2025-2026 MELA Minutes

e) Action Items

i) Brainfuse Contract Renewal (1) Administrative access to Brainfuse reporting tools was discussed and members will verify their access to Brainfuse’s reporting tools. (2) A suggestion was made to request an updated Brainfuse training session. MCCB will look into scheduling a training session. (3) Michele Mitchell (PRCC) made the motion to renew the Brainfuse contract to include the addition of 15,000 hours at a rate of $23 per hour. (4) Kim Harris (NEMCC) seconded the motion. (5) Vote: All in favor; none opposed; motion carried. (6) Members were encouraged to communicate the approved action to their college president to ensure they are prepared to vote at the MACC meeting. repurchase TidyUp to help with the accessibility cleanup. The faculty noted a large number of files while cleaning up their courses and found that most of the old files are considered inaccessible when running the UDOIT tool. And we no longer had the tool help clean up unused files and created an issue with fixing accessibility issues. (2) Previous consortium pricing for TidyUp was Year 1: $8,755 and Year 2 (amended): $9,018 (increase required justification due to exceeding 5%) (3) Current contract expires November 30. (4) PRCC made the motion to request a quote for a three-year renewal of CidiLabs contract to include: DesignPlus, ReadyGo, UDOIT, and TidyUp. (5) Angel Nickens seconded the motion. (6) Vote was all in favor; none opposed; motion carried. ii) Feedback from CopyLeaks trial (1) Participating colleges: (a) MS Delta (b) ICC i) Adding TidyUp Back to Help with Accessibility Clean-up (1) PRCC shared feedback from the accessibility cleanup efforts and recommended that we

f) Open Forum

(c) NWCC (d) ECCC (e) Hinds (2) Strengths Noted: (a) Adjustable AI detection sensitivity (b) Ability to track student AI usage growth over time (c) Strong Canvas integration

(d) More user-friendly interface than Turnitin (e) Different levels of AI detection reporting. (3) Concerns Noted: (a) AI detection accuracy inconsistencies. This is similar to all AI detection tools we’ve encountered. (b) Limited existing repository compared to Turnitin, specifically for identifying previously submitted papers. (c) Concern about loss of Turnitin grading tools and rubrics. (d) Question regarding draft submissions automatically appearing as plagiarism, but this may be a setting issue within the system. (4) Other factors: (a) There has been a shift in focus on AI detection instead of traditional plagiarism. (b) Faculty use AI detection more as a teaching tool than a disciplinary tool. (c) The cost is significantly less with CopyLeaks than with Turnitin.