CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1Artificial Intelligence in EducationStudent Assessment and FeedbackEducational Assessment and Pedagogy

Sociological assessment practices for college students in the age of generative AI: A shift towards synthesis-based assignments

Open access
Dguidegue, Yassine·2025·Learning Letters
DOI 10.59453/ll.v4.32
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

With the prevalent use of generative AI tools, such as ChatGPT and Gemini for educational purposes by students, traditional assignments that are easily answerable by automated systems must be revisited. This paper advocates for a paradigm shift towards synthesis-oriented assignments that emphasise transferable skills such as critical thinking, systems thinking, collaboration, and project building. By adapting assessment methods to align with the demands of an AI-driven era, educational institutions can better prepare students for the complex challenges of the future and equip them to navigate evolving educational landscapes with rigor and innovation. The paper focuses on revisiting assessment methods within the social sciences, specifically sociology, for college-level students.

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 · 10.59453/ll.v4.32

Cites

3 of 3 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?

  • Scholars are concerned about genAI's overall effects on academic performance as well as capacities for reading and thinking critically, exercising evaluative judgement, thinking creatively and independently, and collaborating.

    “Scholars are concerned about genAI's overall effects on academic performance (Castro-Lopez et al., 2026) as well as capacities for reading and thinking critically (Dguidegue, 2025;Olsson, 2026;Rahman et al., 2025), exercising evaluative judgement (Bearman et al., 2024), thinking creatively and independently (Isiaku et al., 2024;Newell et al., 2024;Xia et al., 2024), and collaborating (Xia et al.,”

    From Toward Partnership Ethics for Generative Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education (2026) · cites this paper as Dguidegue, 2025

    The Introduction (page unavailable) says AI-written assignments can disrupt meaningful learning, and the ‘AI impact on sociology education’ section warns against uncritically adopting AI-generated answers. These passages support concern about critical thinking, but our copy does not identify an effect on students’ capacity for reading, which is also attributed to this source. (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: 23

  1. Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogic creed. School Journal, 54, 77-80. https://reflexus.org/wp- content/uploads/John-Dewey-My-Pedagogic-Creed.pdf
  2. Dowd, J. J. (1988). Sociology is different: The misevaluation of teaching effectiveness. Sociological Inquiry, 58(4), 393-412. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1988.tb01071.x · DOI
  3. Farazouli, A., Cerratto-Pargman, T., Bolander-Laksov, K., & McGrath, C. (2023). Hello GPT! Goodbye home examination? An exploratory study of AI chatbots impact on university teachers' assessment practices. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2023.2241676 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Ferreira, C. M., & Serpa, S. (2017). Challenges in the teaching of Sociology in higher education. Contributions to a discussion. Societies, 7(4), 30. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc7040030 · DOI
  5. Gardner, H., & Hatch, T. (1989). Educational implications of the theory of multiple intelligences. Educational Researcher, 18(8), 4-10. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X018008004 · DOI
  6. Kalberg, S. (2005). A cross-national consensus on a unified sociological theory? Some inter-cultural obstacles. Soziologie, 34(1), 40-53.
  7. Keith, B., & Ender, M. G. (2004). The sociological core: Conceptual patterns and idiosyncrasies in the structure and content of introductory sociology textbooks, 1940-2000. Teaching Sociology, 32(1), 19-36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X0403200102 · DOI
  8. Khan, S. S. (2011). Methods for social sciences education assessment: A literature review. Market Forces, 7(2), 9-16.
  9. Lavrič, F., & Škraba, A. (2023). Brainstorming will never be the same again-A human group supported by artificial intelligence. Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction, 5(4), 1282-1301. https://doi.org/10.3390/make5040065 · DOI
  10. Law, J. (2004). After method: Mess in social science research. Routledge.
  11. Law, J., & Ruppert, E. (2013). The social life of methods: Devices. Journal of Cultural Economy, 6(3), 229-240. https://doi.org/10.1080/17530350.2013.812042 · DOI
  12. Lodge, J. M., Thompson, K., & Corrin, L. (2023). Mapping out a research agenda for generative artificial intelligence in tertiary education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.8695 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Lodge, J., Henderson, M., Slade, C., & Deneen, C. (2023). Adapting assessment for/despite generative artificial intelligence: A national guidance framework. ASCILITE conference companion materials. https://doi.org/10.14742/apubs.2023.554 · DOI
  14. Mainaly, S. (2023). Bing, Bard, and brainstorming: A triadic tenor of AI pedagogy. Journal of Global Literacies, Technologies, and Emerging Pedagogies, 9(2), 1595-1613.
  15. Marres, N., & Stark, D. (2020). Put to the test: For a new sociology of testing. The British Journal of Sociology, 71(3), 423-443. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12746 · DOI
  16. Mills, C. W. (2000).The sociological imagination. Oxford University Press.
  17. Muggleton, S. (2014). Alan Turing and the development of Artificial Intelligence. AI Communications, 27(1), 3-10.
  18. Nicolescu, B. (2002). Manifesto of transdisciplinarity. Suny Press.
  19. Schaefer, R. T. (2018). Sociology matters. McGraw-Hill Education.
  20. Shipman, M. D. (1973). Bias in the sociology of education. Educational Review, 25(3), 190-200. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013191730250304 · DOI
  21. Slusser, S. R., & Erickson, R. J. (2006). Group quizzes: An extension of the collaborative learning process. Teaching Sociology, 34(3), 249-262. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X0603400304 · DOI
  22. Sunitha, M., Vijitha, B., & Gunavardhan, E. (2023, July). Artificial Intelligence based smart education system. In 4th international conference on electronics and sustainable communication systems (ICESC) (pp. 1346-1350). IEEE. The Australian Sociological Association (n.d.). Sociology: Sociology links. https://www.tasa.org.au/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=671860&module_id=357877
  23. Williamson, M. (2021). The new sociology classroom: How incorporating varied pedagogies increase student learning. The Journal of Public and Professional Sociology, 13(1), 1.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dguidegue, Y.
Affiliations
Arizona State University (US)
Corresponding author
Dguidegue, Yassine
ORCID
Dguidegue, Yassine
Venue
Learning Letters
Publisher
Adelaide University
Published
2025-01-16
Volume
4
Pages
32
ISSN
2981-877X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.59453/ll.v4.32
OpenAlex
W4406475026
Cited by
0
References
3
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Learning Letters (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
Keywords
generative AI in education, assessment design, sociology education, university students, transferable skills, critical thinking, systems thinking, collaboration, project-based learning, ChatGPT, AI-generated content

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