ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Participatory Co-Design and Evaluation of a Novel Approach to Generative AI-Integrated Coursework Assessment in Higher Education.
Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Generative AI tools offer opportunities for enhancing learning and assessment, but raise concerns about equity, academic integrity, and the ability to critically engage with AI-generated content. This study explores these issues within a psychology-oriented postgraduate programme at a UK university. We co-designed and evaluated a novel AI-integrated assessment aimed at improving critical AI literacy among students and teaching staff (pre-registration: osf.io/jqpce). Students were randomly allocated to two groups: the 'compliant' group used AI tools to assist with writing a blog and critically reflected on the outputs, while the 'unrestricted' group had free rein to use AI to produce the assessment. Teaching staff, blinded to group allocation, marked the blogs using an adapted rubric. Focus groups, interviews, and workshops were conducted to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and perceived integrity of the approach. Findings suggest that, when carefully scaffolded, integrating AI into assessments can promote both technical fluency and ethical reflection. A key contribution of this study is its participatory co-design and evaluation method, which was effective and transferable, and is presented as a practical toolkit for educators. This approach supports growing calls for authentic assessment that mirrors real-world tasks, while highlighting the ongoing need to balance academic integrity with skill development.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.