The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“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
In the citing paper
“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)
In the citing paper
“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
In the citing paper
“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
In the citing paper
“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
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“Studies have revealed that traditional plagiarism detection tools, such as Turnitin, are ineffective in identifying AI-gen -erated content, often yielding false positives or negatives [ 31, 60, 85, 89, 90 ].”
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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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
In the citing paper
“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
In the citing paper
“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
In the citing paper
“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
In the citing paper
“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
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
Citations
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
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
Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices
Brown, H. D., & Abeywickrama, P. (2003) · Cited by 2,926
How Learning Works : Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching
Ambrose, S. A. (2010) · Cited by 2,413
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
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
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
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
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
ChatGPT for Language Teaching and Learning
Kohnke, L., Moorhouse, B. L., & Zou, D. (2023) · RELC Journal · doi:10.1177/00336882231162868 · Cited by 1,371
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Hwang, 2023, Editorial position paper: exploring the potential of generative artificial intelligence in education: applications, challenges, and future research directions, Educ. Technol. Soc., 26
- Chu, 2022, Roles and research trends of artificial intelligence in higher education: a systematic review of the top 50 most-cited articles, Australas. J. Educ. Technol., 38, 22
- Kohnke, 2023, Exploring generative artificial intelligence preparedness among university language instructors, Comput. Educ.: Artif., 5, 100156
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 201–300 of 460
Ansaree, F. N., & Uddın, M. M. (2026) · Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education · doi:10.1186/s40862-026-00399-4 · Cited by 5
Elkhodr, M., & Gide, E. (2026) · STEM Education · doi:10.3934/steme.2026024 · Cited by 3
Chatzopoulos, A., Zacharia, P. T., & Kantaros, A. (2026) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app16125972 · Cited by 4
Restructuring the Landscape of Generative AI Research
Edam, S. M. I. (2024) · Advances in educational technologies and instructional design book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-0884-4.ch012 · Cited by 3
Artificial Intelligence in Academic Media Environment: Challenges, Trends, Innovations
Mysechko, A., Lytvynenko, A., & Goian, A. (2024) · Media Literacy and Academic Research · doi:10.34135/mlar-24-02-14 · Cited by 3
Every Truth Has Two Sides: The Impact of ChatGPT on Law and Business Education
Hardie, L., Ryan, F., & Baxter, J. A. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-68086-1_3 · Cited by 3
Steingard, D. S., & Rodenburg, K. S. (2025) · Learned Publishing · doi:10.1002/leap.2010 · Cited by 3
Inteligencia artificial generativa: Un contexto disruptivo en el acceso a la información
González‐Alcaide, G. (2024) · INFONOMY · doi:10.3145/infonomy.24.013 · Cited by 12
Întorsureanu, I., Voicu-Dorobanţu, R., Nisioiu, C., & Ploae, C. (2024) · ECONOMIC COMPUTATION AND ECONOMIC CYBERNETICS STUDIES AND RESEARCH · doi:10.24818/18423264/58.2.24.08 · Cited by 3
Information and Communication Technologies in Education – Evolution or Revolution?
Adzhemov, A. S., & Denisova, A. B. (2024) · International Conference on Information Technologies in Engineering Education (Inforino) · doi:10.1109/inforino60363.2024.10551961 · Cited by 3
Bédi, B. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-51447-0_23-1 · Cited by 3
Artificial Intelligence and Academic Integrity: Legislate or Educate?
Wan, G., Grassi, M. H., Golden, T., Barnes, T. L., Kahveci, M., Wan, X., & Colacchio, B. M. (2025) · Journal of Scholarly Publishing · doi:10.3138/jsp-2024-1118 · Cited by 4
Mohammed, C. (2025) · IEEE World Engineering Education Conference (EDUNINE) · doi:10.1109/edunine62377.2025.10980845 · Cited by 3
The Significance of AI Ethics and Its Implications for Higher Education: Systematic Review
AlDhaen, F. S. (2025) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/978-1-83608-036-720251005 · Cited by 2
A study on the readiness of English teachers in Macao universities in the era of AI
Cao, L. (2025) · Asian Education and Development Studies · doi:10.1108/aeds-12-2024-0314 · Cited by 5
Mohammed, C., Sarjusingh, W., & Rocke, S. (2025) · IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) · doi:10.1109/educon62633.2025.11016366 · Cited by 3
Silvennoinen, M., Aksovaara, S., & Alanko-Turunen, M. (2025) · Bled eConference · doi:10.18690/um.fov.4.2025.29 · Cited by 2
Poonkuzhali, S., Archana, J. S., Naresh, A., & Raj, R. N. (2025) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-981-96-5754-4_12 · Cited by 3
Conceptualizing L2 Teachers’ Blended Assessment Literacy (L2TBAL): A Scoping Review
Su, X., Lee, I., & Wang, D. (2025) · International Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1111/ijal.70002 · Cited by 2
Heuling, D. S., Jakobi, A. P., Schaal, G. S., & Gerlich, M. (2025) · Politische Vierteljahresschrift · doi:10.1007/s11615-025-00631-9 · Cited by 4
Routledge, A. J. (2025) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s10676-025-09869-8 · Cited by 2
Zhou, K., Hongyun, D. E. N. G., Chan, H. C., & Lin, C. (2025) · Professional Development in Education · doi:10.1080/19415257.2025.2586643 · Cited by 10
Beyond the ban: A theoretical framework for integrating Generative AI in assessment
Chapman, B. L., & Dalgarno, B. (2025) · Policy Futures in Education · doi:10.1177/14782103251411725 · Cited by 3
Mapping the landscape: generative AI in higher education assessment (2020-2024) - a scoping review
Ng, S. H. S., Chan, H. Y., Wong, J. H. K., Sam, L. C. F., & Privitera, A. J. (2026) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2026.2614079 · Cited by 9
Sbhatu, D. B., Abdullah, N., & Olohunfunmi, I. A. (2026) · Canadian Journal of Science Mathematics and Technology Education · doi:10.1007/s42330-026-00427-y · Cited by 2
From chalkboards to chatbots: generative AI impact on education in emerging economies
Virmani, N., Sharma, D., Sahu, A., & Garza‐Reyes, J. A. (2026) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2026.2632172 · Cited by 3
Kumar, V. (2026) · Knowledge · doi:10.3390/knowledge6010007 · Cited by 2
Evaluating Generative AI Policies in Higher Education: Insights from Japan's Top Universities
Abir, M. G. H., & Shigeta, K. (2025) · International Conference on Modern Educational Technology (ICMET) · doi:10.1109/icmet67594.2025.11451957 · Cited by 2
Kajan, K., Shi, W. Y., Wanatowski, D., & Ryan, M. (2026) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci16040554 · Cited by 2
Combating Student Cheating in Pharmacy Schools in a Post-Pandemic World
Hagemann, T. M., Shields, K. M., Stockdale, M. R., Edelman, M., Hughes, J. A., & Mark, S. M. (2026) · American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education · doi:10.1016/j.ajpe.2026.101984 · Cited by 2
Uçan, S., & Uçan, A. D. (2026) · Journal of Academic Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10805-026-09739-y · Cited by 5
Gao, J., & Yang, W. (2026) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2026.1847439 · Cited by 2
Creely, E. (2026) · AI in Education · doi:10.3390/aieduc2020020 · Cited by 6
Garro-Aburto, L. L., Chávez-Díaz, J. M., Salazar, C. A. H., Llerena-Espinoza, E. M., & Sandoval, S. P. S. (2026) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci16071125 · Cited by 2
Li, X., Xian, X., & Du, P. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1903784 · Cited by 3
Practical Classroom Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence—A Case Study
Reisman, S. (2024) · Computer · doi:10.1109/mc.2024.3382453 · Cited by 3
Gao, L. (2024) · Communications in Humanities Research · doi:10.54254/2753-7064/45/20240084 · Cited by 2
A Framework for the Responsible Integration of Generative AI Tools in Learning
Ko, S., & Chan, S. C. H. (2024) · Advances in educational technologies and instructional design book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-1017-6.ch006 · Cited by 2
Luciano, R. G. (2024) · International Journal of Learning Teaching and Educational Research · doi:10.26803/ijlter.23.12.5 · Cited by 6
Kukreja, J., Morandé, S., & Tewari, V. (2025) · Practice, progress, and proficiency in sustainability · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-1917-9.ch005 · Cited by 2
Zeivots, S., Wright, S., Harris, L., Cram, A., Huber, E., Raduescu, C., White, A. W., & Brodzeli, A. (2026) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075079.2026.2619909 · Cited by 3
Performance of Artificial Intelligence: Does Artificial Intelligence Dream of Electric SheepPreprint
Ioku, T., Kondo, S., & Watanabe, Y. (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.35542/osf.io/pgy5f · Cited by 2
The shifting landscape of assessment in STEM education in the age of generative AI
Koretsky, M., Ding, M., Chiu, T. K. F., Hällström, J., & Li, Y. (2026) · International Journal of STEM Education · doi:10.1186/s40594-026-00648-5 · Cited by 2
Relational assessment in a low-trust world
Ramsey, P., & Cataloni, S. (2024) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/14703297.2024.2360571 · Cited by 1
Transformative Approach to Fairness and Transparency in Classroom Participation Assessment
Banawan, M., Kukas, E. J., Tano, J. R., Tan, A., & Villegas, R. (2024) · ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (L@S) · doi:10.1145/3657604.3664708 · Cited by 1
Design and Orchestration in the Age of GenAI: An Activity Theory Perspective
Michos, K., & Amarasinghe, I. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-72312-4_16 · Cited by 1
Usage of Gen AI in Employee Training and Development
Bapat, O. J., Prakash, C., & Paliwal, M. (2025) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-7693-5.ch004 · Cited by 1
Assessment in physics education research: Trends, patterns, and future directions
Nurjanah, S., Sultan, J., Arriza, L., Suardi, I. K., Ramadhani, S., Seran, D. S. F., & Rashid, S. (2025) · Review of Education · doi:10.1002/rev3.70043 · Cited by 6
Integrating artificial intelligence ethically in nursing education
Riess, D. L. (2025) · Nursing · doi:10.1097/nsg.0000000000000167 · Cited by 2
Topal, İ. H. (2025) · Journal of AI · doi:10.61969/jai.1633592 · Cited by 1
Meletiadou, E. (2025) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-5623-4.ch001 · Cited by 1
Elizalde, A. F. C., Ramirez, O. C. G., Cueva, E. L. L., & Asanza, W. B. R. (2025) · Estudios y Perspectivas Revista Científica y Académica · doi:10.61384/r.c.a..v5i2.1200 · Cited by 1
Xia, L. A., & Beech, H. (2025) · Journal of China Computer-Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1515/jccall-2024-0031 · Cited by 3
EFL Students’ Perceptions of Language Learning and Assessment: Pre and in Generative AI (GenAI) Era
Zhao, H. (2025) · Lenguaje · doi:10.25100/lenguaje.v53i1s.14603 · Cited by 1
University Instructors’ Reactions and Adjustments to Generative Artificial Intelligence
Peters, M., & Déri, C. E. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-92534-4_5 · Cited by 1
Jogezai, N. A., Jaffar, M., Baloch, F. A., & Khilji, G. K. (2025) · International Journal of Information and Learning Technology · doi:10.1108/ijilt-10-2024-0229 · Cited by 3
Akoto, E. O., Boateng, I., & Gyimah, P. (2025) · Journal of Academic Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10805-025-09678-0 · Cited by 1
GenAI As a Tool for Curriculum Design and Content Creation
Avcı, B. (2025) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-7579-3.ch002 · Cited by 1
Mah, D.-K., Groß, N., Dalsgaard, C., & Prilop, C. N. (2025) · Journal of Research on Technology in Education · doi:10.1080/15391523.2025.2577302 · Cited by 2
Encheva, A., van Es, K., & Nguyen, D. (2025) · Learning, Media and Technology · doi:10.1080/17439884.2025.2578625 · Cited by 1
Schaper, N. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-48999-1_28 · Cited by 1
Welsen, S. (2025) · World Engineering Education Forum - Global Engineering Deans Council (WEEF-GEDC) · doi:10.1109/weef-gedc66748.2025.11256231 · Cited by 1
Gomes, M. V. O., Ramos, A. S. M., & de Oliveira, K. (2025) · Revista de Administração da UFSM · doi:10.5902/1983465990871 · Cited by 5
Spilbergs, A., Dzērve, B., Ozoliņa, S., Innuse-Breidaka, G., Mavrenko, T., Čable, L., Vincēviča, A., Sloka, B., Tora, G., & Liepiņa, K. (2025) · Highlights of Sustainability · doi:10.54175/hsustain4040017 · Cited by 2
Clinicians and Scientists: Turn to AI, Not into AI
Lin, G., Cui, X., Xie, M., & Saw, P. E. (2025) · BIO Integration · doi:10.15212/bioi-2025-0188 · Cited by 1
Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) for Research and Creative Activities
Petrenko, A. I. (2025) · Studies in systems, decision and control · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-97529-5_15 · Cited by 1
Developing Guidance and Policies for Generative AI: A Design Framework and Process
Moorhouse, B. L., Wan, Y., & Yeo, M. A. (2025) · Bridging human and machine: future education with intelligence · doi:10.1007/978-981-95-0950-8_5 · Cited by 1
Self-citationSamaty, H. S. E., & Albadi, N. (2026) · Alexandria Engineering Journal · doi:10.1016/j.aej.2026.01.012 · Cited by 1
Zhang, C., Hu, X., & Wei, W. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering · doi:10.1109/tale66047.2025.11346728 · Cited by 3
Natural intelligence, not artificial: a Confucian reframing of generative AI in higher education
Hou, Y. (2026) · Ethics and Education · doi:10.1080/17449642.2026.2629430 · Cited by 2
Generative AI in Academia: How Engineering Students Perceive and Approach Ethical Challenges?
Hariyanto, D., Rafiq, A. A., Triyono, M. B., Murniati, D. E., Adinda, D., & Prihandini, T. F. (2026) · International Journal of Online and Biomedical Engineering (iJOE) · doi:10.3991/ijoe.v22i02.59281 · Cited by 2
Petra, T. Z. H. T., Aziz, M. J. A., & Rosli, M. M. (2026) · Engineering Technology & Applied Science Research · doi:10.48084/etasr.14188 · Cited by 1
Learning Analytics, Artificial Intelligence, and the Future of Democratic Curricular Governance
Carrión, J., Jaramillo, C., & Villarreal, S. N. C. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-4480-5.ch015 · Cited by 1
Evaluating Assessment Practices in Team-Based Computing Capstone Projects
Hooshangi, S., Shakil, A., Riddle, S., Aydin, I., Nasir, N., Parupudi, T., Rehman, A., Scott, M., Vahrenhold, J., Weerasinghe, A., et al. (2025) · ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE) · doi:10.1145/3760545.3783974 · Cited by 1
Adapting the AI Ecological Education Policy Framework to the Canadian Context
Woodworth, J., & Ballantyne, E. (2025) · IEEE Smart World Congress (SWC) · doi:10.1109/swc65939.2025.00061 · Cited by 1
AI Literacy and Academic Integrity
Mataranyika, T., Makhafola, L., & Clarke, A. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-4521-5.ch001 · Cited by 1
Undergraduate mathematics faculty attitudes and experiences with generative AI integration
Joung, E., Brinkerhoff, R., Lee, I., Wong, A., & Ioane, O. (2026) · Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education · doi:10.29333/ejmste/18126 · Cited by 1
Hermita, M., Rohani, A., Syah, R. D., Suhatril, R. J., & Sartika, S. (2026) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2026.2644679 · Cited by 3
Kalim, U., Irfan, S., Jamil, B., & Kanwar, A. S. (2026) · Discover Education · doi:10.1007/s44217-026-01370-8 · Cited by 3
Welsen, S. (2026) · Lecture notes in educational technology · doi:10.1007/978-981-95-8824-4_2 · Cited by 1
Eroding scholarly integrity: Confronting the misuse of generative AI in nursing education
Iheduru-Anderson, K. C. (2026) · Nurse Education Today · doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2026.107145 · Cited by 1
Grichko, V., Driver, J., Mulder, S., & Hall, S. M. (2026) · Review of Education · doi:10.1002/rev3.70167 · Cited by 1
Nguyen, T. H., Truong, L. T., & Nguyen, N. H. T. (2026) · Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2026.100618 · Cited by 4
Nazir, A. (2026) · Social Sciences & Humanities Open · doi:10.1016/j.ssaho.2026.103033 · Cited by 1
Academic Integrity in the Age of AI: University Students’ Study Practices and Ethical Judgments
López-López, E. M., Bru-Cordero, O., & Correa-Álvarez, C. D. (2026) · Trends in Higher Education · doi:10.3390/higheredu5020049 · Cited by 1
Liu, Y., Meng, M., & Zhang, Y. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1858187 · Cited by 1
Birişçi, S., Keleş, N., & Şenyildiz, A. (2026) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2026.107362 · Cited by 1
Antecedents and Consequences of AI Misuse Among University Students: An Empirical Investigation
Zhang, H., & Chen, Y. (2026) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci16071087 · Cited by 1
Ersozlu, Z., Ledger, S., Babic, M., & Parkes, R. (2026) · Contemporary Educational Technology · doi:10.30935/cedtech/18970 · Cited by 2
An analysis of AI ‐enabled authentic assessment strategy using text mining techniques
Ogunleye, B., Olayinka, O., Zakariyyah, K. I., Ajao, O., & Sharma, H. (2026) · Review of Education · doi:10.1002/rev3.70206 · Cited by 1
Uden, L., & Hsia, L. (2026) · Journal of Computers in Education · doi:10.1007/s40692-026-00398-x · Cited by 2
Generative Artificial Intelligence and English-Medium Education
Moorhouse, B. L., Pun, J., & Curle, S. M. (2026) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009736862 · Cited by 1
Self-citationBalart, T., Raju, G. M., & Shryock, K. J. (2026) · Algorithms · doi:10.3390/a19080703 · Cited by 1
Predictors of the ethical use of generative artificial intelligence in higher education
Cruz, Y. B. T., Sánchez, H. A. C., Pita, I. G. A., Rodríguez-Álava, L. A., Carreño-Mendoza, Á. L., Cedeño-Barreto, M., Castillo, G., Villavicencio, J. C., & Moreira-Chóez, J. S. (2026) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2026.1942426 · Cited by 1
Kumar, A., Wongsirichot, T., & Nanthaamornphong, A. (2026) · Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2026.100677 · Cited by 2
Sui, X., Lin, Q., Wang, Q., & Wan, H. (2025) · Proceedings. · doi:10.22318/icls2025.468394 · Cited by 1
I. facing resistance: the challenges of embracing new pedagogical practices
Vittorini, S., Sasaki, M., AbdelMegeed, M., & Foley, A. (2025) · Discourse Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education · doi:10.1080/01596306.2025.2579700 · Cited by 1
Embedding Generative AI as a digital capability into a year-long MSc skills programPreprint
Smith, D. P., Sokoya, D., Moore, S., Okonkwo, C., Boyd, C., Lacey, M. M., & Francis, N. (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-5204546/v1 · Cited by 1
Ntumi, S., & Bulala, T. (2025) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-5532346/v1 · Cited by 2
Responsible Use of Generative AI in the Context of a Capstone Electrical Engineering Project
Mohammed, C., & Rocke, S. (2026) · 2026 IEEE Engineering Education World Conference (EDUNINE) · doi:10.1109/edunine62390.2026.11546862
Metadata
- 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
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Education › 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
