Generative AI in higher education psychology programs: a scoping review exploring the opportunities for its use in assessment methods
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
Objective The current literature on Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) in tertiary settings primarily focuses on the risk it poses to academic integrity, and ways to reduce or remove GenAI use in assessments. As psychology graduates enter a workforce where GenAI is present, educators need to prepare students to use GenAI responsibly. This scoping review aims to assess the current state of knowledge in tertiary psychology regarding opportunities for integrating GenAI into assessment methods.Method A comprehensive literature search identified four studies for inclusion. These were published in Australia, Canada, Switzerland, and the United States, and included two quantitative case studies, a mixed-method case study, and a pedagogical case study.Results Three themes were generated: 1) GenAI can be used as an effective psychology tutor, 2) GenAI can be used for authentic assessment in undergraduate psychology, and 3) Critiquing GenAI as a form of assessment can enhance student learning and AI literacy.Conclusions Only four studies were identified, but all indicate that GenAI can be meaningfully incorporated into psychology assessments. However, this is an underdeveloped area and ongoing research with a particular focus on developing evidence-based assessment methods which adapt to the evolving GenAI landscape is needed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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