{"id":200427,"date":"2026-11-12T14:45:58","date_gmt":"2026-11-12T13:45:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.erasmusmagazine.nl\/en\/?p=200427"},"modified":"2026-11-12T14:46:00","modified_gmt":"2026-11-12T13:46:00","slug":"hoe-examencommissies-omgaan-met-ai-voor-studenten-kunnen-de-gevolgen-verstrekkend-zijn","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.erasmusmagazine.nl\/en\/2026\/11\/12\/hoe-examencommissies-omgaan-met-ai-voor-studenten-kunnen-de-gevolgen-verstrekkend-zijn\/","title":{"rendered":"How examination boards determine AI use: the consequences for students can be far-reaching"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

One student abandoned his thesis before graduating, another was banned from his next exam. For students suspected of unauthorised AI use, the consequences can be far-reaching. As AI-generated writing becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish from human work, establishing concrete evidence of misconduct is equally challenging.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"

\n\t\n\n<\/svg>\n<\/span>\n\tImage by:<\/span>\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAmi Rinn<\/a>\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t<\/p>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe moment I was notified of suspected fraud, I decided it was in my best interest to stop writing my thesis\u201d, says \n\t\t\tKrasimir\n\t\t\n\t\t\n \n<\/svg>\n\n\t<\/button>\n<\/span>\n, a Supply Chain Management student at the Rotterdam School of Management (RSM). He is one of the students at Erasmus University whose work was suspected of unauthorised generative AI use.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The temptation for students to finish their academic work quicker and easier has led to such an increase in fraud cases, that such cases practically became the sole task of the head of the Erasmus School of Philosophy examination board during the past year, said Sonia de Jager, AI policy adviser of the Erasmus School of Philosophy (ESPhil).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dropping out<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Krasimir doesn\u2019t deny using AI for his thesis. He admits he used two AI tools: SciSpace to find academic articles related to his topic and ChatGPT to edit his writing, suggest ideas, and explain concepts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI had complete control of my main research ideas. I had read and analysed all the scientific works I had cited and used as a base for my thesis\u201d, he says.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The EUR guidelines<\/a> on AI use highlight the basic principle that any student assignment that is generated by an AI tool is considered to be fraudulent. What the consequences of that are, however, can vary between study programmes. They set the policy themselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to the <\/a>RSM AI Guide<\/a>, students are \u2018allowed to use generative AI where it supports their learning and work, unless it limits the ability to assess knowledge, insights or competences as described in an assignment or in a course\u2019s learning objectives\u2019. Every unauthorised use of generative AI is considered \u2018violation of academic integrity, in other words, plagiarism and fraud\u2019. If this is detected or suspected, the examiner must inform the examination board as soon as possible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Always a human check<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

\u201cTeachers are able to suspect AI fraud by finding inconsistencies in the text\u201d, explains Liza Kozlowska, an AI & education policy adviser within Academic Affairs. \u201cFor example, if the first part of the text is very elaborate and in perfect British English, while the second part contains more mistakes in grammar and style. Or if the references link to sources that don\u2019t exist or cannot be verified. Teachers can use AI detectors, such as Pangram, as support evidence. However, there is always a thorough human check.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t

Een lijst met artikelen<\/h2>\n\t\t\n\t\t
\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t