Austin Peay State University.

Detection status: Turnitin's AI writing detection confirmed deployed, integrated into D2L Assignments; APSU's own guidance states the AI indicator "should not be used as the sole basis for action or a definitive grading measure by instructors"
Office in these sources: Community Care and Standards (formerly Dean of Students) · Morgan University Center, Room 208 · 931-221-6570 · communitycare@apsu.edu
Ombuds or advocacy office: None located on the institution's own pages in this review.
Sources last checked: Oct 5, 2026

Reproduced from the institution's own pages quoted below — potentially relevant official sources, not a determination of which one governs any case.

APSU's published sources on AI detection and academic integrity, quoted and linked below. These are potentially relevant official sources, not a determination of which one governs any case — the instructor has the first-line role in an academic-misconduct matter under the Student Code, and syllabus statements may add detail. Confirm applicability with the institution. Any dates are quoted from the sources, not a deadline calculation performed for you.

01Detection status

AI detection is in use at APSU

Distance Education's faculty guidance page on Turnitin AI detection (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Oct 5, 2026) states:

"APSU faculty considering AI writing detection should use Turnitin, as it is a contracted tool/vendor with APSU, which supports accessibility and privacy standards." "Turnitin offers AI detection capabilities that go a step further by also filtering text likely paraphrased using AI or a word spinner, in addition to detecting text that is likely to be AI-generated. Instructors can access this AI detection tool as part of their Turnitin Feedback Studio usage." Quoting Turnitin's own FAQ: "Turnitin's AI writing detection indicator shows the percentage of text that has likely been generated by an AI writing tool while the report highlights the exact segments that seem to be AI-written. The final decision on whether any misconduct has occurred rests with the reviewer/instructor. Turnitin does not make a determination of misconduct, rather it provides data for the educators to make an informed decision based on their academic and institutional policies." "We must emphasize that the percentage on the AI writing indicator should not be used as the sole basis for action or a definitive grading measure by instructors."

The companion Turnitin landing page (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Oct 5, 2026) adds: "Turnitin is integrated into the online classroom as an option within D2L Assignments. This integration ensures ease of access through single sign-on for faculty and students, creates the opportunity to link Turnitin Feedback Studio to the D2L Gradebook, and allows students to easily see when feedback is available for them." Neither page states whether the AI indicator specifically, as opposed to Turnitin feedback generally, is visible to students. Sources: Enhance Academic Integrity with Turnitin AI Detection; Turnitin Feedback Studio. When using Turnitin, faculty are instructed to "add a statement to their course syllabus," so your own syllabus is among the relevant sources for your situation.

A named-vendor sweep of apsu.edu (Turnitin, SimCheck, Originality, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus, Examity) and a category sweep (Distance Education's Instructional Technology pages, the Student Code of Conduct, and Academic Services) found Turnitin as the only named AI-text detector; no second detector is documented.

02Published procedure

What APSU's own pages say about how cases proceed

Who may be present: "The right to be accompanied by an adviser of the student's/organization's choice, but such adviser participation shall be limited to directly advising the student/organization during the hearing." Whether the hearing is recorded is not stated in the sources reviewed. — Student Code of Conduct, Part 5: Disciplinary Procedures (2026-27 Student Handbook; retrieved Oct 5, 2026) · Part 5: Disciplinary Procedures
What follows on the record: Not stated for a formal sanction such as suspension or expulsion in the sources reviewed. For a minor first offense resolved informally, the Code states: "no formal record will be maintained in the conduct records of APSU," only a personal notation by the Dean of Students (or designee) "to determine a student's ... prior involvement," which "will become a part of the student's ... Formal Conduct Records" only "at the discretion of the hearing body" if a later violation occurs. · Part 5: Disciplinary Procedures

The two questions an adviser raises first, answered from this institution's own published documents — or recorded as not stated in them.

The Student Code of Conduct's Part 3 (2026-27 Student Handbook; retrieved Oct 5, 2026) states:

"The instructor has the primary responsibility for control over classroom behavior and maintenance of academic integrity." "Academic dishonesty includes, but is not limited to, plagiarism, the changing or falsifying of any academic documents or materials, cheating and giving or receiving of unauthorized aid in tests, examinations or other assigned work." "The student may accept the instructor's finding, grade reduction, and/or other sanction and waive their right to a hearing. In the event a student believes they have been erroneously accused of academic misconduct, they may request a hearing." "If the student is found responsible for the allegation(s) of academic misconduct, the grade as assigned by the instructor will stand. Should the hearing source find the student not responsible for the academic misconduct, the instructor will reassess the student's grade based upon the hearing source's findings."

Part 5's Disciplinary Procedures state the standard that governs a hearing: "The standard of proof used for all cases is the preponderance of evidence." A charged student or organization also has "[t]he right to written notice ... of the time, place, and date of the hearing at least three (3) days in advance," "[t]he right to a written statement of the charges in time and detail sufficient to enable the student/organization to prepare for a hearing," and "[t]he right to present witnesses in the student's/registered student organization's behalf and to question any witnesses." Sanctions range from "a grade of 'F' on the work in question" through "reprimand, probation, suspension and expulsion," and "[c]ourses may not be dropped pending the final resolution of an allegation of academic misconduct." Source: Part 5: Disciplinary Procedures; Part 3: Academic and Classroom Misconduct. What any of this means for a particular case is for the institution and its process to determine.

03Source map

Where the documents live

Document	Location
Enhance Academic Integrity with Turnitin AI Detection (Distance Education, faculty-facing)	apsu.edu/online — Turnitin AI Detection
Turnitin Feedback Studio (Distance Education)	apsu.edu/online — Turnitin
Student Code of Conduct, Part 3: Academic and Classroom Misconduct (2026-27 Student Handbook)	apsu.edu/handbook — Part 3
Student Code of Conduct, Part 5: Disciplinary Procedures (2026-27 Student Handbook)	apsu.edu/handbook — Part 5
Community Care and Standards (office; formerly Dean of Students)	apsu.edu/student-affairs — Community Care and Standards

Organizing your own drafts and records to bring to any of this: the records checklist. Capturing the pages above as they read today, and keeping your own dated record beside them: what to do with these sources.

04Change log

Revision history of this page

2026-10-05 — Page created. All quotations retrieved this date from the apsu.edu pages linked beside them; the two Turnitin pages carried no visible on-page date, and the two Student Code of Conduct pages are both headed "2026-27 Student Handbook," with no further revision date shown. Detection status is confirmed first-party and affirmative: Distance Education's own faculty guidance states plainly that "APSU faculty considering AI writing detection should use Turnitin," integrated into D2L Assignments, with a stated reliance caution ("should not be used as the sole basis for action or a definitive grading measure") rather than a deactivation — not a step-2 disqualification. Named-vendor sweep (Turnitin, SimCheck, Originality, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus, Examity) and category sweep (Distance Education's Instructional Technology pages, the Student Code of Conduct, Academic Services) found no second AI-text detector. RECORD/TRANSCRIPT ABSENCE NAMED, NOT INFERRED: neither "transcript," "recorded," nor "recording" appears anywhere in Part 5's Disciplinary Procedures text as captured; the only record-of-discipline language found is the Informal-Record/Formal-Conduct-Records distinction for minor first offenses, which the page states explicitly and which this page quotes rather than extending to cover suspension or expulsion, which the Code does not itself describe in transcript terms. OFFICE: Community Care and Standards (the office Part 5 names as "Dean of Students or other designee, appointed by the Vice President for Student Affairs"), Morgan University Center Room 208, (931) 221-6570, communitycare@apsu.edu, confirmed on the office's own sidebar contact block. OMBUDS/ADVOCACY CHECKED, NOT USED: the same office's welcome message states it "also serve[s] as an advocate for student concerns and respond[s] to emergency and crisis situations" — first-party "advocate" language, but from the identical office Part 5 names as administering the conduct process itself (the same Dean of Students/designee who keeps the Informal Record), not described as independent, confidential, or neutral, and not stated to specifically address academic-integrity allegations; it is not presented here as a separate ombuds or advocacy resource for that reason. A separate "Faculty Ombudspersons" entry exists in APSU's A-Z index but is scoped to faculty, not students, and is excluded on that basis. No office titled ombudsperson or ombudsman for students was located. Nothing paraphrase-pending. Archive captures pending. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-10-05).

2026-10-06 — Internet Archive captures requested on 2026-10-05 by an automated capture pass and recorded this date; no human review is claimed for this entry. No quotation, date, finding or link above was changed by it. Each capture below was requested through Save Page Now and then confirmed to play back. Captures added: apsu.edu/student-affairs — Community Care and Standards → https://web.archive.org/web/20261005122435/https://apsu.edu/student-affairs/dean-of-students/index.php; Part 3: Academic and Classroom Misconduct → https://web.archive.org/web/20261005122509/https://www.apsu.edu/handbook/student-code/academic-classroom-misconduct.php; Part 5: Disciplinary Procedures → https://web.archive.org/web/20261005122619/https://www.apsu.edu/handbook/student-code/disciplinary-procedures.php; Turnitin Feedback Studio → https://web.archive.org/web/20261005122714/https://www.apsu.edu/online/technology/turnitin/; Enhance Academic Integrity with Turnitin AI Detection → https://web.archive.org/web/20261005122749/https://www.apsu.edu/online/technology/turnitin/faculty/generative-ai.php.

Spot an error or an outdated quotation? hello@gatheredwork.com — corrections are made on the record, in this log.