Undergraduate students hold mixed views on whether using GenAI for coursework constitutes plagiarism, ranging from not misconduct to serious misconduct¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitative r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Students expressed mixed views on whether GenAI-assisted coursework is plagiarism, with some arguing it is not plagiarism because they did not copy and paste others' ideas, and a smaller group arguing it should be considered serious academic misconduct. → 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 · r2

Reflexive thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with 27 undergraduates at Ambo University, Ethiopia, conducted November 2025 to January 2026. The findings section reports that "While some participants consider the creation of ideas using GenAI to not be plagiarism, others argue that it should be plagiarism."

"While some participants consider the creation of ideas using GenAI to not be plagiarism, others argue that it should be plagiarism, since they did not create the entire work themselves."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Students express profound confusion about whether GenAI-assisted coursework is original work and whether they can claim authorship — 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
• The article interprets the ethics gap as students viewing ethics through coursework practices and instructors treating it as an integrity question shaped by lack of institutional clarity — related
• AI humanizer websites recontextualize detection evasion by deleting misconduct terms and substituting euphemisms like 'humanize' and 'improve flow' — related
• Whether student GenAI use constitutes academic misconduct depends fundamentally on the prior question of the university's purpose — related
• Students view GenAI use on a spectrum from unethical to ethical, with a vast middle grey area of uses such as paraphrasing AI-generated text or generating ideas — related