Studying - or not - in the age of AI

These cases are defined by the University of Canterbury as a student using a generative artificial intelligence (AI) tool in a manner that is not expressly permitted or fails to acknowledge the use of a generative AI tool as instructed.

According to students, there are gaps in its reporting system that make it difficult to see the full scale of AI-related misconduct.

Students are questioning where the boundaries lie for generative AI use, not only for themselves, but for their lecturers.

As AI tools are becoming increasingly common, the line between cutting corners and working smarter is getting harder to define. For some students, AI is a tool to assist their own work, be that spell-checking or brainstorming ideas. For others, it is used to produce an entire essay in the time it takes to make a coffee.

Students are now asking the question: what happens when their generation graduates having outsourced the very skills they have spent years learning? 

Young professionals who aren’t actually equipped for their future careers?

The University of Canterbury is trying to get ahead of the problem.

Figures obtained through the Official Information Act show that there were 65 cases of academic misconduct partly or wholly related to AI use at UC in 2025.

The university says figures aren’t yet available for semester one of 2026, and there is no centralised system recording every allegation. Instead, initial cases are managed by around 40 Academic Integrity Officers across the university.

There isn’t a single blanket institutional policy on generative AI at UC. Instead, rules are set individually by course coordinators and lecturers, meaning depending on the class, paper, or exam additional restrictions or requirements may apply.

So how does UC detect someone wrongfully using AI?

The online academic integrity platform Turnitin is one part of the process, but UC says that a high AI detection score alone is not enough to spark an investigation. There needs to be other evidence to support the allegation, alongside giving the student a chance to explain themselves.

While there are steps in place, both human and robot, to knuckle down on AI use, after talking to students outside UC who have used AI in ways that are not permitted, not everything is being detected.

One first-year psychology student at UC, who has asked to remain anonymous, says much of her academic career has relied on ChatGPT, and she hasn’t been caught.

She admitted to putting assignment briefs into the fast-working AI tool, resulting in complete essays in seconds. Noting that you have to rewrite some parts that “sound too AI” to avoid suspicion. 

But students aren’t the only ones facing questions about AI.

When we spoke to students across other universities in Aotearoa, a concern raised multiple times was the use of generative AI by professors, particularly in the creation of lecture slides.

A student at Te Herenga Waka - Victoria University of Wellington told us that while most aspects of the course were faultless, her psychology lecturer admitted to using AI to generate assignment exemplars. 

In response, acting Deputy Vice-Chancellor at Te Herenga Waka, Professor Stephen Marshall told MetroNews that academics are responsible for ensuring their teaching materials are appropriate. In Marshall's words "We expect that the academic in question carefully reviewed the materials and that they were appropriate for the use intended."

If students are being told not to use AI in an effort to develop their own skills, some are asking why the same technology is acceptable in other areas of the curriculum.

UC’s OIA response says there is no centralised record of which staff use AI. When they do use it for marking, it has to be with approved tools and sites, and students must be informed.

Universities are essentially becoming the guinea pig in a much bigger conversation: How can AI be used to help people without replacing the teaching of fundamental skills humans need?

AI isn’t going anywhere, so the challenge might not be stopping the students from taking the easy route. It is making sure they can graduate with the skills they need.