Cited by 263Artificial Intelligence in EducationAcademic integrity and plagiarismArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Time to Revisit Existing Student’s Performance Evaluation Approach in Higher Education Sector in a New Era of ChatGPT — A Case Study

Open access
Chaudhry, Iffat Sabir, Sarwary, Sayed Ahmad M., El Refae, Ghaleb A., Chabchoub, Habib·2023·Cogent Education

Abstract

response based on provided input-it has become crucial for HEIs to be exposed to the implications of AI-based tools on students' learning outcomes, commonly measured using an assessment-based approach to improve program quality, teaching effectiveness, and other learning support.An empirical study has been conducted to test the ChatGPT capability of solving a variety of assignments (from different level courses of undergraduate degree programs) to compare its performance with the highest scored student(s).Further, the ChatGPT-generated assignments were tested using the best-known tools for plagiarism detection to determine whether they could pass the academic integrity tests, including Turnitin, GPTZero, and Copyleaks.The study reported the limitations of the Bot and highlighted the implications of the newly launched AI-based ChatGPT in academia, which calls for HEIs' managers and regulators to revisit their existing practices used to monitor students' learning progress and improve their educational programs.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/2331186x.2023.2210461

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • This has invoked an immediate reaction from the higher education community as the question arose as to how it may affect various forms of student performance evaluation (such as essay and thesis writing).

    “This has invoked an immediate reaction from the higher education community as the question arose as to how it may affect various forms of student performance evaluation (such as essay and thesis writing) (Chaudhry et al. 2023; Yu, 2023; Farazouli et al. 2024).”

    From AI and ethics: Investigating the first policy responses of higher education institutions to the challenge of generative AI (2024) · cites this paper as Chaudhry et al. 2023

    The Introduction describes universities’ concern about AI-assisted student work and a resulting discussion of whether existing performance evaluations remain legitimate. Section 1.4 specifically raises the question of essays, but the passages do not establish an immediate community-wide reaction or address thesis writing specifically. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. Aasen, P. (2012). Accountability under ambiguity. Dilemmas and contradictions in education. In A.-L. Østern, K. Smith, T. Krüger, M.-B. Postholm, & T. Ryghaug (Eds.), Teacher education research between national identity and global trends (pp. 77-92). Academics.
  2. Baidoo-Anu, D., & Owusu Ansah, L. (2023). Education in the era of generative artificial intelligence (AI): Understanding the potential benefits of ChatGPT in promoting teaching and learning. SSRN 4337484.
  3. CAIE-Cambridge Assessment International Education. (2021). Education brief: School evaluation. Retrieved from https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/ Images/637044-education-brief-school-evaluation. pdf
  4. Campello de Souza, B., Serrano de Andrade Neto, A., & Roazzi, A. (2023). ChatGPT, the cognitive mediation networks theory and the emergence of sophotechnic thinking: How Natural Language AIs Will Bring a New Step in Collective Cognitive Evolution. Available at SSRN 4405254.
  5. CERI. (2008). Assessment for Learning Formative Assessment. Paper presented in OECD/CERI International Conference titled Learning in the 21st Century: Research, Innovation and Policy. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/site/educeri21st/ 40600533.pdf
  6. Chen, Y., Chen, Y., & Heffernan, N. (2020). Personalized math tutoring with a conversational agent. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.12121. · arXiv
  7. Deepa, S., & Seth, M. (2013). Do soft skills matter? - Implications for educators based on recruiters' per- spectives. IUP Journal of Soft Skills, 7(1), 7-20.
  8. Gilson, A., Safranek, C., Huang, T., Socrates, V., Chi, L., Taylor, R. A., & Chartash, D. (2022). How well does ChatGPT do when taking the medical licensing exams? The implications of large language models for medical education and knowledge assessment. medRxiv, 9(Feb), e45312.
  9. Kim, S., Park, J., & Lee, H. (2019). Automated essay scor- ing using a deep learning model. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 2(1), 1-17.
  10. Ludeman, R. (2005). Student leadership and moral accountability. Journal of College and Character, 2, Retrieved from. http://www.collegevalues.org/ethics.
  11. Owings, L. (2002). Cheaters never win but they keep pro- fessors on their toes. Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal, 8(August), 19.
  12. Parker. (2013). Redesigning Courses for Online Delivery: Design, interaction, media and evaluation, Volume 8. Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2044- 9968 · DOI
  13. Telecom Review. (2023). UAE: Sheikh Mohammed Requests Study on ChatGPT. 10 February 2023. Retrieved from https://www.telecomreview.com/ articles/reports-and-coverage/6773-uae-sheikh- mohammed-requests-study-on-chatgpt
  14. Van Dis, E., Bollen, J., Zuidema, W., Rooij, R., & Bockting, C. (2023). ChatGPT: Five priorities for research, Nature, 3 February 2023. Retrieved from https://www.nature. com/articles/d41586-023-00288-7
  15. Willmot, P., & Colman, B. (2016). Interpersonal skills in engineering education, AAEE2016 CONFERENCE, Coffs Harbour, Australia.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chaudhry, I. S., Sarwary, S. A. M., El Refae, G. A., & Chabchoub, H.
Affiliations
  • Al Ain University (AE)
  • Portland State University (US)
  • Al Ain University
Corresponding author
Chaudhry, Iffat Sabir
Venue
Cogent Education
Published
2023-05-14
Volume
10
Issue
1
ISSN
2331-186X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4376564338
Cited by
262
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 63 · 2025: 85 · 2024: 89 · 2023: 25
FWCI
61.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cogent Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
funding
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
ChatGPT, student assessment, higher education, plagiarism detection, academic integrity, Turnitin, GPTZero, undergraduate students, artificial intelligence in academia, learning outcomes

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