2025-2026 MELA Minutes

vi. Feedback from Other Institutions • Grand Rapids was the most forthcoming with information, but still limited in what they could share. • Some colleges provided information based on their experience, not through RFPs. • All institutions were previously Turnitin users. vii. Consortium Perspective on Copyleaks • Iowa Community Colleges: o Did an internal evaluation and chose to move to Copyleaks. o Model is similar to the consortium's. • College of Eastern Idaho: viii. AI Detection and Faculty Concerns • AI detection is constantly improving, but not perfect. • College of Eastern Idaho liked the ability to adjust AI detection levels to address faculty concerns. • Faculty had strong reactions to AI scoring, wanting to avoid an "all or nothing" approach. • Administrative control over AI settings and enhanced training can help address these concerns. ix. RFP and Vendor Information • Grand Rapids was helpful in sharing their RFP information. • University of Michigan provided percentage ratings but no criteria. • Utah Education Network, a similar consortium, is also being consulted. • Dr. LeBrun shared a list of contacts. x. Feedback on Copyleaks • Overall positive feedback from those who have used Copyleaks. • College of Eastern Idaho had some reservations about AI detection, but acknowledged its limitations. • Support turnaround time is crucial, based on past experiences. o Switched to Copyleaks due to cost analysis and features. o Had initial concerns about AI detection, but appreciated the ability to adjust detection levels. o Experienced similar faculty reactions to AI scoring (all or nothing).