I said we shouldn't penalize students for single positives. That's bad use of statistics.
It's also bad use of statistics to claim that an indicator can never be used unless it's 100% perfect. When you start accumulating constant triggers, you do a deeper investigation.
For example, bring the student in and give them a surprise (no preparation) quiz about the paper they submitted. The students who wrote the paper can talk about what they wrote. The students who submitted ChatGPT usually can't.
You don't just put the paper into Pangram and then let it decide if the student gets punished based on the score.
Comments
I said we shouldn't penalize students for single positives. That's bad use of statistics.
It's also bad use of statistics to claim that an indicator can never be used unless it's 100% perfect. When you start accumulating constant triggers, you do a deeper investigation.
For example, bring the student in and give them a surprise (no preparation) quiz about the paper they submitted. The students who wrote the paper can talk about what they wrote. The students who submitted ChatGPT usually can't.
You don't just put the paper into Pangram and then let it decide if the student gets punished based on the score.