said she had used AI only for background research and did not include any generated responses from ChatGPT in her essay. Her ChatGPT history and essay was shown during the proceedings. She said she was not aware that using ChatGPT for background research was not allowed because of NTU's AI policy and was not asked to submit any academic integrity form. University's stance on using AI In general, students are allowed to use Gen AI in their assignments, the spokeswoman told ST. 'As part of academic integrity, students are asked to declare any use of AI and how they are being used,' she said. 'When using AI, students are ultimately responsible for the content generated. They must ensure factual accuracy and cite all sources properly.' She added that some instructors may disallow the use of Gen AI for specific pedagogical reasons. In this case, the professor had disallowed AI use for a specific written assignment to assess students' research skills, their originality and independent thinking. The professor's briefing slides to students, which were seen by ST, said: 'The use of ChatGPT and other AI tools are not allowed in the development or generation of the essay proposal or the long essay. 'You will receive a zero mark for the assignment if you are caught using ChatGPT and other AI for writing assignments.' The spokeswoman said the university remains committed to its goal of equipping students with the knowledge and skills to use AI technologies 'productively, ethically and critically'. 'If AI is not allowed, the reasons are communicated to students, so they understand the course instructor's desired learning outcomes.' Join ST's WhatsApp Channel and get the latest news and must-reads.
CNA
a day ago
- CNA
NTU to convene panel with AI experts to consider appeal of student accused of academic fraud
SINGAPORE: Nanyang Technological University (NTU) will convene an appeal review panel that will include artificial intelligence experts following accusations that a student committed academic fraud by using generative AI tools. A spokesperson from the university said on Thursday (Jun 26) that the school met two out of the three students who were accused of academic misconduct for face-to-face consultations this week. The objective of the consultation was to assess the grounds for appeal, and no conclusions were made. One student's appeal was processed following the consultation, while the other student's was rejected, the spokesperson said. The former student had uploaded a post on Reddit last Thursday, detailing her account of being accused of misusing generative AI by her instructor, Assistant Professor Sabrina Luk. After submitting an essay for a module on health, disease outbreaks and politics at the School of Social Sciences in April, she received an email from Asst Prof Luk questioning whether she had used AI tools in her assignment. In response, the student provided a time-lapse video of her writing process, recorded using the Google Chrome extension Draftback to prove that she had written the essay. However, as she had alphabetised her citations on Study Crumb, an AI-powered essay writing site, she was told that she had committed academic fraud. She received a zero for the assignment, which had a weightage of 45 per cent, and received a 'D' grade. A "FAIR HEARING" When the student received her grade in early June, she paid S$40 (US$31) to file a formal appeal. The school arranged for a consultation with a panel of faculty members, which CNA understands comprised an academic chair, the head of her programme and an associate provost. During the consultation, which lasted for two hours, the student was given the opportunity to demonstrate her writing process and show how the alphabetiser worked. She was also tested on her understanding of various academic sources and asked how she retrieved them. According to the student, the panel agreed that the alphabetiser she used was not considered generative AI. They also reassured her that while the academic misconduct would be filed internally, it would not be reflected in her permanent academic record. 'I'm just glad that the hearing was fair, that there was a proper panel this time,' she told CNA, adding that her instructor had previously shut her down and said there was 'no negotiation'. Her next step is to wait for the outcome of the appeal – her final move before she's 'exhausted everything', she said. NOT THE SAME OUTCOME Two other students from the same class were also accused of academic fraud and received a zero for their assignment. One of them had used citation generator Citation Machine and ChatGPT to organise her citations. As there were mistakes in her bibliography, her work was flagged as potentially AI-generated. When Asst Prof Luk questioned whether she had used AI tools, the student disclosed she had used ChatGPT for 'minimal' background research. In her ChatGPT transcript, seen by CNA, the student asked the tool for help with research for a project examining COVID-19 responses. In one out of the five prompts, she requested a statistic related to the number of COVID-19 cases. The student said she did not use the suggested number in her essay. "I accept responsibility that there were errors and there was negligence," she told CNA. "But the punishment being meted out is nowhere near proportionate.' When her efforts to reach the school's academic integrity officer for clarification fell through, she spent the next two months trying to get her case heard. On Wednesday, the student had a meeting with two faculty members, including an associate chair from the School of Social Sciences. However, the outcome of her meeting was 'very different' from the first student's, she said. She said the panel faulted her for using ChatGPT when there was "explicit" mention that AI tools could not be used, and that her penalty still stood. 'I didn't use (ChatGPT) to write anything, not even one line of my essay,' she said. 'They're holding me for the fact that I use it for research … if you're going to fault me for that, how are you going to hold every student for that?' In response to queries from CNA, the spokesperson said the school had rejected the appeal request because the student had 'admitted to using Gen AI for the essay and had shared how it was used' back in April, in her initial hearing with her instructor. The spokesperson added that some instructors may disallow the use of generative AI for 'specific pedagogical reasons'. 'In this case, the professor had disallowed AI use for a specific written assignment to assess students' research skills, and their originality and independent thinking.' In a briefing slide seen by CNA, students from the class were told that the use of ChatGPT and AI tools is not allowed in the 'development or generation' of their essay proposal and long essay. 'You will receive a zero mark for the assignment if you are caught using ChatGPT and other AI tools for writing assignments,' it states. The student claims that apart from the slide, the instructor had not elaborated further. She had assumed that while AI tools could not be used to generate content for the essay, it was acceptable to use them for background research and to alphabetise her citations. 'Right now, it's not so much about my grades anymore,' she said. 'It's become a bigger issue in the sense of justice, and the fact that you cannot penalise what you don't make clear.' The third student, also in his final year, was also accused of academic fraud for allegedly using fake and inaccurate citations. After explaining that he had only used AI tools to summarise information for his background research and to format his citations in APA style, Asst Prof Luk told him that he would receive a 10-mark deduction. But a few days later, the student received an email from the school's academic integrity officer, saying that the decision had been overruled and that he would receive a zero for the assignment. When he wrote in for clarification, the academic integrity officer responded a few hours later to say that the decision was made according to the university's policies to "uphold academic integrity, fairness and consistency". She also referred him to a student care manager for support, based on an email exchange that CNA has seen. The student said he did not pursue the matter further, as he had already found a job and that his top priority was to pass. He eventually scored a 'D' for the module. However, he worries that future employers may come across his academic record. 'It destroys whatever integrity, whatever reputation that you have … over something that we did not do,' he said. CNA has contacted members of the panel about the students' claims. The spokesperson from NTU told CNA that many of its schools across different disciplines use AI as part of learning. In general, students are allowed to use generative AI in their assignments, they added. They said students are asked to declare any use of AI and are 'ultimately responsible' for the content generated when using AI. Students must also ensure factual accuracy and cite all sources properly. 'NTU remains committed to our goal of equipping students with the knowledge and skills to use AI technologies productively, ethically and critically,' they said.
Online Citizen
4 days ago
- Online Citizen
NTU student accuses university of misrepresentation over generative AI misconduct case
SINGAPORE: A student from Nanyang Technological University (NTU) has accused the institution of misrepresenting students and evading accountability in an ongoing dispute over the alleged misuse of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in academic work. Taking to Reddit on Sunday (22 June), the student, a Year 3 undergraduate in public policy and global affairs, claimed that NTU's recent public statement on the matter was misleading and failed to properly address evidence she and other students had provided. The student shared her story on Reddit on 19 June, alleging that her professor had accused her of using GenAI to write an essay after identifying three citation mistakes or typos in her submission. As a result, she received a grade of zero, severely affecting her GPA, along with a permanent academic warning labelling her as having committed academic fraud. She said that despite submitting evidence—including Google Docs version histories, a full timelapse of her writing process recorded via the Draftback Chrome extension, and samples of previous essays—NTU refused to reconsider its decision. In a follow-up Reddit post on 20 June, she alleged that a total of five students were falsely accused in a similar fashion, either for citation mistakes or for using citation formatters, which she claimed the professor wrongly categorised as GenAI. NTU's Response: Academic Misconduct Responding to media queries, NTU confirmed that three students had received zero marks for a written assignment in a health and politics module after being found to have used GenAI tools in their submissions. According to NTU's statement to The Straits Times on 22 June, the decision followed an investigation in April, with the affected students informed in early May. The university said that the students were penalised for academic misconduct due to non-existent academic references, fictitious statistics, and broken web links in their essays. NTU added that repeated warnings against using AI tools had been communicated throughout the semester by the course instructor, understood to be Assistant Professor Sabrina Luk from the School of Social Sciences. The essay contributed 45 per cent to the students' final grades. Student's Rebuttal: 'False Information' In her Reddit post, the student strongly rejected NTU's account, claiming that the university's statement to the media contained 'multiple false pieces of information,' all of which she said could be disproven with evidence. Anticipating that NTU would 'salvage its reputation,' she uploaded her evidence to a Google Drive folder to counter the university's claims. She rejected NTU's assertion of 'non-existent academic references,' stating that the students had submitted real sources, with only minor mistakes such as misspellings of author names or article titles. She pointed out that even the course syllabus provided by Assistant Professor Luk contained a broken web link ( questioning whether that too constituted academic misconduct. The student provided further screenshots showing that she and her peers had repeatedly supplied supporting documents to the professor and school administrators. These included corrected citations and a full timelapse of her essay-writing process. 'And yet, NTU chooses to ignore an entire video of my writing process, and dismiss everything as AI-generated,' she wrote. In one appeal, the student argued that citation typos could not reasonably be equated to academic dishonesty, particularly when compared to NTU's own definition of academic fraud. However, she alleged that the appeal was ignored. 'For NTU to characterise human typos as 'non-existent citations' is false information and incredibly lazy,' she said, accusing the university of prioritising its reputation over properly defending its students. 'Due Process Was Not Followed' The student also questioned NTU's claim that the students had been given a fair chance to present their cases. While NTU said students were allowed to present their cases during a formal review, she said that the process consisted only of email exchanges. In one student's case, she alleged that no online hearing was provided, and the entire outcome was conveyed via email. She shared a screenshot of NTU's notification, which read: 'After a thorough review of the evidence, it has been determined that your behaviour constitutes academic misconduct. Consequently, a zero mark has been assigned to the long essay.' The students were also informed that they could not exercise the fail grade option (FGO) for the course and that the incident would be formally recorded in NTU's central academic misconduct register. 'There was not a single in-person meeting scheduled this entire time for us to present our cases in a fair manner,' the student said. The student further alleged that NTU's statement to the press failed to acknowledge that the school had ignored their appeals for two months. She shared a string of emails sent to NTU's academic integrity officer, Professor Ye Junjia, who allegedly responded by siding with Assistant Professor Sabrina Luk without providing any explanation as to why their actions constituted academic fraud. According to the student, the affected students had requested face-to-face meetings, but allegedly received no response. The School of Social Sciences Dean, she added, dismissed her appeal and instead offered to refer her to student welfare services. 'We have been ghosted by the NTU President as well,' she said. She claimed that one of the students had repeatedly called and visited the offices of Professor Ye Junjia and Professor Chia Wai Mun, who were involved in the investigation, but was consistently told they were 'not in' or 'on holiday.' Multiple calls also went unanswered. Given these experiences, the students argued that it was misleading for NTU to claim they had been given a fair chance to present their cases. Citation Sorter vs. AI Tool Debate The student also criticised NTU's claim that she used an 'AI-powered essay writing service,' clarifying that she had used StudyCrumb, a free citation sorter, to alphabetise her references. 'StudyCrumb is literally just a website to arrange citations in A-Z order,' she explained. 'If you Google 'citation sorter A-Z', it's one of the top results.' She argued that NTU's framing was designed to 'villainise students' rather than acknowledge that citation sorting tools have been widely available long before generative AI became mainstream. 'This shows that NTU is willing to throw students under the bus just to evade accountability,' she said. Additionally, she pointed out that the course guidelines only prohibited the use of AI in the generation or development of essay content, not in formatting citations. 'Note that in our cases, we were penalised for citations, not for the essay content itself,' she said. Allegations of Institutional Neglect The student accused NTU of displaying a pattern of institutional neglect by distorting facts to protect its public image. 'It is deeply unethical for an institution like NTU, entrusted with the responsibility of protecting its students, to mischaracterise legitimate student concerns and grievances,' she said. Instead of providing transparent support, she alleged that the university failed to acknowledge its own shortcomings and ignored students who sought accountability from upper management. The students questioned whether NTU would apply the same standards to all other essays submitted at the university, asking: 'Did everyone else do their citations perfectly?' 'If NTU truly cared, they would have reached out to all the affected students by now, but all we got was radio silence—until the media got involved,' she added.
