DC accused of using AI

[Castlecould]

Hi all

My DC recently received an email from their tutor saying that the marker of an essay they had submitted had flagged up possible AI use.
DC attended a meeting about this armed with screenshots of their Word document history/search history etc as they absolutely did not use AI for assisting in this essay and were quite upset about this email.
On questioning DC on their research methods, DC mentioned that on a large journal/document they would use the Cntr F function to find the relevant section to read. The university have said that using the Find function is classed as AI and she would have to receive the consequences. DC was stunned and thought that they must have misunderstood as they thought that there was no issue in using this function, but the Uni were adamant this is classed as AI.
DC will obviously meet with the library team to confirm and receive further guidance on best practice for research, but just wanted a second opinion if this sounds correct as it seems very odd to me? I was a mature student at the same university only a few years ago and certainly used the find function on any research for my essays. Happy to accept if we are wrong though, just wasn’t explained to either of us.
TIA

ctrl F isn’t AI.

I use it and I’m an academic (to find a quote I want to use in an article I’ve read and noted the quote from)

however, it isn’t great research practice - but it isnt AI.

There is an article on ctrl f here
https://ultravires.ca/2025/01/death-of-the-command-ctrl-f-function/
Citation therefrom…relating to open book exams.

One silver lining is that as I prepare for my exams, I may develop a more intuitive understanding of my course content, knowing I cannot rely on my digital, searchable notes to bail me out. This constraint may encourage students to process course material on a deeper level, rather than simply collating it. To adapt, I’ll need to ensure that my maps are concise, accurate, and serve as a tool to guide my thinking rather than a crutch to fall back on.
Many professors emphasize that this approach—focusing on clarity and mastery rather than exhaustive detail—is one of the best ways to study for a law school exam. It forces a deeper engagement with the material and helps build the kind of confidence needed under exam conditions.
The death of the “Command/Ctrl-F” function marks a change in the way law students study for open-book exams, forcing students to trade the comfort of a perfectly indexed digital world for the challenge of working with what they can carry into the exam room. While this policy might feel like a step backward, perhaps it’s a chance to rediscover the art of clarity, precision, and distillation that our pre-digital-era predecessors prioritized for so long.

that would all make sense, except that the essay was apparently initially flagged as possibly AI generated which was why the DD had a meeting about it originally. Citing a source you haven’t read properly or fully is not great but does it really contravene the University’s policies and merit a sanction beyond just getting a poor grade for the essay?

But all academics use search terms to find sources. They can’t read absolutely everything. They then generally assess the suitability of the source from the title and/or abstract. How is using ctrl F different from other search methods? If they have read too narrowly and misrepresented their source as a result that would be a separate issue to using search tools.

I'm also a uni lecturer. It might be poor practice, but it's not AI.
For what it's worth, the only accusations of academic misconduct with regard to AI we've been able to prove have been where the AI has hallucinated and included non-existent references (yes we do check the reference list).

Hey? A union rep at uni?

OP, sounds as though they think your daughter hasn’t researched properly. Time for her to ask for some help from the SU.

It’s no different, and I’m not arguing that it is.

Using control F is not the reason this student was called before the panel.

You DC is over 18, you have absolutely no right to attend the meeting.

Student Union. That is the Union rep

NUS rep

No right, but OK if invited by the student. At least, in my experience.

Find function is classed as AI and she would have to receive the consequences.

The Tutor is clearly an idiot. I’d escalate to someone who is competent.

SU = student union. A rep from there would be a union rep.

The OP isn't demanding to do something her daughter doesn't want her to do, having a right isn't relevant if both the daughter and the uni are happy that she has someone with her

You should ask what evidence led the marker to flag use of AI? Your daughter mentioning a research method is not evidence, it could not possibly be used to flag use of AI even if she had sat next to a robot that had travelled back from the future answering her questions. They would need to cite evidence not retrospective mind reading.

Well they are clearly not an idiot, as universities have policies and so it is not due to one "idiot". Something is not being said here. Hope we hear the full story.

Well they are clearly not an idiot, as universities have policies and so it is not due to one "idiot". Something is not being said here. Hope we hear the full story.

Control F is classed as AI at my university because of the browser extension. We have to declare it on assignments prior to submission so none of us use it because it is more hassle than it’s worth.

But CTRL F is available in all kinds of software, not just in a web browser. It’s been in Word since the dawn of time, and never has been AI.

Bless your cotton socks

What uni and pls link to the policy that says that. Because I don’t believe you.

What? This makes absolutely no sense. It's just a keyboard shortcut used in loads of different software, and there is no way use of it is recorded.
How exactly would anyone know that a web search using CTRL+F had been used when they're looking at an essay written in word (for example)?

Agree with this.
Just a thought:
It sounds more like plagerism software has been used to scan the text.
There is usually a maximum % of plagerised text that can be allowed in any assignment to prevent students from just "patch working" together and assignment without any analysis of the content or original thought.
Going over that% can trigger the sort of query your DD encountered.
It isn't use of AI, it's nothing to do with CTL F, it's copying albeit using cut and paste .
Ask her if this could be the reason. It's a rookie error that lots of students make

Also a lecturer. Some good advice here and also recommend that your DC gets support from the students union. Not that unusual to not have representation in a first meeting - this was likely to be a discussion with the module team/tutor to establish if there is a case. Sound like the team have concerns that the texts have not been genuinely engaged with - whilst this is not unusual, there's obviously something that has set alarm bells going eg possible misrepresentation of reading or misleading citations. Sometimes students underestimate how well academics know key texts or what is published in their discipline. Definitely make sure DC has evidence of search history, notes, assignment drafts and plans to demonstrate what they have done in the course of researching and writing.