Essays in economics in ICU: Resuscitate or pull the plug?
Open accessAbstract
This study investigates the perspectives of Economics academics regarding the impact of using text-generative AI (GAI) on teaching and assessment in the UK higher education (UKHE) sector, with a specific focus on essays. The survey of academics’ perceptions encompasses considerations of academic integrity, transferrable skills, and ethical GAI use. The responses unveiled a range of significant findings regarding the present condition of essay-based assessment in Economics education. The most prominent of which is that, while GAI development has introduced a new conflict between integrity concerns and essay-writing, Economics academics confirm that the latter continues to be important to their graduates. However, there is an emphasis on reshaping the format of conventional essays and refining traditional marking criteria. Elevating assessment questions along Bloom’s taxonomy is deemed vital for critical thinking and producing future-ready graduates. Respondents also recognise the need to impart ethical awareness among students when using GAI while exploring innovative pedagogies to develop and assess the new GAI skill set. Thus, our study challenges the dichotomy of pulling the plug on conventional essays and, instead, prompts a critical re-evaluation—resuscitation through reimagination. Finally, most express interest in learning more about GAI and its educational applications, either through self-experimentation or structured events and GAI training. Overall, the study reveals a complex topography of perspectives, highlighting the need for subtle, collaborative approaches as academics carefully evaluate strategies to leverage GAI’s potential while evolving assessments and pedagogies.
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 use of GenAI to complete assignments or exams without explicit permission is often treated as unauthorized assistance or plagiarism.
“The use of GenAI to complete or exams without is often treated as unauthorized assistance.”
From MAPPING GENERATIVE AI'S ETHICAL ISSUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION: A FELT-GUIDED SYSTEMATIC REVIEW [PEMETAAN ISU ETIKA GENERATIVE AI DI PENDIDIKAN TINGGI: TINJAUAN SISTEMATIS BERPANDUAN FELT] (2025) · cites this paper as Suleymenova et al., 2024
If students become overly reliant on AI, their critical thinking and originality may erode.
“If students become overly reliant on AI, their critical thinking and originality may erode.”
From MAPPING GENERATIVE AI'S ETHICAL ISSUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION: A FELT-GUIDED SYSTEMATIC REVIEW [PEMETAAN ISU ETIKA GENERATIVE AI DI PENDIDIKAN TINGGI: TINJAUAN SISTEMATIS BERPANDUAN FELT] (2025) · cites this paper as Suleymenova et al., 2024
The integration of GenAI fundamentally blurs the lines of authorship, raising significant concerns about academic integrity and potential plagiarism.
“The integration of GenAI fundamentally blurs the lines of authorship, raising significant concerns about academic integrity and potential plagiarism.”
From MAPPING GENERATIVE AI'S ETHICAL ISSUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION: A FELT-GUIDED SYSTEMATIC REVIEW [PEMETAAN ISU ETIKA GENERATIVE AI DI PENDIDIKAN TINGGI: TINJAUAN SISTEMATIS BERPANDUAN FELT] (2025) · cites this paper as Suleymenova et al., 2024
GenAI shifts the nature of critical thinking from original analysis and synthesis of ideas towards verifying AI-generated responses.
“GenAI shifts the thinking from synthesis of ideas”
From MAPPING GENERATIVE AI'S ETHICAL ISSUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION: A FELT-GUIDED SYSTEMATIC REVIEW [PEMETAAN ISU ETIKA GENERATIVE AI DI PENDIDIKAN TINGGI: TINJAUAN SISTEMATIS BERPANDUAN FELT] (2025) · cites this paper as Suleymenova et al., 2024
Increased reliance on GenAI can lead to a decline in critical thinking, as users may unconsciously trade deep cognitive engagement for convenience and speed in acquiring information.
“Increased reliance on GenAI can lead to a decline in critical thinking, as users may unconsciously trade deep cognitive engagement for convenience and speed in acquiring information.”
From MAPPING GENERATIVE AI'S ETHICAL ISSUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION: A FELT-GUIDED SYSTEMATIC REVIEW [PEMETAAN ISU ETIKA GENERATIVE AI DI PENDIDIKAN TINGGI: TINJAUAN SISTEMATIS BERPANDUAN FELT] (2025) · cites this paper as Suleymenova et al., 2024
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
Lim, 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
ChatGPT in education: Strategies for responsible implementation
Halaweh, M. (2023) · Contemporary Educational Technology · doi:10.30935/cedtech/13036 · Cited by 607 · see citing works
“We Need To Talk About ChatGPT”: The Future of AI and Higher Education
Neumann, M., Rauschenberger, M., & Schön, E.-M. (2023) · Hochschule Hannover · doi:10.25968/opus-2467 · Cited by 212 · see citing works
The death of the short-form physics essay in the coming AI revolution
Yeadon, W., Inyang, O.-O., Mizouri, A., Peach, A., & Testrow, C. P. (2023) · Physics Education · doi:10.1088/1361-6552/acc5cf · Cited by 199 · see citing works
Reedy, A., Pfitzner, D., Rook, L., & Ellis, L. (2021) · International Journal for Educational Integrity · doi:10.1007/s40979-021-00075-9 · Cited by 168 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cai, L., Msafiri, M. M., & Kangwa, D. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-024-13112-0 · Cited by 104 · see citing works
Msambwa, M. M., Wen, Z., & Daniel, K. (2025) · European Journal of Education · doi:10.1111/ejed.12909 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
Daniel, K., Msambwa, M. M., & Wen, Z. (2025) · European Journal of Education · doi:10.1111/ejed.70036 · Cited by 71 · 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
Barus, O., Hidayanto, A. N., & Eitiveni, I. (2025) · Polyglot: Jurnal Ilmiah · doi:10.19166/pji.v21i2.10020 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
- Authors
- Suleymenova, K., Dawood, M., & Psyllou, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Birmingham (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Dawood, Mary
- Venue
- International Review of Economics Education
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2024-03
- Volume
- 45
- Pages
- 100284
- ISSN
- 1477-3880 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4391797632
- Cited by
- 11
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 4.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International Review of Economics Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
- 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
- economics education, essay scoring, academic integrity, transferable skills, ethical use of AI, Bloom's taxonomy, critical thinking, artificial intelligence in higher education, assessment design, pedagogy
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