Cited by 11Artificial Intelligence in EducationAcademic integrity and plagiarismStudent Assessment and Feedback

Essays in economics in ICU: Resuscitate or pull the plug?

Open access
Suleymenova, Kamilya, Dawood, Mary, Psyllou, Maria·2024·International Review of Economics Education

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1016/j.iree.2024.100284

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

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
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