CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 103

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Perceived impact of generative AI on assessments: Comparing educator and student perspectives in Australia, Cyprus, and the United States

Kizilcec, René F., Huber, Elaine, Papanastasiou, Elena C., Cram, Andrew, Makridis, Christos A., Smolansky, Adele, Zeivots, Sandris, Raduescu, Corina·2024·Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence
DOI 10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100269
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The growing use of generative AI tools built on large language models (LLMs) calls the sustainability of traditional assessment practices into question. Tools like OpenAI's ChatGPT can generate eloquent essays on any topic and in any language, write code in various programming languages, and ace most standardized tests, all within seconds. We conducted an international survey of educators and students in higher education to understand and compare their perspectives on the impact of generative AI across various assessment scenarios, building on an established framework for examining the quality of online assessments along six dimensions. Across three universities, 680 students and 87 educators, who moderately use generative AI, consider essay and coding assessments to be most impacted. Educators strongly prefer assessments that are adapted to assume the use of AI and encourage critical thinking, while students' reactions are mixed, in part due to concerns about a loss of creativity. The findings show the importance of engaging educators and students in assessment reform efforts to focus on the process of learning over its outputs, alongside higher-order thinking and authentic applications.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100269

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 16 references

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. Andrade, 2019, Student perspectives on rubric-referenced assessment, Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10, 3
  2. Bearman, 2023, Designing assessment in a digital world: An organising framework, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48, 291, 10.1080/02602938.2022.2069674 · DOI
  3. Bennett, 2017, How technology shapes assessment design: Findings from a study of university teachers, British Journal of Educational Technology, 48, 672, 10.1111/bjet.12439 · DOI
  4. Bevitt, 2015, Assessment innovation and student experience: A new assessment challenge and call for a multi-perspective approach to assessment research, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40, 103, 10.1080/02602938.2014.890170 · DOI
  5. Chan, 2023, Student partnership in assessment in higher education: A systematic review, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1
  6. Cram, 2022, Online assessment in Australian university business schools: A snapshot of usage and challenges, ASCILITE Publications, 10.14742/apubs.2022.181 · DOI
  7. Dann, 2014, Assessment as learning: Blurring the boundaries of assessment and learning for theory, policy and practice, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21, 149
  8. Farazouli, 2023, Hello gpt! Goodbye home examination? An exploratory study of ai chatbots impact on university teachers' assessment practices, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1
  9. Frank, 2019, Toward understanding the impact of artificial intelligence on labor, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116, 6531, 10.1073/pnas.1900949116 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Gašević, 2022, Towards strengthening links between learning analytics and assessment: Challenges and potentials of a promising new bond, Computers in Human Behavior, 134, 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107304 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Gikandi, 2011, Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the literature, Computers & Education, 57, 2333, 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.004 · DOI
  12. Hopfenbeck, 2023, Challenges and opportunities for classroom-based formative assessment and ai: A perspective article, Frontiers in Education, 10.3389/feduc.2023.1270700 · DOI
  13. Huber, 2024, Towards a framework for designing and evaluating online assessments in business education, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 49, 102, 10.1080/02602938.2023.2183487 · DOI
  14. Mao, 2024, Generative artificial intelligence in education and its implications for assessment, TechTrends, 68, 58, 10.1007/s11528-023-00911-4 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Markauskaite, 2022, Rethinking the entwinement between artificial intelligence and human learning: What capabilities do learners need for a world with ai?, Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3
  16. Mate, 2022, Considerations and strategies for effective online assessment with a focus on the biomedical sciences, Faseb Bioadvances, 4, 9, 10.1096/fba.2021-00075 · DOI
  17. Mislevy, 2003, Focus article: On the structure of educational assessments, Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 1, 3
  18. Nieminen, 2023, Designing the digital in authentic assessment: Is it fit for purpose?, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48, 529, 10.1080/02602938.2022.2089627 · DOI
  19. Papanastasiou, 2023, Evaluating emergency remote assessment adaptations in higher education due to covid-19: Faculty insights and challenges, Education Sciences, 13, 184, 10.3390/educsci13020184 · DOI
  20. Siemens, 2022, Human and artificial cognition, Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3
  21. Sillat, 2021, Digital competence assessment methods in higher education: A systematic literature review, Education Sciences, 11, 402, 10.3390/educsci11080402 · DOI
  22. Torrance, 2007, Assessment as learning? How the use of explicit learning objectives, assessment criteria and feedback in post-secondary education and training can come to dominate learning, Assessment in Education, 14, 281
  23. Viberg, 2024, Exploring teachers' (future) digital assessment practices in higher education: Instrument and model development, British Journal of Educational Technology, 10.1111/bjet.13462 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 103

Metadata

Authors
Kizilcec, R. F., Huber, E., Papanastasiou, E. C., Cram, A., Makridis, C. A., Smolansky, A., Zeivots, S., & Raduescu, C.
ORCID
Venue
Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-12
Volume
7
Pages
100269
ISSN
2666-920X
DOI
10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100269
Cited by
103
References
16
Language
en
Licence
Funders
  • Cornell University
  • National Science Foundation
  • University of Sydney
  • National Science Foundation Directorate for STEM Education (2237593)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review