Generative AI tools and assessment: Guidelines of the world's top-ranking universities

IF 4.1 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS Computers and Education Open Pub Date : 2023-10-23 DOI:10.1016/j.caeo.2023.100151
Benjamin Luke Moorhouse , Marie Alina Yeo , Yuwei Wan
{"title":"Generative AI tools and assessment: Guidelines of the world's top-ranking universities","authors":"Benjamin Luke Moorhouse ,&nbsp;Marie Alina Yeo ,&nbsp;Yuwei Wan","doi":"10.1016/j.caeo.2023.100151","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The public release of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) tools (e.g., ChatGPT) has had a disruptive effect on the assessment practices of higher education institutions (HEIs) worldwide. Concerns have largely been associated with academic integrity, cheating and plagiarism. HEIs have had to develop guidelines in response to GAI. As many of these guidelines were developed in haste and could affect a large number of instructors and students, there is a need to examine their content, coverage and suitability. This review examines the extent to which the world's 50 top-ranking HEIs have developed or modified their assessment guidelines to address GAI use and, where guidelines exist, the primary content and advice given to guide instructors in their GAI assessment design and practices. The findings show that just under half of the institutions have developed publicly available guidelines. The guidelines cover three main areas: academic integrity, advice on assessment design and communicating with students. Amongst the suggestions for teachers on assessment design, two appear particularly pertinent in helping develop effective assessment tasks and developing learners’ AI literacy: first, running assessment tasks through GAI to check the extent to which the tool can accomplish the task and, second, having students use GAI as part of the assessment process. Overall, the review suggests that HEIs have come to accept the use of GAI and drafted assessment guidelines to advise instructors on its use. In the article, we argue that it may be beneficial to embrace GAI as a part of the assessment process since this is the reality of today's educational and job landscape. This will require instructors to develop a new competence - generative artificial intelligence assessment literacy - which is conceptualised in this article.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100322,"journal":{"name":"Computers and Education Open","volume":"5 ","pages":"Article 100151"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666557323000290/pdfft?md5=b41a5f802390c7cbb48a295ca81bf744&pid=1-s2.0-S2666557323000290-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computers and Education Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666557323000290","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The public release of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) tools (e.g., ChatGPT) has had a disruptive effect on the assessment practices of higher education institutions (HEIs) worldwide. Concerns have largely been associated with academic integrity, cheating and plagiarism. HEIs have had to develop guidelines in response to GAI. As many of these guidelines were developed in haste and could affect a large number of instructors and students, there is a need to examine their content, coverage and suitability. This review examines the extent to which the world's 50 top-ranking HEIs have developed or modified their assessment guidelines to address GAI use and, where guidelines exist, the primary content and advice given to guide instructors in their GAI assessment design and practices. The findings show that just under half of the institutions have developed publicly available guidelines. The guidelines cover three main areas: academic integrity, advice on assessment design and communicating with students. Amongst the suggestions for teachers on assessment design, two appear particularly pertinent in helping develop effective assessment tasks and developing learners’ AI literacy: first, running assessment tasks through GAI to check the extent to which the tool can accomplish the task and, second, having students use GAI as part of the assessment process. Overall, the review suggests that HEIs have come to accept the use of GAI and drafted assessment guidelines to advise instructors on its use. In the article, we argue that it may be beneficial to embrace GAI as a part of the assessment process since this is the reality of today's educational and job landscape. This will require instructors to develop a new competence - generative artificial intelligence assessment literacy - which is conceptualised in this article.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
生成式人工智能工具与评估:世界一流大学指南
生成式人工智能(GAI)工具(例如ChatGPT)的公开发布对全球高等教育机构(HEIs)的评估实践产生了破坏性影响。人们的担忧主要与学术诚信、作弊和抄袭有关。高等教育院校必须针对GAI制定指引。由于这些指导方针中有许多是仓促制定的,可能会影响到大量的教师和学生,因此有必要审查它们的内容、覆盖面和适用性。本审查审查了全球50所排名最高的高等教育机构为解决GAI的使用而制定或修改其评估指南的程度,以及在存在指南的情况下,为指导教师进行GAI评估设计和实践提供的主要内容和建议。调查结果显示,只有不到一半的机构制定了公开可用的指导方针。该指南涵盖三个主要方面:学术诚信、评估设计建议和与学生沟通。在对教师的评估设计建议中,有两个建议在帮助开发有效的评估任务和培养学习者的人工智能素养方面显得特别相关:第一,通过GAI运行评估任务,以检查该工具可以完成任务的程度;第二,让学生使用GAI作为评估过程的一部分。总体而言,检讨显示高等教育院校已开始接受使用GAI,并已草拟评估指引,就如何使用GAI向教员提供意见。在本文中,我们认为将GAI作为评估过程的一部分可能是有益的,因为这是当今教育和工作环境的现实。这将要求教师开发一种新的能力——生成式人工智能评估素养——这在本文中是概念化的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
TPACK in context: An updated model Representing groups of students as personas: A systematic review of persona creation, application, and trends in the educational domain Reading from paper, computers, and tablets in the first grade: The role of comprehension monitoring Low-performing students benefit mostly from Open-Book Examinations Instructor Maladaptive and Adaptive Relational Styles (I-MARS) as drivers of online-student retention and satisfaction
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1