Turnitin's latest Learning Integrity Insights Report highlights how students and educators are engaging with AI 

OAKLAND, Calif., Oct. 7, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- According to Turnitin's Q3 Learning Integrity Insights Report, students who wrote within Turnitin Clarity, a transparent, AI guided writing environment, were nearly 50% less likely to fully outsource their work to AI compared to those who wrote outside the platform.

What did the report find?

• US Submission: Near-total outsourcing (greater than 80% AI writing score) is 14.3% in non-Turnitin Clarity submissions and only 7.6% within Turnitin Clarity.¹
• A/NZ Submissions: 6.7% of non-Turnitin Clarity submissions had a >80% AI writing score, compared to 3.96% within Turnitin Clarity.²
• UK Submissions: Saw a more modest difference, with 9.6% of non-Turnitin Clarity submissions with a >80% AI writing score, compared to 7.2% within Turnitin Clarity.³

"Transparency is key to better learning outcomes," said Annie Chechitelli, Chief Product Officer. "A transparent writing space, like Turnitin Clarity, gives educators visibility into how a student's work comes together, allowing them to provide more meaningful guidance. When students understand how their work is being evaluated, the anxiety around AI detection can be reduced, along with the temptation to outsource their thinking entirely. The result is a learning environment that protects critical thinking and nurtures learning integrity."

Do students overuse AI when given access?

Transparency may ease student anxiety around AI, but the data also revealed something unexpected about how students choose to use AI, or not. After analyzing nearly 840,000 prompts submitted through the AI assistant enabled in Turnitin Clarity, Turnitin found:

• 66 percent of students completed their writing assignments without engaging the AI assistant at all.
• 20 percent used between one and five prompts;
• And just 14% used 6 or more prompts per assignment.
• This pattern remained consistent across both secondary and higher education, as well as across the United States, United Kingdom and Australia/New Zealand.⁴ 

AI use varies by educational level

The way students use AI assistance differs notably between secondary students and higher education settings.

Secondary students tend to use AI early in the writing process. Of the 22,000 preset prompts used inside Turnitin Clarity by secondary students, help brainstorming (used 4,140 times) and help drafting an outline (used 3,764 times) were the most popular choices.⁵ Higher education students are more likely to use AI for quality checks and evaluation. Feedback against rubrics and assignment organization was the top-used preset prompt, used 1,976 times.⁶

Why institutional AI policies fall flat

While institutional AI policy adoption has increased,⁷ many educators and students still lack clarity on how these policies are put into practice.

Within Turnitin Clarity, the AI chat assistant can be configured at both the institutional and educator level. At the institutional level, Insights reveals 50% of institutions kept the AI assistant always enabled, 45% allowed for flexible use—meaning they could toggle it off or on depending on the assignment or class needs—and only 5% completely disabled it.⁸ However, at the educator level, that flexibility narrows to more of an all-or-nothing approach, with 73% of classes having the AI assistant always enabled and 13% having it always disabled.⁹ 

Institutional AI policies need to translate meaningfully into the classroom. Without practical tools that empower educators to dial up or down AI access by assignment, institutional policies remain little more than words on a page. The result leaves educators struggling in an all-or-nothing situation, that neither protects learning integrity nor teaches students the skills to use AI responsibly.

Read the full Learning Integrity Insights Report https://go.turnitin.com/us/learning-integrity-insights-report-q3 

Submissions showing a >80% AI score in Turnitin against non-Turnitin Clarity submissions with a >80% AI writing score from July 1, 2025 through August 26, 2026.

1 US: submission sample size 15,299 Clarity; 2.3M non-Clarity.

2 UK: submission sample size 366 Clarity; 268,818 non-Clarity.

3 A/NZ: submission sample size 956 Clarity; 312,003 non-Clarity.

4 Analyzed 840,889 prompts from users across US, UK, and A/NZ who used the AI assistant in Turnitin Clarity from July 2025 to August 21, 2026. No engagement (103,343 compositions or 66%), 1-5 prompts (30,740 compositions or 20%), 6+ prompts (22,000+ or 14%).

5 Analysis of nearly 22,000 preset prompts in Turnitin Clarity used by secondary education from July 2025 to August 21, 2026.

6 Analysis of nearly 10,000 preset prompts in Turnitin Clarity used by higher education from July 2025 to August 21, 2026.

7 Tyton Partners: Time for Class 2026: The AI Tipping Point: From Monitoring Students to Engaging Them, June 2026.

8 Analysis of more than 19,000 assignments over 957 institutions in both secondary and higher education from July 2025 to August 21, 2026. At the institutional level: 50% = 511 institutions, 45% = 454 institutions and 5% = 51.

9 Analysis of more than 19,000 assignments over 957 institutions in both secondary and higher education from July 2025 to August 21, 2026. At the instructor level, 73% = 693 instructors, 13% = 125 instructors and 14% = 133 instructors.

Press Contact:

press@turnitin.com 

About Turnitin

Turnitin stands with educators and institutions as champions of learning integrity who understand the enduring value of education in a rapidly changing world. As a global company with more than 16,000 customers in 185 countries and territories and more than 25 years of experience working closely with educators, Turnitin designs every product it builds to address timely needs in today's learning settings. From integrity solutions offering transparency in the writing process to delivering secure high-stakes and course assessments, Turnitin provides educators and researchers with the tools they need to navigate responsible use of AI in education and the learning experience. Learn more at turnitin.com.

View original content to download multimedia:https://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/data-shows-a-nearly-50-drop-in-near-total-outsourcing-of-student-writing-when-done-in-a-transparent-writing-environment-302900737.html

Eine anonyme E-Mail an die US-Botschaft in Bern hat kurz vor dem Auftritt von US-Präsident Donald Trump beim Weltwirtschaftsforum in Davos ein Ermittlungsverfahren der Schweizer Bundesanwaltschaft ausgelöst – und zur Festnahme einer WEF-Mitarbeiterin geführt. Inzwischen ist klar: Die gegen die IT-Expertin erhobenen Vorwürfe eines geplanten Attentats waren nicht zu belegen. Die Bundesanwaltschaft teilte mit, die in der Sache eröffneten Ermittlungen wegen strafbarer Vorbereitungshandlungen zu einem Mord seien eingestellt worden.

Die Warnmail war laut Medienberichten der Tamedia-Gruppe wenige Stunden vor Trumps Rede eingegangen. Der anonyme Absender schilderte in fehlerhaftem Englisch eine angeblich „dringliche Bedrohung“ für das Leben des US-Präsidenten in Davos und bezeichnete die später festgenommene Frau iranischer Herkunft als Agentin, die eine entsprechende Operation koordiniert habe. Die US-Botschaft leitete den Hinweis an die Schweizer Behörden weiter; diese erklärten, sie hätten die Warnung „sehr ernst“ genommen und seien „sofort aktiv“ geworden.

Tatsächlich arbeitete die Beschuldigte nicht am Tagungsort in Davos, sondern in der WEF-Zentrale im Genfer Vorort Cologny. Dort wurde sie nach Angaben der Bundesanwaltschaft festgenommen, mehrere Stunden lang bis tief in die Nacht vernommen und ihre Telefone sowie ihr Computer wurden beschlagnahmt und ausgewertet. Im Zuge dieser Maßnahmen habe sich jedoch gezeigt, dass sich keiner der in der anonymen E-Mail erhobenen Punkte erhärten ließ. Für alle Aspekte der Anschuldigungen seien keine Beweise gefunden worden, hieß es zur Begründung für die Einstellung des Verfahrens.

Die betroffene Mitarbeiterin, eine gebürtige Iranerin, war nach den Medienberichten kurz nach dem Vorfall beim WEF nicht mehr beschäftigt. Zu den Gründen äußerte sich die Organisation nicht; auf entsprechende Anfragen gab es zunächst keine Stellungnahme. Damit bleiben nach dem spektakulären Fehlalarm vorerst Fragen offen – etwa zur Herkunft und Glaubwürdigkeit des anonymen Hinweises –, während die Schweizer Strafverfolger den Fall strafrechtlich abgeschlossen haben.