Students express profound confusion about whether GenAI-assisted coursework is original work and whether they can claim authorship¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitative r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2031: baselines and conditions change

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Participants' views on originality ranged from claiming GenAI-assisted work as their original creation to declaring it did not represent their critical thinking and creativity, with some later coming to view GenAI as a co-author. → Feyisa Mulisa and Tesfa Mezgebu 2026

Evidence¶

Feyisa Mulisa and Tesfa Mezgebu 2026¶

Feyisa Mulisa and Tesfa Mezgebu. (2026). Tools facilitate cheating, or partner supports learning? GenAI and academic integrity issues from students’ perspectives. International Journal for Educational Integrity. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-026-00231-z

q2 · i? · qualitative · r3

The originality findings from the thematic analysis report that "The views of participants were more paradoxical, ranging from claiming that the idea was their original work created by AI to declaring that it did not absolutely represent their critical thinking."

"The views of participants were more paradoxical, ranging from claiming that the idea was their original work created by AI to declaring that it did not absolutely represent their critical thinking and creativity."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Undergraduate students hold mixed views on whether using GenAI for coursework constitutes plagiarism, ranging from not misconduct to serious misconduct — related
• PGR students rejected GenAI generation of research ideas, original arguments, or whole papers as violating authorship norms, while accepting surface-level support — related
• Ethical acceptability of GenAI use varied with disciplinary norms: assistance was more acceptable for supporting or procedural tasks than for core intellectual tasks — a broader claim this one bears on
• AI-assisted ideation was conditionally acceptable when researchers retained decision-making authority, but problematic when it displaced conceptual labour — related
• In interviews with 25 engineering students at one Swedish university, students described GenAI as acceptable when it stimulates reflection and directly copying its outputs as cheating, and one used its fallibility as a prompt to double-check — related
• Student perceptions of AI use in academic work are neutral and range from viewing AI as valid learning assistance to viewing it as cheating, depending on task type, transparency, and assessment design — a broader claim this one bears on
• Whether student GenAI use constitutes academic misconduct depends fundamentally on the prior question of the university's purpose — related
• Evaluators view GenAI use in story writing as broadly acceptable but reject unacknowledged use and demand compensation for source creators — related
• Students and educators disagree on the acceptability of unacknowledged generative AI use across academic writing subtasks — related