Generative AI tools and assessment: Guidelines of the world's top-ranking universities
Open accessAbstract
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. Among 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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The integration of AI into language pedagogy remains superficial and inconsistent.
“Despite these technological advancements, a growing body of evidence indicates that the Integration of AI into language pedagogy remains superficial and inconsistent (Chan & Tsi, 2024;Moorhouse et al., 2023).”
From Adoption and Integration of Artificial Intelligence in Foreign Language Teaching: Multi-Institutional Analysis of Higher Education (2026) · cites this paper as Moorhouse et al., 2023
Moorhouse et al. found that most institutional AI policies at leading universities concentrated on regulatory responses rather than pedagogical enablement.
“Moorhouse et al. (2023) examined institutional AI policies at leading universities and found that most frameworks concentrated on regulatory responses (e.g., academic integrity policies) rather than pedagogical enablement.”
From Adoption and Integration of Artificial Intelligence in Foreign Language Teaching: Multi-Institutional Analysis of Higher Education (2026) · cites this paper as Moorhouse et al. (2023)
The lower-mid adoption pattern aligns with recent studies reporting limited faculty adoption of AI tools in higher education.
“aligning with recent studies that have reported limited faculty adoption of AI tools in higher education (Chan & Tsi, 2023;Moorhouse et al., 2023).”
From Adoption and Integration of Artificial Intelligence in Foreign Language Teaching: Multi-Institutional Analysis of Higher Education (2026) · cites this paper as Moorhouse et al., 2023
Moorhouse, Yeo, and Wan (2023) analysed 50 leading global higher education institutions and found that 57% had guidelines for AI use, primarily advising students to acknowledge AI use or cite AI-generated content.
“Moorhouse, Yeo, and Wan (2023) analysed 50 leading global higher education institutions and found that 57% had guidelines for AI use, primarily advising students to acknowledge AI use or cite AI-generated content.”
From Addressing student non-compliance in AI use declarations: implications for academic integrity and assessment in higher education (2025) · cites this paper as Moorhouse, Yeo, and Wan 2023
Moorhouse et al.'s findings indicate that nearly half of the world's top 50 universities have published guidelines focusing on academic integrity, assessment design advice, and student communication.
“Moorhouse et al.'s (2023) findings indicate that nearly half of the world's top 50 universities have published guidelines focusing on academic integrity, assessment design advice, and student communication.”
From Higher Education's Generative Artificial Intelligence Paradox: The Meaning of Chatbot Mania (2024) · cites this paper as Moorhouse et al., 2023
Moorhouse et al. pointed out that many suggestions in these rapidly developed guidelines have not been sufficiently tested.
“However, the authors pointed out that as these guidelines have been developed rapidly, it is likely that many of the suggestions have not been sufficiently tested.”
From AI Governance in Higher Education: Case Studies of Guidance at Big Ten Universities (2024) · cites this paper as [12]
Moorhouse et al. found that 23 out of 50 top-ranking universities had developed publicly available guidelines by June 2023, addressing academic integrity, assessment design, and communicating with students.
“For example, the early review conducted by Moorhouse et al. [12] found that 23 out of the 50 top-ranking universities have developed publicly available guidelines by June 2023, which addressed the potential influence of GenAI on three main areas: academic integrity, advice on assessment design, and communicating with students.”
From AI Governance in Higher Education: Case Studies of Guidance at Big Ten Universities (2024) · cites this paper as [12]
Many universities have published policies and guidelines aiming to promote responsible and beneficial AI usage.
“Despite significant uncertainty about the pros and cons of incorporating GenAI in education, many universities have published policies and guidelines, aiming to promote responsible and beneficial AI usage.”
From AI Governance in Higher Education: Case Studies of Guidance at Big Ten Universities (2024) · cites this paper as [12]
English-speaking countries in the Global North tend to be ranked higher in various university rankings.
“English-speaking countries in the Global North tend to be ranked higher in various university rankings [12].”
From AI Governance in Higher Education: Case Studies of Guidance at Big Ten Universities (2024) · cites this paper as [12]
Concerns over AI-generated misinformation and its potential misuse in assessments underscore the need for updated academic policies and enhanced detection mechanisms.
“Concerns over AI-generated misinformation and its potential misuse in assessments underscore the need for updated academic policies and enhanced detection mecha -nisms [ 30-32 ].”
From Redefining student assessment in AI-infused learning environments: a systematic review of challenges and strategies for academic integrity (2026) · cites this paper as [31]
Without such policies, institutions risk ethical violations, academic dishonesty, and a lack of uniformity in AI integration within education.
“Without such policies, institutions risk ethical violations, academic dishonesty, and a lack of uniformity in AI integration within education [ 31 ].”
From Redefining student assessment in AI-infused learning environments: a systematic review of challenges and strategies for academic integrity (2026) · cites this paper as [31]
Improving AI detection tools to accurately identify AI-generated content while reducing false positives and negatives is an approach to maintain academic integrity.
“One approach involves improving AI detec -tion tools to accurately identify AI-generated content while reducing false positives and negatives that may affect aca -demic integrity enforcement [ 31, 54, 57, 66, 91, 106].”
From Redefining student assessment in AI-infused learning environments: a systematic review of challenges and strategies for academic integrity (2026) · cites this paper as [31]
Less than half of the reviewed universities have developed publicly accessible guidelines addressing GenAI use.
“Moorhouse, Yeo [38] found that less than half of the reviewed universities have developed publicly accessible guidelines addressing GenAI use.”
From Generative AI in Higher Education: Balancing Innovation and Integrity (2025) · cites this paper as Moorhouse, Yeo [38]
Prior empirical audits of university AI governance have focused on policy presence among elite or research-intensive samples, examining primarily the pedagogical dimension.
“Prior empirical audits of university AI governance have focused on policy presence among elite or researchintensive samples [47, 50, 76, 80] (Table 2, Appendix B), examining primarily the pedagogical dimension: how universities communicate expectations about AI use in coursework.”
From The Due Process Deficit: Auditing AI Governance in U.S. Higher Education (2026) · cites this paper as [50]
An investigation of GenAI policies of the world's 50 top-ranking HEIs found that guidance generally covers academic integrity, advice on assessment design, and communicating with students.
“Most recently, an investigation similar to this one was done of the GenAI policies of the world's 50 top-ranking HEIs [33] and found that guidance generally covers 'academic integrity, advice on assessment design and communicating with students.'”
From Generative artificial intelligence in higher education: Evidence from an analysis of institutional policies and guidelines (2025) · cites this paper as [33]
Moorhouse et al. found that HEIs have largely come to embrace GenAI.
“Moorhouse et al also find that HEIs have largely come to embrace GenAI, a position which the authors themselves advocate.”
From Generative artificial intelligence in higher education: Evidence from an analysis of institutional policies and guidelines (2025) · cites this paper as [33]
There seems to be a shift away from a combative approach to GenAI.
“Perhaps, partly as a consequence, there seems to be somewhat of a shift away from this combative approach to GenAI [33].”
From Generative artificial intelligence in higher education: Evidence from an analysis of institutional policies and guidelines (2025) · cites this paper as [33]
Many universities initially adopted a cautious, wait-and-see approach following the public release of ChatGPT.
“Following the public release of ChatGPT, many universities initially adopted a cautious, wait-and-see approach (Wang, Dang, Wu and Mac, 2023; Moorhouse, Yeo and Wan, 2023; Cheng and YIM, 2024).”
From Generative AI in higher education: A global perspective of institutional adoption policies and guidelines (2025) · cites this paper as Moorhouse, Yeo and Wan, 2023
Our research provided a more detailed perspective by also considering administrators' roles, offering insights into the comprehensive stakeholder responsibilities in GAI's context.
“While previous studies have examined the roles of faculty and students in GAI adoption (Moorhouse et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2023), our research provided a more detailed perspective by also considering administrators' roles, offering insights into the comprehensive stakeholder responsibilities in GAI's context.”
From Generative AI in higher education: A global perspective of institutional adoption policies and guidelines (2025) · cites this paper as Moorhouse et al., 2023
Our findings highlighted a universal concern for academic integrity and the ethical use of AI, underscoring institutions' dedication to maintaining core educational values amidst technological progress.
“Our findings highlighted a universal concern for academic integrity and the ethical use of AI, underscoring institutions' dedication to maintaining core educational values amidst technological progress (Moorhouse et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2023).”
From Generative AI in higher education: A global perspective of institutional adoption policies and guidelines (2025) · cites this paper as Moorhouse et al., 2023
Recent research suggests ChatGPT can aid college students in completing tasks such as essay and proposal writing and take-home examinations, raising concerns about increased risks of cheating and undermining academic integrity.
“Recent research suggests that tools like ChatGPT can aid college students in completing tasks such as essay and proposal writing and take-home examinations, raising concerns about increased risks of cheating and undermining academic integrity (Chiu et al, 2023; Moorhouse et al., 2023).”
From A Scoping Review on How Generative Artificial Intelligence Transforms Assessment in Higher Education (2024) · cites this paper as Moorhouse et al., 2023
GenAI placed a big challenge on academic integrity in student learning and development.
“GenAI placed a big challenge on academic integrity in student learning and development (Chiu, 2024; Moorhouse et al., 2023; Gou & Wang, 2023).”
From A Scoping Review on How Generative Artificial Intelligence Transforms Assessment in Higher Education (2024) · cites this paper as Moorhouse et al., 2023
The primary concern lies in the potential compromise to academic integrity presented by AI essay-writing systems, particularly ChatGPT.
“The primary concern lies in the potential compromise to academic integrity presented by AI essay-writing systems, particularly ChatGPT.”
From ChatGPT for Academic Purposes: Survey Among Undergraduate Healthcare Students in Malaysia (2024) · cites this paper as [4]
Recent studies have brought to light the potential for students to exploit ChatGPT for academic dishonesty.
“Recent studies have brought to light the potential for students to exploit ChatGPT for academic dishonesty.”
From ChatGPT for Academic Purposes: Survey Among Undergraduate Healthcare Students in Malaysia (2024) · cites this paper as [4]
There is an apprehension that students might submit essays that do not authentically represent their work, thus contravening ethical standards within educational institutions.
“There is an apprehension that students might submit essays that do not authentically represent their work, thus contravening ethical standards within educational institutions [4,6].”
From ChatGPT for Academic Purposes: Survey Among Undergraduate Healthcare Students in Malaysia (2024) · cites this paper as [4]
Cites
Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT
Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2024) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148 · Cited by 3,087 · see citing works
Chatting and Cheating. Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT
Cotton, D., Cotton, P., & Shipway, J. R. (2023) · doi:10.35542/osf.io/mrz8h · Cited by 3,079 · see citing works
Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices
Brown, H. D., & Abeywickrama, P. (2003) · Cited by 2,975 · see citing works
How Learning Works : Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching
Ambrose, S. A. (2010) · Cited by 2,342 · see citing works
Conceptualizing AI literacy: An exploratory review
Ng, D. T. K., Leung, J. K. L., Chu, S. K. W., & Qiao, M. S. (2021) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100041 · Cited by 2,205 · see citing works
Artificial intelligence in higher education: the state of the field
Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2023) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-023-00392-8 · Cited by 2,010 · see citing works
ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education?
(2023) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.9 · Cited by 1,806 · see citing works
A comprehensive AI policy education framework for university teaching and learning
Chan, C. K. Y. (2023) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-023-00408-3 · Cited by 1,577 · see citing works
Ethics of AI in Education: Towards a Community-Wide Framework
Holmes, W., Porayska-Pomsta, K., Holstein, K., Sutherland, E., Baker, T., Shum, S. B., Santos, O. C., Rodrigo, M. T., Cukurova, M., Bittencourt, I. I., et al. (2022) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.1007/s40593-021-00239-1 · Cited by 1,437 · see citing works
ChatGPT for Language Teaching and Learning
Kohnke, L., Moorhouse, B. L., & Zou, D. (2023) · RELC Journal · doi:10.1177/00336882231162868 · Cited by 1,371 · see citing works
Self-citationLim, W. M., Gunasekara, A., Pallant, J. L., Pallant, J. I., & Pechenkina, E. (2023) · The International Journal of Management Education · doi:10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100790 · Cited by 1,261 · see citing works
The promises and challenges of artificial intelligence for teachers: A systematic review of research
Celik, I., Dindar, M., Muukkonen, H., & Järvelä, S. (2022) · TechTrends · doi:10.1007/s11528-022-00715-y · Cited by 984 · see citing works
ChatGPT in higher education: considerations for academic integrity and student learning
(2023) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.17 · Cited by 853 · see citing works
Chiu, T. K. F. (2024) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2023.2253861 · Cited by 852 · see citing works
Perkins, M. (2023) · Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice · doi:10.53761/1.20.02.07 · Cited by 839 · see citing works
Authentic assessment of teaching in context
Darling-Hammond, L., & Snyder, J. (2000) · Teaching and Teacher Education · doi:10.1016/s0742-051x(00)00015-9 · Cited by 715 · see citing works
Chan, C. K. Y., & Lee, K. K. W. (2023) · Smart Learning Environments · doi:10.1186/s40561-023-00269-3 · Cited by 634 · see citing works
A Conversation on Artificial Intelligence, Chatbots, and Plagiarism in Higher Education
King, M. R., & chatGPT (2023) · Cellular and Molecular Bioengineering · doi:10.1007/s12195-022-00754-8 · Cited by 602 · see citing works
Crawford, J., Cowling, M., & Allen, K.-A. (2023) · Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice · doi:10.53761/1.20.3.02 · Cited by 547 · see citing works
Warschauer, M., Tseng, W., Yim, S., Webster, T. J., Jacob, S. R., Du, Q., & Tate, T. P. (2023) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2023.101071 · Cited by 427 · see citing works
Warschauer, M., Tseng, W., Yim, S., Webster, T., Jacob, S., Du, Q., & Tate, T. (2023) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4404380 · Cited by 425 · see citing works
Markauskaite, L., Marrone, R., Poquet, O., Knight, S., Martinez-Maldonado, R., Howard, S., Tondeur, J., De Laat, M., Buckingham Shum, S., Gašević, D., et al. (2022) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100056 · Cited by 353 · see citing works
Understanding Digital Literacies
Jones, R. H., & Hafner, C. A. (2012) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203095317 · Cited by 274 · see citing works
Sotiriadou, P., Logan, D., Daly, A., & Guest, R. (2020) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075079.2019.1582015 · Cited by 265 · see citing works
Casal, J. E., & Kessler, M. (2023) · Research Methods in Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1016/j.rmal.2023.100068 · Cited by 261 · see citing works
Dalalah, D., & Dalalah, O. M. A. (2023) · The International Journal of Management Education · doi:10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100822 · Cited by 218 · see citing works
Plagiarism in second-language writing
Pecorari, D., & Petrić, B. (2014) · Language Teaching · doi:10.1017/s0261444814000056 · Cited by 214 · see citing works
Core elements of exemplary academic integrity policy in Australian higher education
Bretag, T., Mahmud, S., Wallace, M. C., Walker, R., James, C., Green, M., East, J., McGowan, U., & Patridge, L. (2011) · International Journal for Educational Integrity · doi:10.21913/ijei.v7i2.759 · Cited by 208 · see citing works
Assessment revisited: a review of research in <i>Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education</i>
Pereira, D., Flores, M. A., & Niklasson, L. (2016) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2015.1055233 · Cited by 195 · see citing works
Cheating in the wake of COVID-19: How dangerous is ad-hoc online testing for academic integrity?
Janke, S., Rudert, S. C., Petersen, Ä., Fritz, T. M., & Daumiller, M. H. (2021) · Computers and Education Open · doi:10.1016/j.caeo.2021.100055 · Cited by 143 · see citing works
Academic integrity in the age of Artificial Intelligence (AI) authoring apps
Yeo, M. A. (2023) · TESOL Journal · doi:10.1002/tesj.716 · Cited by 142 · see citing works
Self-citationExamining teacher ethical dilemmas in classroom assessment
Pope, N. S., Green, S. K., Johnson, R. L., & Mitchell, M. (2009) · Teaching and Teacher Education · doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.11.013 · Cited by 109 · see citing works
Honor Codes and Academic Integrity: Three Decades of Research
Tatum, H. E. (2022) · Journal of College and Character · doi:10.1080/2194587x.2021.2017977 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
Faculty and student perceptions on college cheating: evidence from Turkey
Yazici, A., Yazıcı, S., & Erdem, M. S. (2010) · Educational Studies · doi:10.1080/03055698.2010.506321 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Maio, C. D., & Dixon, K. (2022) · Journal of College and Character · doi:10.1080/2194587x.2021.2017972 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Moorhouse, B. L., Wong, K. M., & Li, L. (2023) · RELC Journal · doi:10.1177/00336882231176929 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Self-citationvon Dran, G. M., Callahan, E. S., & Taylor, H. V. (2001) · Teaching Business Ethics · doi:10.1023/a:1026551002367 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
An analysis of university academic integrity policies in New Zealand
Möller, A. (2022) · Journal of Further and Higher Education · doi:10.1080/0309877x.2022.2130195 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
(2021) · DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Kim, C., & Bennekin, K. N. (2016) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/s11251-015-9366-5 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Simonds, J., & Parnther, C. (2022) · Sage eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781071887233 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Does ChatGPT enhance student learning? A systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies
Deng, R., Jiang, M., Yu, X., Lu, Y., & Liu, S. (2025) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105224 · Cited by 531 · see citing works
A Scoping Review on How Generative Artificial Intelligence Transforms Assessment in Higher Education
Xia, Q., Weng, X., Ouyang, F., Lin, T. J., & Chiu, T. K. F. (2024) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-024-00468-z · Cited by 493 · see citing works
Jin, Y., Yan, L., Echeverria, V., Gašević, D., & Martinez-Maldonado, R. (2025) · Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100348 · Cited by 452 · see citing works
McDonald, N., Johri, A., Ali, A., & Collier, A. H. (2025) · Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans · doi:10.1016/j.chbah.2025.100121 · Cited by 295 · see citing works
Generative AI in Higher Education: Balancing Innovation and Integrity
Francis, N. J., Jones, S., & Smith, D. P. (2025) · British Journal of Biomedical Science · doi:10.3389/bjbs.2024.14048 · Cited by 295 · see citing works
“Moorhouse, Yeo [38] conducted a review of publicly available assessment guidelines from the top 50 universities in the Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2023.”
Wang, H., Dang, A., Wu, Z., & Mac, S. (2024) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100326 · Cited by 272 · see citing works
An, Y., Yu, J. H., & James, S. (2025) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-025-00507-3 · Cited by 337 · see citing works
Moorhouse, B. L., & Kohnke, L. (2024) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2024.103290 · Cited by 305 · see citing works
Self-citationMoorhouse, B. L., Wan, Y., Wu, C., Kohnke, L., Ho, T. Y., & Kwong, T. (2024) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2024.103399 · Cited by 228 · see citing works
Self-citationMah, D.-K., & Groß, N. (2024) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-024-00490-1 · Cited by 218 · see citing works
“…by individual higher education institutions, the European Commission, and educational organizations that aim to offer introductory insights into and practical examples of the integration of AI into education (Gimpel et al., 2023; Moorhouse et al., 2023; South-worth et al., 2023; UNESCO, 2023).”
Almogren, A. S., Al-Rahmi, W. M., & Dahri, N. A. (2024) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e31887 · Cited by 194 · see citing works
A Primer on Generative Artificial Intelligence
Kalota, F. (2024) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci14020172 · Cited by 225 · see citing works
Khlaif, Z. N., Ayyoub, A., Hamamra, B., Bensalem, E., Mitwally, M. A. A., Ayyoub, A., Hattab, M. K., & Shadid, F. (2024) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci14101090 · Cited by 177 · see citing works
Νικολοπούλου, Κ. (2024) · International Journal of Changes in Education · doi:10.47852/bonviewijce42022489 · Cited by 208 · see citing works
Higher Education's Generative Artificial Intelligence Paradox: The Meaning of Chatbot Mania
Rudolph, J., Mohamed Ismail, F. M., & Popenici, S. (2024) · Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice · doi:10.53761/54fs5e77 · Cited by 128 · see citing works
Beginning and first-year language teachers’ readiness for the generative AI age
Moorhouse, B. L. (2024) · Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100201 · Cited by 161 · see citing works
Self-citationGonsalves, C. (2025) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2024.2415654 · Cited by 121 · see citing works
“Generative AI refers to technologies capable of autonomously producing content in various formats, including text, images, audio, and code (Moorhouse, Yeo, and Wan 2023).”
InfluentialEvangelista, E. D. L. (2025) · Contemporary Educational Technology · doi:10.30935/cedtech/15775 · Cited by 124 · see citing works
Using generative artificial intelligence/ChatGPT for academic communication: Students' perspectives
Liu, Y., Park, J., & McMinn, S. (2024) · International Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1111/ijal.12574 · Cited by 106 · see citing works
Examining faculty and student perceptions of generative AI in university courses
Kim, J., Klopfer, M., Grohs, J. R., Eldardiry, H., Weichert, J., Cox, L. A., & Pike, D. (2025) · Innovative Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s10755-024-09774-w · Cited by 109 · see citing works
“Generative AI-powered tools are now capable of automating aspects of teaching, such as grading, generating feedback, and even creating lesson plans (Moorhouse et al., 2023).”
Kohnke, L. (2024) · Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100279 · Cited by 126 · see citing works
Saúde, S., Barros, J. P., & Almeida, I. A. T. (2024) · Social Sciences · doi:10.3390/socsci13080410 · Cited by 137 · see citing works
AI in the Classroom: Insights from Educators on Usage, Challenges, and Mental Health
Delello, J. A., Sung, W., Mokhtari, K., Hebert, J., Bronson, A., & Giuseppe, T. D. (2025) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci15020113 · Cited by 87 · see citing works
AI Governance in Higher Education: Case Studies of Guidance at Big Ten Universities
Wu, C., Zhang, H., & Carroll, J. M. (2024) · Future Internet · doi:10.3390/fi16100354 · Cited by 99 · see citing works
Enhancing academic integrity among students in GenAI Era:A holistic framework
Rasul, T., Nair, S., Kalendra, D., Balaji, M. S., Santini, F. D. O., Ladeira, W. J., Rather, R. A., Yasin, N., Rodriguez, R. V., Kokkalis, P., et al. (2024) · The International Journal of Management Education · doi:10.1016/j.ijme.2024.101041 · Cited by 82 · see citing works
Perspectives of Generative AI in Chemistry Education Within the TPACK Framework
Feldman-Maggor, Y., Blonder, R., & Alexandron, G. (2024) · Journal of Science Education and Technology · doi:10.1007/s10956-024-10147-3 · Cited by 100 · see citing works
Wang, F., Li, N., Cheung, A. C. K., & Wong, G. K. W. (2025) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-025-00547-9 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
AI-resistant assessments in higher education: Practical insights from faculty training workshops
Awadallah Alkouk, W., & Khlaif, Z. N. (2024) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2024.1499495 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Ethical use of ChatGPT in education—Best practices to combat AI-induced plagiarism
Kővári, A. (2025) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2024.1465703 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Addressing the use of generative AI in academic writing.
van Niekerk, J., Delport, P. M. J., & Sutherland, I. (2025) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100342 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
ChatGPT for Academic Purposes: Survey Among Undergraduate Healthcare Students in Malaysia
George Pallivathukal, R., Kyaw Soe, H. H., Donald, P. M., Samson, R. S., & Hj Ismail, A. R. (2024) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.53032 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
“There is an apprehension that students might submit essays that do not authentically represent their work, thus contravening ethical standards within educational institutions [4,6].”
BackgroundMethodO’Dea, X., Tsz Kit Ng, D., O’Dea, M., & Shkuratskyy, V. (2026) · Policy Futures in Education · doi:10.1177/14782103241287401 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Yakubu, M. N., David, N., & Abubakar, N. H. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-025-13441-8 · Cited by 99 · see citing works
University policies on generative AI in Asia: promising practices, gaps, and future directions
Dai, Y., Lai, S., Lim, C. P., & Liu, A. (2025) · Journal of Asian Public Policy · doi:10.1080/17516234.2024.2379070 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Wang, P., Jing, Y., & Shen, S. (2025) · The Internet and Higher Education · doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2025.100996 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
Symeou, L., Louca, L. Τ., Kavadella, A., Mackay, J., Danidou, Y., & Raffay, V. I. (2025) · European Journal Of Dental Education · doi:10.1111/eje.13069 · Cited by 82 · see citing works
Developing valid assessments in the era of generative artificial intelligence
Kaldaras, L., Akaeze, H., & Reckase, M. D. (2024) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2024.1399377 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Mzwri, K., & Turcsányi-Szabó, M. (2025) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci15020199 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Generative artificial intelligence and ELT
Moorhouse, B. L. (2024) · ELT Journal · doi:10.1093/elt/ccae032 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Self-citationGenerative AI tools and empowerment in L2 academic writing
Moorhouse, B. L., Wan, Y., Wu, C., Wu, M., & Ho, T. Y. (2025) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2025.103779 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Self-citationLye, C. Y., & Lim, L. (2024) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci14060569 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
Zlotnikova, I., Hlomani, H., Mokgetse, T. L., & Bagai, K. (2025) · Journal of Information Communication and Ethics in Society · doi:10.1108/jices-07-2024-0104 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Automated Assessment and Feedback in Higher Education Using Generative AI
Naseer, F., Khalid, M. U., Ayub, N., Rasool, A., Abbas, T., & Afzal, M. W. (2024) · Advances in educational technologies and instructional design book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-1351-0.ch021 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Generative artificial intelligence and sustainable higher education: Mapping the potential
Νικολοπούλου, Κ. (2025) · Journal of Digital Educational Technology · doi:10.30935/jdet/15860 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Chiu, T. K. F., & Sanusi, I. T. (2024) · Computers and Education Open · doi:10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100182 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Waluyo, B., & Kusumastuti, S. (2024) · Social Sciences & Humanities Open · doi:10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.101146 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Interplay of rationality and morality in using ChatGPT for academic misconduct
Zhang, L., Amos, C., & Pentina, I. (2025) · Behaviour & Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2024.2325023 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Tsao, J. W. (2025) · Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100496 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Al‐Emran, M., Al-Sharafi, M. A., Foroughi, B., Al-Qaysi, N., Mansoor, D., Beheshti, A., & Ali, N. B. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-025-13485-w · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Advancing higher education with GenAI: factors influencing educator AI literacy
Ayyoub, A. M., Khlaif, Z. N., Shamali, M., Abu Eideh, B., Assali, A., Hattab, M. K., Barham, K. A., & Bsharat, T. R. K. (2025) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2025.1530721 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Placebo or Assistant? Generative AI Between Externalization and Anthropomorphization
Skulmowski, A. (2024) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-024-09894-x · Cited by 50 · see citing works
Xiao-hua, L., & Xiao, Y. (2024) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-024-13117-9 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Viberg, O., Mutimukwe, C., Hrastinski, S., Pargman, T. C., & Lilliesköld, J. (2024) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13462 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Ullah, M., Naeem, S. B., & Boulos, M. N. K. (2024) · Big Data and Cognitive Computing · doi:10.3390/bdcc8120194 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Erdmann, A., & Toro-Dupouy, L. (2025) · European Journal of Innovation Management · doi:10.1108/ejim-04-2024-0407 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Bikanga Ada, M. (2024) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci14101106 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Busuttil, L., & Calleja, J. (2025) · Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education · doi:10.1007/s40751-024-00168-3 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Wang, L., & Ren, B. (2024) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci14121329 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Understanding human-AI trust in education
Pitts, G., & Motamedi, S. (2025) · Telematics and Informatics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.teler.2025.100270 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Keith, M. J., Keiller, E., Windows-Yule, C., Kings, I., & Robbins, P. T. (2025) · Education for Chemical Engineers · doi:10.1016/j.ece.2025.01.002 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Wiredu, J. K., Abuba, N. S., & Zakaria, H. (2024) · Asian Journal of Research in Computer Science · doi:10.9734/ajrcos/2024/v17i7491 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Ulla, M. B., Advincula, M. J. C., Mombay, C. D. S., Mercullo, H. M., Nacionales, J. P., & Entino-Señorita, A. D. (2024) · Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100314 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Lee, Y. (2024) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-024-13129-5 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Tan, X., Wang, C., & Xu, W. (2025) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/amae092 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Ncube, P. D. N., Dzvapatsva, G. P., Matobobo, C., & Ranga, M. M. (2026) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-025-00871-w · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Honig, C. D. F., Rios, S., & Desu, A. (2025) · Australasian journal of engineering education · doi:10.1080/22054952.2025.2467500 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Chiu, M.-L. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-025-13612-7 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Elshall, A. S., & Badir, A. (2025) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2025.1596462 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Lyanda, J. N., Owidi, S. O., & Simiyu, A. M. (2024) · African Journal of Empirical Research · doi:10.51867/ajernet.5.3.30 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Ghimire, S. N., Bhattarai, U., & Baral, R. K. (2024) · Higher Education Research & Development · doi:10.1080/07294360.2024.2366323 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Sabbaghan, S., & Eaton, S. E. (2025) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.1007/s40593-024-00454-6 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Mah, D.-K., Knoth, N., & Egloffstein, M. (2025) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2025.1484904 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Xiao-hua, L., Xiao, Y., & Li, D. (2025) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-025-00567-5 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Kangwa, D., Msafiri, M. M., & Fute, A. (2025) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/jcal.70109 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Xiao-hua, L. (2024) · The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher · doi:10.1007/s40299-024-00890-x · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Teckwani, S. H., Wong, A. H., Luke, N. V., & Low, I. C. C. (2024) · AJP Advances in Physiology Education · doi:10.1152/advan.00137.2024 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Generative AI chatbots in higher education: Student experiences and perceived ethical challenges
Hadinejad, N., Sperling, K., & McGrath, C. (2025) · Computers and Education Open · doi:10.1016/j.caeo.2025.100311 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Artificial Intelligence in Education
Delello, J. A., Bailey, J., & Garcia-Lopez, A. (2024) · Advances in business information systems and analytics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-3003-6.ch001 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Maloy, R. W., & Gattupalli, S. (2024) · doi:10.59668/371.14442 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Shahzad, M. F., Xu, S., An, X., Asif, M., & Javed, I. (2025) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2025.2524838 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Governing generative AI in higher education: a global Delphi study on policy and practice
Crompton, H., Burke, D., Nickel, C. E., Bozkurt, A., Miao, F., Sharples, M., Greene, J. A., Parsons, D., Gill-Simmen, L., Edmett, A., et al. (2026) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-026-00602-z · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Understanding Student Attitudes toward GenAI Tools: A Comparative Study of Serbia and Austria
Adžić, S., Tot, T. S., Vuković, V., Radanov, P., & Avakumović, J. (2024) · International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science Engineering and Education · doi:10.23947/2334-8496-2024-12-3-583-611 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Barrot, J. S. (2025) · Assessing Writing · doi:10.1016/j.asw.2025.100990 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Abdalla, S. Z. S. (2025) · Social Sciences & Humanities Open · doi:10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.101310 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Reimer, E. C. (2024) · Social Sciences · doi:10.3390/socsci13120648 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Akbar, M. N. (2025) · Journal of Further and Higher Education · doi:10.1080/0309877x.2025.2515135 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Empowering university teachers in higher education: A generative AI-responsive competency framework
Sun, D., Ba, S., Cha, Y., Jiahui, Y. U., Feng-Kuang, C., Dai, H. M., & Cher-Ping, L. I. M. (2026) · Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2026.100542 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Plagiarism among Higher Education Students
Yavich, R., & Davidovitch, N. (2024) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci14080908 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Formación Docente en IA Generativa: Impacto Ético y Retos en Educación Superior
López, F., Angulo-Alvarez, M., & Zuñiga, D. I. S. (2025) · Alteridad · doi:10.17163/alt.v20n2.2025.01 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Reconsidering teacher assessment literacy in GenAI-enhanced environments: A scoping review
Cui, Y. H., Meng, Y., & Tang, L. (2025) · Teaching and Teacher Education · doi:10.1016/j.tate.2025.105163 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Crafting Tomorrow’s Evaluations: Assessment Design Strategies in the Era of Generative AI
Kadel, R., Mishra, B. K., Shailendra, S., Abid, S., Rani, M., & Mahato, S. P. (2024) · International Symposium on Educational Technology · doi:10.1109/iset61814.2024.00012 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Higher Education <scp>AI</scp> Policies—A Document Analysis of University Guidelines
Humble, N. (2025) · European Journal of Education · doi:10.1111/ejed.70214 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Engineering Educators' Perspectives on the Impact of Generative AI in Higher Education
Dewan, U., Hingle, A., McDonald, N., & Johri, A. (2025) · 2025 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) · doi:10.1109/educon62633.2025.11016518 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Trendowski, T. (2025) · Journal of Physical Education Recreation & Dance · doi:10.1080/07303084.2024.2437988 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Student self-reflection as a tool for managing GenAI use in large class assessment
Combrinck, C., & Loubser, N. (2025) · Discover Education · doi:10.1007/s44217-025-00461-2 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Crafting Tomorrow's Evaluations: Assessment Design Strategies in the Era of Generative AIPreprint
Kadel, R., Mishra, B. K., Shailendra, S., Abid, S., Rani, M., & Mahato, S. P. (2024) · doi:10.36227/techrxiv.171502818.84241801/v1 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Martínez-Rivera, Ó. (2024) · European Public & Social Innovation Review · doi:10.31637/epsir-2024-885 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Rughiniş, C., Vulpe, S., Țurcanu, D., & Rughinis, R. V. (2025) · Frontiers in Computer Science · doi:10.3389/fcomp.2025.1608276 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Arroyo-Machado, W., Ma, J., Chen, T., Johnson, T. P., Islam, S., Michalegko, L., & Welch, E. (2025) · PLOS One · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0330416 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
GenAI in the Context of African Universities: A Crisis of Tertiary Education or Its New Dawn?
Zlotnikova, I., & Hlomani, H. (2024) · Digital Government Research and Practice · doi:10.1145/3689215 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
- Authors
- Moorhouse, B. L., Yeo, M. A., & Wan, Y.
- Affiliations
- Hong Kong Baptist University (HK)
- SEAMEO Regional Language Centre (SG)
- Corresponding author
- Moorhouse, Benjamin Luke
- Venue
- Computers and Education Open
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2023-12
- Volume
- 5
- Pages
- 100151
- ISSN
- 2666-5573 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4387873511
- Cited by
- 461
- References
- 39
- Citations by year
- 2026: 192 · 2025: 170 · 2024: 98 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 108.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Computers and Education Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Keywords
- generative AI, ChatGPT, evaluation guidelines, higher education, academic integrity, cheating, plagiarism, assessment design, AI literacy, student communication
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
