Evaluating Evidence

Menu

Decisions are made based on the balance of probabilities. After considering all the evidence, the faculty will consider whether the rules were broken, whether there was intention to cheat, and/or whether the student gained an advantage on the assessment. The faculty does not have to be certain "beyond the shadow of a doubt" about what happened.

The balance of probabilities approach requires the faculty to state that there is no plausible or likely innocent explanation for the evidence observed. If misconduct was "more likely than not," the faculty member should file an Academic Integrity Violation (AIV) in the Employee Portal using the Integrity Violations tab. 

The specific evidence that will be gathered and assessed for each case varies widely. Some general advice and supports can be found below.

A hand checking off items on a clipboard.

The Process Guide for Suspected Misconduct

The Process Guide for Suspected Misconduct provides a general framework for assessing evidence. It also contains a question guide for student interviews, which is an effective method for determining a student's knowledge of their own work.

Process Guide
A hand holding up a small robotic toy.

Generative AI

The Turnitin AI detection score, while a useful red flag, is not sufficient evidence on its own to make the balance of probabilities. This document is a detailed walkthrough of how to read a student submission with "an eye for AI."

Evidence of Generative AI Use
One hand pointing at a notebook, which a different person's hand is writing notes in.

Student-Provided Evidence

As part of the 3-3-3 process, students have the opportunity to provide evidence of original work or extenuating circumstances. This document walks through some types of evidence that may be useful, as well as commonly falsified "evidence."

Evidence of Original Work

When in doubt, faculty are always welcome to contact the Academic Integrity Office at academicintegrity@conestogac.on.ca for further support with specific cases.