With the high incidence of students’ use of artificial intelligence (AI) content-generated tools, issues in academic integrity abound. Artificial intelligence and plagiarism have emerged as the main threats to using content-generated AI tools in the scholarly literature. This study proposes to answer the following research questions: What are Master’s students’ views of the use of content-generated tools? Why do Master's students use content-generated tools? This qualitative descriptive phenomenological single case study contains interviews with nine Guyanese Master’s students completing their theses about their use and experiences using content-generated AI tools and their views on AI and plagiarism. These students were chosen based on non-probability purposive sampling. The researcher implemented six steps in qualitative data analysis. In vivo, descriptive, and evaluative coding were implemented with semantic and latent meanings considered. Deontology, utilitarianism, rational self-interest, and cultural relativism were linked to three components of the Theory of Planned Behavior when deductive coding was implemented. This study can inform policy development and implementation on AI and plagiarism.
AjzenI (1985) From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. In: KuhlJBeckmannJ (eds) Action-control: From Cognition to Behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag, 11–39.
2.
AjzenI (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes50: 179–211.
3.
AshworthPBannisterP (1997) Guilty in whose eyes? University students' perceptions of cheating and plagiarism in academic work and assessment. Studies in Higher Education22(2): 187–203.
BarnhartRK (ed) (1988) Chambers Dictionary of Etymology. Edinburgh: Chambers.
6.
BeckLAjzenI (1991) Predicting dishonest actions using the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Research in Personality25: 285–301.
7.
BenthamJ (1781) An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. London: History of Economic Thought Books.
8.
BissessarC (2023) To use or not to use ChatGPT and assistive artificial intelligence tools in higher education institutions? The modern-day conundrum–students’ and faculty’s perspectives. Equity in Education and Society0(0): 1–13, 27526461231215083.
9.
BlauIEshet-AlkalaiY (2017) The ethical dissonance in digital and non-digital learning environments: does technology promote cheating among middle school students?Computers in Human Behavior73: 629–637.
10.
BowersWJ (1964) Student Dishonesty and its Control in College. New York: Bureau of Applied Social Research, Columbia University.
11.
BraunVClarkeV (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology3(2): 77–101.
12.
BretagT (2005) Implementing Plagiarism Policy in the Internationalised University, Part 3 in Developing Internationalism in the Internationalised University: A Practitioner Research Project, Doctor of Education Thesis, Division of Education, Arts and Social Sciences. Newcastle: University of Newcastle.
13.
BretagTMahmudS (2009) A model for determining student plagiarism: electronic detection and academic judgement. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice6(1): 49–60.
14.
ChanCKY (2023) Is AI changing the rules of academic misconduct? An in-depth look at students' perceptions of'AI-giarism. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.03358.
15.
CottonDRCottonPAShipwayJR (2024) Chatting and cheating: ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education & Teaching International61(2): 228–239.
16.
CreswellJW (2013) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. 3rd ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17.
EatonSE (2022) The academic integrity technological arms race and its impact on learning, teaching, and assessment. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology48(2): 1–9.
18.
EllisCZuckerIRandallD (2018) The infernal business of contract cheating: understanding the business process and models of academic custom using sites. International Journal for Educational Integrity14(1): 1–21.
19.
EretEGokmenogluT (2010) Plagiarism in higher education: a case study with prospective academicians. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences2(2): 3303–3307.
FowlerDS (2023) AI in higher education: academic integrity, harmony of insights, and recommendations. Journal of Ethics in Higher Education3(3): 127–143.
22.
GiorgiA (2009) The Descriptive Phenomenological Method in Psychology: A Modified Husserlian Approach. Pittsburg, PA: Duquesne University Press.
23.
GranitzNLoewyD (2007) Applying ethical theories: interpreting and responding to student plagiarism. Journal of Business Ethics72: 293–306.
24.
GuestGBunceAJohnsonL (2006) How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods18(1): 59–82.
HafsaNE (2019) An Overview of theories explaining plagiaristic behavior of students. Journal of Education and Practice10(25): 102–108.
27.
HardingTSMayhewMJFinelliCJ, et al. (2007) The theory of planned behavior as a model of academic dishonesty in engineering and humanities undergraduates. Ethics & Behavior17: 255–279.
KeruboJOliverM (2024) Revising academic cultures to improve integrity in Kenyan universities. Educational Review7: 1–21.
32.
KhalafMA (2024a) AIgiarism: the new form of plagiarism in the era of artificial intelligence. Oman: Sultan Qaboos University.
33.
KhalafMA (2024b) Does attitude towards plagiarism predict aIgiarism using ChatGPT?AI and Ethics1–12.
34.
McCabeDLTrevinoLKButterfieldKD (1999) Academic integrity in honor code and non-honor code environments: a qualitative investigation. The Journal of Higher Education70(2): 211–234.
35.
McCabeDLTreviñoLKButterfieldKD (2001) Cheating in academic institutions: a decade of research. Ethics & Behavior11(3): 219–232.
36.
MarengoAPaganoASoomroK, et al. (2024) The educational value of artificial intelligence in higher education: A 10-year systematic literature review. Interactive Technology and Smart Education,21(4): 625–644.
37.
McCabeDLButterfieldKDTrevinoLK (2012) Cheating in College: Why Students Do it and what Educators Can Do about it. Baltimore: MD: John Hopkins University Press.
38.
MoyaBEatonSPethrickH, et al. (2024) Academic integrity and artificial intelligence in higher education (HE) contexts: a rapid scoping review. Canadian Perspectives on Academic Integrity7(3): 1–19.
39.
ParkC (2010) In other (people's) words: plagiarism by university students—literature and lessons. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education28(5): 471–488.
40.
PrasharAGuptaPDwivediYK (2024) Plagiarism awareness efforts, students’ ethical judgment and behaviors: a longitudinal experiment study on ethical nuances of plagiarism in higher education. Studies in Higher Education49(6): 929–955.
41.
Ramírez-NoriegaAJiménezSInzunzaS, et al. (2018) ASHuR: evaluation of the relation summary-content without human reference using ROUGE. Computing and Informatics37(2): 4.
42.
RodriguesMSilvaRBorgesAP, et al. (2024) Artificial intelligence: threat or asset to academic integrity? A bibliometric analysis. Kybernetes.
43.
SaldañaJ (2021) The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Newcastle upon Tyne. UK: Sage, 1–440.
44.
SheikhHPrinsCSchrijversE (2023) Artificial intelligence: definition and background. In: Mission AI: The New System Technology. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 15–41.
45.
StakeRE (1995) The Art of Case Study Research. Sage.
46.
StephensJMWangaardDB (2016) The Achieving with Integrity seminar: an integrative approach to promoting moral development in secondary school classrooms. International Journal for Educational Integrity12: 1–16.
47.
StoneTKisamoreJJahawarI (2007) Predicting academic dishonesty: theory of planned behaviour and personality. In: Proceedings of the 2007 Management Education Division of the Administrative Sciences Association of Canada. Ottawa, Ontario.
48.
StoneTHJawaharIMKisamoreJL (2010) Predicting academic misconduct intentions and behavior using the theory of planned behavior and personality. Basic and Applied Social Psychology32(1): 35–45.
