AI Detector for Teachers: A Review Workflow
An AI detector can help a teacher choose passages for a closer look. It cannot establish academic misconduct or decide whether a student's use of assistance broke an assignment rule.
Use AIScan alongside the original submission, course policy and a conversation with the student. These steps help keep the review fair and useful.
Start with the assignment rules
Check what the assignment permits before interpreting a result. Proofreading, translation, brainstorming and generated prose may be treated differently by your institution. Explain those expectations to students before submission where possible.
Use your institution's approved process. Confirm that you have permission to submit student writing and review the privacy policy. Remove unnecessary personal information and avoid uploading confidential material unless your institution permits it.
Submit the writing you intend to review
The web text detector accepts pasted text, TXT files and Markdown files. Guests get two daily scans of 50 to 2,000 characters. Pro supports longer passages and bulk detection; the pricing page sets out the plans.
The web text detector does not accept PDF or Word files directly. If you copy text from a document, check for broken words, repeated headers and missing paragraphs. Keep the original submission and the exact passage you checked.
Read the highlighted passage in context
Start with the student's argument, references and use of evidence. A result may help you choose a passage to discuss. It cannot determine whether the student understood the topic or followed the assignment policy.
For example, a lab report might contain a standard definition followed by the student's interpretation of the findings. If the definition is highlighted, check the citation and read the interpretation separately. Do not treat the same concern as established across the whole report.
Ask questions that reveal the writing process
A useful conversation stays close to the submitted work. You might ask:
- How did you choose the main argument?
- Which source changed your view, and why?
- Can you explain the reasoning in this paragraph?
- Do you have an outline or an earlier draft you would like to share?
- What tools or assistance did you use, and how did that fit the assignment rules?
Give the student time to respond. Drafts and version history can help, but students write in different ways and keep different records. Missing history alone does not establish AI use.
Handle false positives carefully
Human writing can be flagged. Research by Liang and colleagues found disparities for non-native English writing in the detectors they studied. That is not an AIScan-specific error rate, but it reinforces the need to consider the writer and the document rather than relying on a score alone.
Read our accuracy guidance and false-positive guide before making a decision. A second detector supplies another assessment, not independent proof of misconduct.
Keep a short review record
Record the assignment, the relevant rule, the passage reviewed and the questions you discussed. Note the student's explanation and any supporting materials. Keep this record within your institution's approved systems and retention rules.
If further action is needed, follow the normal academic-integrity process. Give the student the review and appeal opportunities required by that process.
Review class batches one document at a time
AIScan Pro's bulk detector accepts up to 25 supported files and provides a CSV summary. Use it to organise the review, not to rank students by honesty. Read each document and resolve concerns individually.
See the bulk detection guide for formats and limits. Students responding to a flagged result can use our writing-review checklist.