Redefining assessment tasks to promote students’ creativity and integrity in the age of generative artificial intelligence
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The arrival of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has forced lecturers to adjust their assessment practices to ensure that students’ work is their own from a creative point of view, and free of plagiarism. This chapter proposes the Academic Integrity and Creativity in the Age of Artificial Intelligence (AICAI) model for the use of authentic assessment as a possible strategy to promote students’ creativity and integrity and thereby ensure the ownership of their written work. Lecturers are encouraged to rethink the assignments they design and examine each of the following components with an eye to integrity: their professional characteristics, the objectives for the assignment, the type of assessment that is appropriate for the needs of the student. Others include the cognitive offloading that will be done or not with GenAI, the type of authentic task they wish to propose and its characteristics, and the instructions and criteria that will be given to students. The choices made should engage students, thereby diminishing the temptation to plagiarize. By combining different strands of pedagogical theory and research, the AICAI assessment design model proposed in this paper has brought into focus the challenges as well as the opportunities that have emerged with the inclusion of GenAI in higher education. On a more practical level, it offers a systemic approach and advice as to how the challenges can be mitigated and benefits maximized for all parties involved in assessment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it