Cited by 23Academic integrity and plagiarismArtificial Intelligence in EducationEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Exploring the Factors That Promote a Balance Between Academic Integrity and the Effective Use of GenAI Tools in Higher Education: A Systematic Review

Kangwa, Daniel, Msafiri, Mgambi Msambwa, Fute, Antony·2025·Journal of Computer Assisted Learning

Abstract

Background This study explored the factors that influence the balance between academic integrity and the effective use of GenAI tools in higher education. It focused on the role of institutional guidelines in enhancing the responsible use of GenAI technologies to enhance academic integrity. Objectives The study was theoretically grounded in the Technology Acceptance Model and the Theory of Planned Behaviour to investigate the factors that promote academic integrity in using GenAI tools (RQ1), their impact and institutional strategies to effectively mitigate ethical risks (RQ2) and the model practices to support the ethical and effective use in higher education (RQ3). Methods The PRISMA framework was used to systematically review and thematically synthesise the results of 213 peer‐reviewed articles published between January 2021 and May 2025. Results Finding indicates that academic support, defined by structured training, technical scaffolding, and perceived usefulness, is critical to enabling ethical GenAI use. Additionally, student self‐regulation, as influenced by behavioural control and goal setting, was associated with greater academic integrity in GenAI‐mediated learning. Whereas institutional policies varied widely, those with transparent, adaptive and discipline‐responsive governance frameworks more effectively mitigated academic misconduct. Indeed, the model practices included GenAI ethics committees, interactive GenAI literacy modules, and the developer‐educator coll…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jcal.70109

Cites

376 of 376 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Students report concerns regarding the accuracy and reliability of GenAI-generated content.

    “Students also report concerns regarding the accuracy and reliability of GenAI-generated content (Kangwa et al., 2025).”
  • Most institutions still rely heavily on AI outputs for high-stakes decisions without sufficient human review, appeals processes, or faculty training.

    “Nevertheless, Kangwa et al. (2025) observe that most institutions still rely heavily on AI outputs for high-stakes decisions without sufficient human review, appeals processes, or faculty training.”
  • Recent systematic review evidence indicates that the responsible adoption of GenAI in higher education depends on a combination of academic support, student self-regulation, and clear institutional governance.

    “Recent systematic review evidence indicates that the responsible adoption of GenAI in higher education depends on a combination of academic support, student self-regulation, and clear institutional governance.”

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kangwa, D., Msafiri, M. M., & Fute, A.
Affiliations
  • Zhejiang Normal University (CN)
  • Yulin University (CN)
Corresponding author
Kangwa, Daniel
Venue
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2025-08-31
Volume
41
Issue
5
ISSN
  • 0266-4909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2729
OpenAlex
W4413868768
Cited by
22
References
375
Citations by year
2026: 22
FWCI
3.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
generative AI, academic integrity, higher education, institutional guidelines, academic misconduct, student self-regulation, academic support, AI literacy, AI ethics, technology acceptance model, theory of planned behavior, responsible AI use, algorithmic transparency, faculty development

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