Student Authorship Verification for Moodle: LTI 1.3 Setup and University Buying Guide

Short answer: Moodle can connect to external writing-provenance systems through its External tool activity using LTI 1.3. But an LTI registration is not, by itself, authorship verification. A university still needs a student-side writing workflow, informed recording consent, an interpretable evidence record, a fair review process and an accessible way to submit the result.

AuthMarks for institutions describes a consent-based process in which a student records writing, reviews and attests to the record, then seals it for authorized instructor review. Its published LMS integration guide includes a manual Moodle LTI 1.3 registration path and vendor-side activation. This page explains how a Moodle institution can evaluate the complete process before purchasing or deploying it.

Disclosure: AuthMarks publishes this article and provides authorship-verification software. This is a deployment and purchasing guide, not an independently tested claim that AuthMarks performs better than other vendors.

Why a Moodle institution might add writing-process evidence

A Moodle submission establishes that a user account submitted a file or activity. That fact is useful, but it does not by itself show how the document was produced. Some teachers investigate questionable submissions using drafts, conversations with the student, similarity reports, or document version history. Writing-provenance software adds a different kind of material: observations made while a document was being written, and an account of what was and was not captured.

For academic integrity, five questions should remain separate:

1. Submission: What was submitted, by which LMS account, and when?
2. Observation: Which writing actions were actually captured while recording was on?
3. Attribution: Which passages were typed, pasted, suggested, or not observed, according to the record?
4. Integrity: Can a recipient check whether a sealed record has changed?
5. Decision: What does the university's policy permit an instructor to infer from that evidence?

A valid document seal does not prove that a particular physical person typed every character. A writing-process record is not a misconduct finding. The institution retains responsibility for interpretation and due process.

For a platform-wide buying comparison, see the best student authorship verification software guide.

What Moodle LTI 1.3 actually provides

Moodle's official LTI External tools documentation describes site-wide and course-level external tools, including service and privacy configuration. An institution can use an LTI tool to launch the vendor from Moodle, provide selected identity or role data, and—in configurations that permit it—receive grades or activity results. The underlying 1EdTech LTI specification defines launch and optional services such as deep linking, assignment/grade services and names-and-roles provisioning.

LTI is a connection standard, not evidence that a particular security audit, marketplace review or 1EdTech product certification was completed. Confirm certificates and marketplace listings separately if procurement requires them.

Requirement	What Moodle/LTI can support	What the institution must verify
Course access	Launch an external tool from a Moodle course	Which placements teachers and students actually see
Identity context	Transmit permitted launch identity and role information	Minimal fields, purpose, account matching and student notice
Deep linking	Add vendor activities/content to a course where implemented	Whether assignment creation works in the institution's version
Gradebook integration	Receive grades or status if configured	Whether a numeric grade is transmitted or just a progress/link signal
Evidence viewing	Link an authorized instructor to a vendor record	Real authorization boundaries and handling of sensitive data
Student capture	Not provided by LTI itself	Whether the chosen writing application is supported and capture was enabled

AuthMarks' published Moodle configuration path

The AuthMarks LTI page currently supplies four standard service endpoints and describes manual Moodle registration. The published route is:

1. An authorized Moodle administrator visits Site administration → Plugins → External tool → Manage tools (the exact menu may vary by Moodle version).
2. Choose Configure a tool manually and select LTI 1.3.
3. Obtain the current launch/login, redirect, deep-linking and public-key details from the AuthMarks integration page, rather than copying values from this article into a production deployment.
4. Review tool privacy settings, including whether names, email addresses, grades or roster data will be shared. Request only the services required by the agreed workflow.
5. Complete registration and provide the resulting client and deployment details through AuthMarks' approved activation process.
6. Have AuthMarks activate the institution's tenant, then test a student launch, an instructor launch, deep linking and a completed test submission.

The vendor page states that tenant activation is two-sided; registration alone does not make the tool operational. Avoid assuming an unsupported dynamic-registration flow or an automatic marketplace installation. For the current Moodle administrator interface, follow Moodle's current LTI External tools guide.

Do not confuse LMS launch with writing capture

The LMS knows about the course and assignment. A writing-provenance recorder knows about the writing process only to the extent it was authorized and active. AuthMarks describes capture in Google Docs and browser-based Word, alongside its own editor and other available or pilot-stage writing surfaces. Confirm the required browser, operating system, extension permissions, accessibility capabilities and rollout status for your student population. See AuthMarks for institutions.

A student who writes most of an essay before enabling recording may have substantial untracked work. That is an evidence gap, not proof of cheating. Instructors should never translate a missing recording into automatic wrongdoing.

A Moodle-specific test before procurement

Run an end-to-end test using a sandbox course and fictional content. Involve an LMS administrator, one instructor, a student tester, an accessibility representative and a privacy stakeholder.

Test A — Launch and assignment setup. Can an instructor link an AuthMarks activity without administrative help? Does a student access it from the course without a confusing secondary login?

Test B — Consented writing. Can a student see recording is off, knowingly enable it for a document, pause it, and understand the implications of a gap in capture?

Test C — Mixed writing process. Create a synthetic essay with normal drafting, edits, a quotation pasted from a public source, and a period without recording. Does the reviewer understand the observed and unknown sections without treating a quotation as cheating?

Test D — Submission and review. Can an instructor open the intended record from Moodle? Does the workflow avoid exposing one student's record to another student or an unrelated instructor?

Test E — Gradebook semantics. If a completion status is returned, does it appear clearly as a completion signal rather than a misconduct or AI-generated score? Test what happens when the record is missing.

Test F — Failure handling. Repeat with a denied permission, interrupted session, unsupported device, cancelled launch and deleted course link. Measure support effort.

Test G — Accessibility. Have real students using supported assistive technologies complete the same tasks, with a reasonable alternative path if capture is not suitable.

These scenarios are evaluation recommendations, not claims that particular outcomes have already been measured for AuthMarks.

A buyer scorecard for a Moodle university

Score each criterion from 0 (unsupported) to 4 (verified in your own test):

Criterion	Weight	Evidence to request
Student completion of normal assignments	20%	Test recordings and participant feedback
Instructor interpretation of evidence and gaps	20%	Same sample reviewed by multiple faculty members
Security, roles and data minimization	20%	Documented fields, role tests, retention schedule
Accessibility and alternate workflows	15%	Real assistive-technology evaluation
Moodle launch, linking and gradebook behavior	15%	Sandbox demonstration on your Moodle version
Support and total cost	10%	Written quote and service scope

Do not award points for undocumented capabilities. Keep the scoring rubric and all test evidence on file so the institution can explain its selection.

A larger evaluation plan is available in the 30-day university pilot guide.

Privacy and consent questions Moodle administrators should ask

A writing-process record may be more sensitive than an ordinary submitted essay because it can include timing, edit history and activity metadata. Your review should cover:

• What personal information does the LTI launch send, and can each field be disabled?
• What is captured while a student actively records? What happens when consent is withdrawn?
• Can a student see their own evidence and meaningfully explain anomalies?
• Who may view full records, and how is access logged?
• What happens to unsealed telemetry and sealed records under the actual retention schedule?
• Can records be exported for an appeal, and who controls deletion or legal holds?
• Which writing environments and accessibility accommodations are supported today?
• Who is the data controller or processor under the university's arrangement?

AuthMarks' public privacy policy describes explicit document-level consent, default EU hosting, and different retention treatment for unsealed versus sealed materials. Institutions should examine the actual agreement; those disclosures are not a blanket certification of compliance with every privacy law or university policy.

Implementation mistakes worth avoiding

Treating a successful LTI launch as a successful writing-recording pilot. Test both components separately.

Turning on unnecessary LTI scopes. Name, email, roster and grade services should be justified by the real use case.

Requiring the recorder for every student before confirming accessibility. A reasonable alternative route belongs in the adoption plan.

Using untracked regions as an accusation. Unknown provenance means unknown, not dishonest.

Assuming a seal proves physical identity. Tamper-evidence, account attribution and person-level identity assurance are different claims.

Ignoring the cost of staff review. If the instructor cannot interpret the result in a few minutes, the product may be operationally unsuitable even if it produces detailed data.

Frequently asked questions

Does Moodle include built-in student writing provenance verification?

Moodle includes assignment and external-tool workflows, but those should not be equated with a separate consent-based writing-process evidence system. A vendor should show exactly where and when it captures writing activity.

Does AuthMarks have a Moodle LTI 1.3 integration path?

Yes, AuthMarks publishes a manual LTI 1.3 registration procedure for Moodle. Institution-side registration is followed by vendor-side tenant activation. Exact support for your Moodle release and enabled services should be tested.

Is a sealed writing record proof that a student did not use AI?

No. It is evidence of what was observed and recorded under particular conditions; it cannot establish everything about actions outside the capture environment or every identity question. Academic policy and human review still apply.

Can a university pilot the workflow before a full rollout?

AuthMarks' public LTI page describes pilot availability. Scope, tenant activation, support, dates and any eventual institutional costs should be confirmed in writing.

Next step for Moodle institutions

Bring your current Moodle version, intended cohort, most-used writing applications, privacy requirements and desired assignment workflow to a vendor demonstration. Ask to see an entire Moodle launch → student consent → writing session → attestation → sealed submission → instructor review with an intentionally untracked section.

Request an AuthMarks institutional pilot or review AuthMarks' published LTI setup. If still comparing vendors, use the university procurement checklist.

Related: Canvas integration guide · Blackboard integration guide · Google Docs and Word compatibility guide · 30-day pilot playbook · Authorship verification software buyer's guide