Evaluation Peer Review Plagiarism 
eSchool News
MAY 9, 2025
Teaching the new core four To help students become critical consumers of information, educators must still emphasize four essential evaluative criteria, but these must now be framed in the context of AI-generated content and advanced search systems. The stakes are higher. The tools are smarter. The educators role is more important than ever.
eSchool News
JUNE 28, 2024
Examples include small-group brainstorming and “Mini Socratics” (small-group Socratic Seminars), gamification methods giving students points for each component they’ve completed in an assignment, small-group peer reviews where students reflect on each other’s ideas instead of correcting errors, and more.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Ask a Tech Teacher
MAY 25, 2022
Turnitin has long been the go-to resource for uncovering plagiarism in student work, but there are reasons why that may not be a good choice for you or your students. Since the COVID-19 pandemic has made the workload even heavier, many instructors have felt how awful it is to use an unreliable plagiarism checker.
Edsurge
NOVEMBER 6, 2017
Most digital writing tools offer limited assistance: they check for plagiarism, allow a student to track changes, or offer the ability to add comments. Scaffolded practice connects instruction to feedback When writing, students must engage in a multi-step process of goal-setting, planning, drafting, evaluating, revising, and editing.
Edsurge
AUGUST 22, 2018
Students can do a self-reflection upon finishing the draft, and also engage in anonymous peer-reviews of each other’s work. The system guides pupils through how to offer constructive feedback to their peers. Teachers can select how the feedback process will unfold.
Faculty Focus
AUGUST 24, 2023
The paper passed three peer reviewers who reported that they believed the paper was written by a person. 1) noted that ChatGPT wrote academic abstracts that passed through the peer review process 32% of the time even after reviewers had been told that some of the abstracts were fake. A report by Paul (2023, p.1)
Faculty Focus
AUGUST 24, 2023
The paper passed three peer reviewers who reported that they believed the paper was written by a person. 1) noted that ChatGPT wrote academic abstracts that passed through the peer review process 32% of the time even after reviewers had been told that some of the abstracts were fake. A report by Paul (2023, p.1)
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
258 
Let's personalize your content