City College’s Academic Senate convened on Wednesday, February 25, to explore the implications of Gradescope and to revise the language surrounding academic integrity as it relates to artificial intelligence (AI).
The meeting commenced with a public comment segment during which Senator Laura Woyach enthusiastically endorsed Gradescope, an AI-driven grading and feedback tool.
Woyach clarified to the Senate that while Gradescope assists educators, it does not independently grade student assignments.
“The AI component organizes responses into groups based on similarity,” Woyach explained. “Instructors still need to review these groupings; it’s not actual grading.”
She elaborated on how Gradescope can alleviate the considerable time commitment that grading assignments often demands from faculty, enabling more uniform evaluation and providing students with greater learning opportunities.
“We recognize the numerous administrative burdens we face,” Woyach noted. “This tool allows instructors to assign more low-stakes assignments.”
The topic of Gradescope was revisited later in the meeting, where President Joshua Ramirez provided a comprehensive introduction to the platform, emphasizing its potential advantages.
Ramirez pointed out that many faculty members, especially in math and English, often endure intense grading periods during breaks. This high-pressure environment can challenge the consistency of grading, ultimately impacting students’ experiences negatively.
After discussing the various benefits, Ramirez acknowledged that the Senate could encounter resistance regarding the integration of Gradescope.
“There are larger questions that the Academic Senate will eventually need to consider,” Ramirez remarked. “Are you delegating classroom responsibilities to an AI tool? How far is too far?”
The discussion then moved to updates in terminology related to academic integrity, specifically focusing on AI policies. Previously, there was no established protocol for addressing academic dishonesty linked to AI tools.
The definition of cheating was revised to now include “using artificial intelligence without institutional or instructor authorization.”
Ramirez underscored the necessity of incorporating “institutional authorization” to accommodate diverse student needs.
“If there’s a demand for a learning tool that could be categorized as AI, it’s crucial to include institutional considerations,” Ramirez stated.
Other language updates included the addition of “submitting AI-assisted work as personally authored” under fraud and misrepresentation, and “using AI tools to fabricate data, results, or references that do not originate from original research or credible sources” under fabrication.
Ramirez advocated for a “multi-pronged approach” to detecting AI use and determining academic penalties.
“I appreciate the emphasis on a multi-pronged strategy,” Ramirez expressed. “This implies that detection tools are just one part of a broader picture.”
The Academic Senate will reconvene on Wednesday, March 11.
Story continues below advertisement
