Page 1 of 4 - Cover Page Submission ID trn:oid:::29034:104087004
Submission
My Files
My Files
University
Document Details
Submission ID
trn:oid:::29034:104087004 2 Pages
Submission Date 635 Words
Jul 10, 2025, 11:33 PM GMT+5:30
3,423 Characters
Download Date
Jul 10, 2025, 11:33 PM GMT+5:30
File Name
Reflective Journal (5).docx
File Size
23.4 KB
Page 1 of 4 - Cover Page Submission ID trn:oid:::29034:104087004
Page 2 of 4 - AI Writing Overview Submission ID trn:oid:::29034:104087004
0% detected as AI Caution: Review required.
The percentage indicates the combined amount of likely AI-generated text as It is essential to understand the limitations of AI detection before making decisions
well as likely AI-generated text that was also likely AI-paraphrased. about a student’s work. We encourage you to learn more about Turnitin’s AI detection
capabilities before using the tool.
Detection Groups
0 AI-generated only 0%
Likely AI-generated text from a large-language model.
0 AI-generated text that was AI-paraphrased 0%
Likely AI-generated text that was likely revised using an AI-paraphrase tool
or word spinner.
Disclaimer
Our AI writing assessment is designed to help educators identify text that might be prepared by a generative AI tool. Our AI writing assessment may not always be accurate (it may misidentify
writing that is likely AI generated as AI generated and AI paraphrased or likely AI generated and AI paraphrased writing as only AI generated) so it should not be used as the sole basis for
adverse actions against a student. It takes further scrutiny and human judgment in conjunction with an organization's application of its specific academic policies to determine whether any
academic misconduct has occurred.
Frequently Asked Questions
How should I interpret Turnitin's AI writing percentage and false positives?
The percentage shown in the AI writing report is the amount of qualifying text within the submission that Turnitin’s AI writing
detection model determines was either likely AI-generated text from a large-language model or likely AI-generated text that was
likely revised using an AI-paraphrase tool or word spinner.
False positives (incorrectly flagging human-written text as AI-generated) are a possibility in AI models.
AI detection scores under 20%, which we do not surface in new reports, have a higher likelihood of false positives. To reduce the
likelihood of misinterpretation, no score or highlights are attributed and are indicated with an asterisk in the report (*%).
The AI writing percentage should not be the sole basis to determine whether misconduct has occurred. The reviewer/instructor
should use the percentage as a means to start a formative conversation with their student and/or use it to examine the submitted
assignment in accordance with their school's policies.
What does 'qualifying text' mean?
Our model only processes qualifying text in the form of long-form writing. Long-form writing means individual sentences contained in paragraphs that make up a
longer piece of written work, such as an essay, a dissertation, or an article, etc. Qualifying text that has been determined to be likely AI-generated will be
highlighted in cyan in the submission, and likely AI-generated and then likely AI-paraphrased will be highlighted purple.
Non-qualifying text, such as bullet points, annotated bibliographies, etc., will not be processed and can create disparity between the submission highlights and the
percentage shown.
Page 2 of 4 - AI Writing Overview Submission ID trn:oid:::29034:104087004
Page 3 of 4 - AI Writing Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::29034:104087004
Name
Instructor
Institutional Affiliation
Course
Date
Reflective Journal
Exploring your Biases
Understanding self
Looking at my background I understand that I grew in a community which promoted the idea of conformity and
academic achievement and did not give much importance to the diversity of cultures or languages. Although well
intended, this upbringing left some blind spots in the way I think about students who do not experience education
in the same way I did. I am now able to see that I applied these unquestioned norms in my own teaching lenses,
supposed that every family looks at school, behavior, and learning in the same way. This attitude can perpetuate
educational inequities almost inadvertently and erase the voices of marginalized students via coursework and field
experiences, as I began to realize through them.
One of the major experiences was an interaction with a bilingual student whose family emigrated recently. At first,
I assumed that she was shy, however it turned out that she was also cautious as the culture of her home promoted
compliance and silence within those areas blessed with power. This made me understand how my cultural
preconceptions of involvement and communication influenced the way I understood her involvement. It is
unpleasant, yet vital to become conscious of such biases. The focus on equity work among educators, as Nieto
(2000) notes, should start with educator awareness of their internal place within the systems, and an actual effort to
eradicate bias in the educator and within the institutions.
In order to develop in this aspect, I will dedicate myself to learning about the world of students by means of home
visits and family interviews and culturally responsive texts. The above practices will assist me in transforming the
teaching and building a trust-based relationship with the diverse population of students and families.
Connection to Paulo Friere
Having read Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Freire, I could see better how certain forms of education could be used
technically to ignore, oppress and even kill people instead of freeing them. This is a real-life experience that I had
when the only voice that mattered in a classroom was that of the teacher. At high school, we had social studies that
included lectures and tests without any discussion or application in our lives. In retrospect, this was a style that
indicated that students were blank slates, and not thoughtful people who were able to engage in discourse (Freire,
2000).
A college seminar that I participated in employed the so-called problem-posing model identified by Freire. We also
read literature written by minority authors, and we talked about the injustices that exist in reality. This was the first
time I felt intellectually and personally noticed in a classroom. The concept that education is both a dialogical and
humanizing process introduced by Freire changed my perspective of myself as an educator. It is not simply about
Page 3 of 4 - AI Writing Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::29034:104087004
Page 4 of 4 - AI Writing Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::29034:104087004
providing standards, but establishing an opportunity to co-construct knowledge within students, and in particular to
those who have been previously marginalized.
It has become apparent to me that culturally responsive education has become more than a pedagogical practice but
also an ethical obligation. It is vital to establish a strength-based relationship with the marginalized students to
rebuild the trust and encourage social justice. Freire (2000), puts it in words when he writes that the teacher is no
longer the-one-who-teaches but is one who is taught in a dialog with the students. Ethically, when we focus on
respecting student voice and validate identity in instruction, we will be fulfilling our duty to help build inclusive
and transformational learning environments.
References
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary ed.). Continuum.
Nieto, S. (2000). Placing equity front and center: Some thoughts on transforming teacher education for a new
century. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 180–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487100051003004
Page 4 of 4 - AI Writing Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::29034:104087004
