Course:ELEC300E/CaseStudies/AIinEducation

Context: AI in Education & AI Plagiarism

UVic's Controversial AI Plagiarism Policy
Content / Topics
AI in Education
Student Wellbeing
Relevant Analysis Strategies or Tools
Exploring Personal Biases & Positionality
Decision Impact Assessment

AI in Education

Many Canadian university students are using AI to some extent in their studies: A survey of UBC students found that around 50% of students use AI at least once a week.

From developing accessible study materials to writing full assignments there are many possible uses for AI. The most common uses reported by UBC students were: "study for tests", "summarize content", "provide feedback on something I've written" and "search for information"..

Whether these uses support or undermine student learning is a difficult question. Many students find that these tools are useful to support their learning, allowing for constant availability and personalization. AI tools can also making classes and content more accessible to ESL students, or students with accessibility requirements. Other students worry about the cognitive impacts:

“It takes away from the human experience to be a critical thinker; it’s lazy, and it creates a separation from our own minds… It pushes us away from the human experience to invest in being creative with our individuality.”

These cognitive impacts are the focus of a lot of ongoing research. AI tools have been shown to enhance critical thinking skills in some cases, and to degrade critical thinking and reflection in other cases.

AI Plagiarism

Universities across the country are continuously updating their academic integrity policies to account for new AI tools. In a recent study, students described a lot of ambiguity and confusion around what constitutes acceptable use of AI. Without clear and enforceable guidelines, students construct their own personal frameworks for AI used based on ambiguous institutional policies but also personal values and risk assessments.

Enforcement of these policies is complicated by the fact that AI detection software is notoriously unreliable, particularly for neurodivergent or ESL students.

Case: UVic's Controversial AI Plagiarism Policy

In May of 2026, UVic proposed a controversial new policy that described new processes for handling AI-related academic misconduct.

Students raised concerns that the new policy shifted the burden of proof from instructors to students, that it disadvantaged students who rely on AI-based accessibility accommodations, that it relied on unreliable AI detection, and that it included no statute of limitations, meaning that degrees could potentially be revoked. According to a statement from the UVic Student Society Directors:

"The proposed updates to this policy also put too much responsibility on the decision maker. They must decide whether it is more likely than not that a violation occurred (in other words, 51%). This level of proof, combined with no explicit banning of AI detection software, leaves all students vulnerable to high levels of risk or false positives. This risk is elevated for multilingual and neurodivergent writers who make up a significant portion of the student body."

Recommended Readings and Resources

• ~2 minute read: The UVSS response to the proposed policy, which highlights students concerns: https://uvss.ca/2026/05/06/uvss-statement-on-proposed-changes-to-the-academic-integrity-policy/

• ~7 minute read (Optional): UVic's new policy: https://www.uvic.ca/students/academics/academic-integrity/policy-faqs.php

Discussion Questions

Here are a few questions to help you begin analyzing the issues discussed in this case study. The purpose of these questions is to prompt reflection and further consideration: there are no right or wrong answers!

1. Personal response: Take stock of your immediate response to this case study: outrage, discomfort, boredom, confusion, frustration, hope, interest? How might your unique personal experiences and perspectives inform this response? How can you leverage this response in a positive way?
2. Positive action: Instead of changing the AI policy, UVic might have chosen inaction, trusting (or hoping for) students to appropriately navigate academic integrity and AI themselves. How might inaction have played out? Why or why not do you think this is a good strategy?
3. Physical connections: This case study touches on the experiences of students with disabilities who might have different physical experiences of the same learning environments. Consider this problem from the perspective of a student who depends on AI-based accessibility tools like screen readers. How might their perspectives, their feelings about the issue, and their analysis of the situation be different from a student with no specific accessibility requirements?
4. Contradictory viewpoints and outcomes: AI use can be a polarizing topic. Apart from accessibility, what factors might explain the vastly different perspectives of students on how AI should be used and limited at the university?
5. Interruptions and invitations: The plagiarism policy change addresses AI plagiarism by imposing stricter disciplinary actions and procedures. What kind of leadership is this strategy? Can you think of a different action that could address the same problem using a different form of leadership or social collaboration?
6. Social and Historical Context: How does this issue relate to broader systems, power structures and hierarchies in higher education?
7. Positive practices: What is one concrete action that you could take, or a practice that you could adopt in your personal, academic or professional life to address some of the issues discussed in this case study?