Generative AI tools and assessment: Guidelines of the world's top-ranking universities

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).”

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.”

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).”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

In the citing paper

“English-speaking countries in the Global North tend to be ranked higher in various university rankings [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 ].”

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 ].”

In the citing paper

“Without such policies, institutions risk ethical violations, academic dishonesty, and a lack of uniformity in AI integration within education [ 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].”

In the citing paper

“Moorhouse, Yeo [38] found that less than half of the reviewed universities have developed publicly accessible guidelines addressing GenAI use.”

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.”

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.'”

In the citing paper

“Moorhouse et al also find that HEIs have largely come to embrace GenAI, a position which the authors themselves advocate.”

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].”

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).”

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.”

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).”

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).”

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).”

In the citing paper

“The primary concern lies in the potential compromise to academic integrity presented by AI essay-writing systems, particularly ChatGPT.”

In the citing paper

“Recent studies have brought to light the potential for students to exploit ChatGPT for academic dishonesty.”

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].”