Exploring business students’ views of the use of generative AI in assignment writing: An examination of generative AI use through students’ own ethical perspectives
Open accessAbstract
The rise of generative AI, particularly over the past few years, has raised notable issues about its use. This has been possibly most pronounced in academia, where there has been strong debate on the potential value of generative AI to augment learning outcomes versus the potential for academic dishonesty and devalued education. Whilst some papers have looked at students’ perspectives on the use of generative AI, there has been less focus exploring through what ethical perspectives or frames students see using generative AI in their tertiary education. We interviewed and conducted focus groups and interviews with students enrolled in an Australian university business school, to explore the ethical frames through which they saw the use of generative AI. Focussing on three specific perspectives: Deontological, Consequentialism and Virtue Ethics, it emerged that no single perspective dominated, with students having a complex mix and latticework of ethical perspectives on its use, even within the same individual. We explore some potential implications for practice that emerged from the data, one of which is the role of the academic as moral exemplar.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
(1998) · Cited by 13,501 · see citing works
Qualitative research. Introducing focus groups.
Kitzinger, J. (1995) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.311.7000.299 · Cited by 6,939 · see citing works
Creswell, J. W., Hanson, W. E., Clark, V. L. P., & Morales, A. (2007) · The Counseling Psychologist · doi:10.1177/0011000006287390 · Cited by 3,296 · see citing works
Students' voices on generative ai: perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education
Chan, C. K. Y., & Hu, W. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.00290 · Cited by 2,504 · cited 5× · see citing works
“Finally, consistent with Chan and Hu (2023), it was seen as appropriate (not unethical or immoral) to use it to assist with what was often described as the ‘uni’ or the administrative tasks required of students: I use it for things I know already or things that to me represent the administrative…”
BackgroundInfluentialStudents’ voices on generative AI: perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education
Chan, C. K. Y., & Hu, W. (2023) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-023-00411-8 · Cited by 2,301 · cited 5× · see citing works
“Finally, consistent with Chan and Hu (2023), it was seen as appropriate (not unethical or immoral) to use it to assist with what was often described as the ‘uni’ or the administrative tasks required of students: I use it for things I know already or things that to me represent the administrative…”
BackgroundInfluentialCan artificial intelligence help for scientific writing?
Salvagno, M., Taccone, F. S., & Gerli, A. G. (2023) · Critical Care · doi:10.1186/s13054-023-04380-2 · Cited by 827 · see citing works
Chan, C. K. Y., & Lee, K. K. W. (2023) · Smart Learning Environments · doi:10.1186/s40561-023-00269-3 · Cited by 634 · see citing works
The Motivational Theory of Role Modeling: How Role Models Influence Role Aspirants’ Goals
Morgenroth, T., Ryan, M. K., & Peters, K. (2015) · Review of General Psychology · doi:10.1037/gpr0000059 · Cited by 575 · see citing works
Essel, H. B., Vlachopoulos, D., Tachie-Menson, A., Johnson, E. E., & Baah, P. K. (2022) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-022-00362-6 · Cited by 428 · see citing works
Artificial Intelligence in Undergraduate Medical Education: A Scoping Review
Lee, J., Wu, A. S., Li, D., & Kulasegaram, K. (. (2021) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000004291 · Cited by 324 · see citing works
The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence in Education: Practices, Challenges, and Debates
Holmes, W., & Porayska-Pomsta, K. (2022) · doi:10.4324/9780429329067 · Cited by 258 · see citing works
How to cheat on your final paper: Assigning AI for student writing
Fyfe, P. (2023) · AI & SOCIETY · doi:10.1007/s00146-022-01397-z · Cited by 205 · see citing works
Statman, D. (1997) · Edinburgh University Press eBooks · doi:10.1515/9781474472845 · Cited by 190 · see citing works
Digital storytelling with chatbots: mapping L2 participation and perception patterns
Bailey, D., Southam, A., & Costley, J. (2021) · Interactive Technology and Smart Education · doi:10.1108/itse-08-2020-0170 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
Teaching Virtue: Pedagogical Implications of Moral Psychology
Frey, W. J. (2009) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-009-9164-z · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Chan, C. K. Y., & Lee, K. K. W. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.02878 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Chan, C. K. Y. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.03358 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Aligning assessment, technology, and multi-literacies
Cartner, H., & Hallas, J. (2020) · E-Learning and Digital Media · doi:10.1177/2042753019899732 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Kant, I. (2003). Critique of pure reason (M. Weigelt, Trans.). Penguin Classics. (Original work published 1781).
- Kraut, R. (2022). Aristotle's ethics. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford University.
- Murray, D. & Williams, K. (2023). Exploring Business Students' views of the use of generative AI in assignment writing: An examination of generative AI use through students' own ethical perspectives. In T. Cochrane, V. Narayan, C. Brown, K. MacCallum, E. Bone, C. Deneen, R. Vanderburg, & B. Hurren (Eds.), People, partnerships and pedagogies. Proceedings ASCILITE 2023. Christchurch (pp. 167 -174). https://doi.org/10.14742/apubs.2023.662
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Generative AI in Higher Education: Balancing Innovation and Integrity
Francis, N. J., Jones, S., & Smith, D. P. (2025) · British Journal of Biomedical Science · doi:10.3389/bjbs.2024.14048 · Cited by 295 · see citing works
“The debate centres on the balance between the bene fi ts of GenAI in augmenting learning outcomes and the risks of undermining the authenticity of students ’ work [56].”
Guoan, Z., Mengting, P., & Shaobo, W. (2025) · 2025 14th International Conference on Educational and Information Technology (ICEIT) · doi:10.1109/iceit64364.2025.10975838 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Murray, D., & Williams, K.
- Affiliations
- University of South Australia (AU)
- Venue
- ASCILITE Publications
- Publisher
- Open Access Publishing Association
- Published
- 2023-11-28
- Pages
- 167-174
- ISSN
- 2653-665X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4389096893
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 18
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 0.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- ASCILITE Publications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Ethics in Business and Education
- Keywords
- generative AI, business students, student perceptions, ethics of AI use, deontology, consequentialism, virtue ethics, academic dishonesty, assignment writing, moral exemplars, business education
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
