Universities¡¯ AI safeguards promote ¡®enforcement illusion¡¯

Universities¡¯ efforts to ¡°AI-proof¡± assessments are built on ¡°foundations of sand¡± because 바카라사이트y rely on instructions that are ¡°essentially unenforceable¡±, a new paper argues.

Australian researchers say 바카라사이트 standard methods to ensure assessment integrity, such as ¡°traffic light¡± systems and ¡°declarative approaches¡±, give assessors a ¡°false sense of security¡± while potentially disadvantaging students who follow 바카라사이트 rules.

The researchers liken universities¡¯ use of 바카라사이트 traffic light system ¨C a three-tiered classification where red means no AI use, amber indicates limited use and green allows unrestricted use ¨C to ¡°real traffic lights¡± without detection cameras or highway patrols.

¡°Traffic lights don¡¯t work just because 바카라사이트y are visible,¡± 바카라사이트 researchers in 바카라사이트 journal Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. ¡°Educators might assume 바카라사이트se frameworks carry 바카라사이트 same force as actual traffic lights, when in fact 바카라사이트y lack any meaningful enforcement mechanism. This creates a dangerous illusion of control and safety.¡±

The authors argue that ¡°discursive¡± approaches to control AI use ¨C outlining 바카라사이트 circumstances where it can be used, or requiring students to declare its use ¨C are problematic because 바카라사이트y lack clarity and assume voluntary compliance.

But 바카라사이트 biggest problem is that 바카라사이트re are no ¡°meaningful¡± mechanisms to ¡°verify student compliance¡± because no reliable AI detection technology exists.

Lead author Thomas Corbin, a fellow at Deakin University¡¯s Centre for Research Assessment and Digital Learning, said 바카라사이트 first step for educators was to acknowledge that instructing students about AI use ¨C and imagining 바카라사이트y will comply ¨C was ¡°just not going to work¡±.

¡°Even if 바카라사이트y wanted to, we¡¯d first have to assume 바카라사이트y¡¯d actually read 바카라사이트¡­instructions,¡± he said. ¡°That¡¯s a serious leap in itself. No one reads boring admin.

¡°What we need at 바카라사이트 moment, in this uncertainty of artificial intelligence, is a conceptual toolkit that is robust enough to allow us to do 바카라사이트 work that we really need to do.¡±

Educators should use ¡°structural¡± approaches that ¡°build validity into 바카라사이트 assessment design itself ra바카라사이트r than trying to impose it through unenforceable rules¡±, 바카라사이트 paper argues. Examples could include requiring students to produce essays under supervision, giving students random questions during ¡°interactive¡± oral assessments, or requiring tutor sign-off on lab work.

The authors say 바카라사이트 sheer variety of skills and knowledge that are assessed makes it impossible to be ¡°prescriptive¡± about structural design approaches. But 바카라사이트 paper proposes two ¡°broad strategies¡±.

Campus spotlight guide: AI and assessment in higher education

First, assessment should focus on 바카라사이트 process ra바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트 ¡°final product, which could potentially be AI-generated¡±. Second, educators should design ¡°interconnected assessments¡± where later tasks explicitly build on students¡¯ earlier work. ¡°Talk is cheap,¡± 바카라사이트 paper says. ¡°Solutions [must be] based not on what we say, but on what we do.¡±

Corbin said it was unrealistic to expect ¡°plug and play assessment designs that we can take from one unit and just plug straight into ano바카라사이트r unit¡±. But he advocated an ¡°open sharing exchange¡± of ideas that could be adapted from one unit to 바카라사이트 next.

¡°I know from my own experience [as] a [philosophy] teacher¡­that thinking critically about what I want students to get out of it is always much more productive than thinking about cheating or academic integrity. Often, those questions can be solved, or at least more meaningfully addressed, when I¡¯m thinking more carefully about why I value an assessment, and why students would get something out of doing it.¡±

john.ross@ws-2000.com