evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

GenAI Use and Academic-Integrity Risk — Two Independent Ecuadorian University Surveys

Ecuador · Loja · See the Ecuador profile

Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 81% 33/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Two independent Ecuadorian surveys (4,811 students, 8 universities; 335 students, 1 university) find GenAI use is now routine, but disclosing ChatGPT use and trusting its outputs correlate with more self-reported plagiarism, while AI literacy correlates with less.

4,811
Students surveyed (IJEI study, 8 universities)
335
Students surveyed (SciELO Venezuela study, 1 university)
20.2%
Variance in self-reported plagiarism explained by the regression model

Details

Promoter
Universidad Tecnica Particular de Loja (UTPL) research team
Period
2024-2025
Keywords
higher education, research, academic integrity

Context

Two independent Ecuadorian surveys examine generative-AI use and academic-integrity risk in higher education: a 2025 study in the International Journal for Educational Integrity surveyed 4,811 students across eight universities, and a second study published in SciELO Venezuela surveyed 335 students at one university.

Objectives

The larger study, led by researchers based at Universidad Tecnica Particular de Loja, sought to explain self-reported plagiarism using a binary logistic regression model of GenAI-use behaviours and attitudes.

Results

The regression explained 20.2% of the variance in self-reported plagiarism; students who disclosed ChatGPT use to instructors or trusted ChatGPT-generated information were more likely to self-report plagiarism, while those who saw AI as improving their performance or had broader AI-tool knowledge reported less. The smaller, independent survey found ChatGPT use for coursework remains limited and largely unsupervised, with minimal measured effect on academic performance.

Conclusions

Both studies are cross-sectional and cannot establish causation; read together they point to widespread GenAI use with little institutional scaffolding, and are included as evidence of risk and unmet need rather than a proven training or policy intervention.

Implementation
Indicative cost
Low (< €50k)
Time to results
Short (< 1 year)

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Similar practices you may find useful