What Should We Be Assessing in a World with AI? Insights from Higher Education Educators

November 25, 2025

The arrival of generative AI tools such as ChatGPT has disrupted how we think about assessment in higher education. As educators, we’re facing a critical question: What should we actually be assessing when students have access to these powerful tools?

Our recent study explored how 28 Canadian higher education educators are navigating this challenge. Through in-depth interviews, we discovered that educators are positioning themselves as “stewards of learning with integrity” – carefully drawing boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable uses of chatbots in student assessments.

Screenshot of an academic journal article header from Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, published by Routledge. The article title reads: “What should we be assessing exactly? Higher education staff narratives on gen AI integration of assessment in a postplagiarism era.” Authors listed are Sarah Elaine Eaton, Beatriz Antonieta Moya Figueroa, Brenda McDermott, Rahul Kumar, Robert Brennan, and Jason Wiens, with institutional affiliations including University of Calgary, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Brock University, and others. The DOI link is visible at the top: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2025.2587246.

Where Educators Found Common Ground

Across disciplines, participants agreed that prompting skills and critical thinking are appropriate to assess with chatbot integration. Prompting requires students to demonstrate foundational knowledge, clear communication skills, and ethical principles like transparency and respect. Critical thinking assessments can leverage chatbots’ current limitations – their unreliable arguments, weak fact-checking, and inability to explain reasoning – positioning students as evaluators of AI-generated content.

The Nuanced Territory of Writing Assessment

Writing skills proved far more controversial. Educators accepted chatbot use for brainstorming (generating initial ideas) and editing (grammar checking after independent writing), but only under specific conditions: students must voice their own ideas, complete the core writing independently, and critically evaluate any AI suggestions.

Notably absent from discussions was the composition phase – the actual process of developing and organizing original arguments. This silence suggests educators view composition as distinctly human cognitive work that should remain student-generated, even as peripheral tasks might accommodate technological assistance.

Broader Concerns

Participants raised important challenges beyond specific skill assessments: language standardization that erases student voice, potential for overreliance on AI, blurred authorship boundaries, and untraceable forms of academic misconduct. Many emphasized that students training to become professional communicators shouldn’t rely on AI for core writing tasks.

Moving Forward

Our findings suggest that ethical AI integration in assessment requires more than policies, it demands ongoing conversations about what makes learning authentic in technology-mediated environments. Educators need support in identifying which ‘cognitive offloads’ are appropriate, understanding how AI works, and building students’ evaluative judgment skills.

The key insight? Assessment in the AI era isn’t about banning technology, but about distinguishing between tasks where AI can enhance learning and those where independent human cognition remains essential. As one participant reflected: we must continue asking ourselves, “What should we be assessing exactly?”

The postplagiarism era requires us to protect academic standards while preparing students for technology-rich professional environments – a delicate balance that demands ongoing dialogue, flexibility, and our commitment to learning and student success.

Read the full article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2025.2587246

______________

Share this post: What Should We Be Assessing in a World with AI? Insights from Higher Education Educators – https://drsaraheaton.com/2025/11/25/what-should-we-be-assessing-in-a-world-with-ai-insights-from-higher-education-educators/

Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, is a Professor and Research Chair in the Werklund School of Education at the University of Calgary, Canada. Opinions are my own and do not represent those of my employer.


Breaking Barriers: Academic Integrity and Neurodiversity

November 20, 2025

When we talk about academic integrity in universities, we often focus on preventing plagiarism and cheating. But what if our very approach to enforcing these standards is unintentionally creating barriers for some of our most vulnerable students?

My recent research explores how current academic integrity policies and practices can negatively affect neurodivergent students—those with conditions like ADHD, dyslexia, Autism, and other learning differences. Our existing systems, structures, and policies can further marginalize students with cognitive differences.

The Problem with One-Size-Fits-All

Neurodivergent students face unique challenges that can be misunderstood or ignored. A dyslexic student who struggles with citation formatting isn’t necessarily being dishonest. They may be dealing with cognitive processing differences that make these tasks genuinely difficult. A student with ADHD who has trouble managing deadlines and tracking sources is not necessarily lazy or unethical. They may be navigating executive function challenges that affect time management and organization. Yet our policies frequently treat these struggles as potential misconduct rather than as differences that deserve support.

Yet our policies frequently treat these struggles as potential misconduct rather than as differences that deserve support.

The Technology Paradox for Neurodivergent Students

Technology presents a particularly thorny paradox. On one hand, AI tools such as ChatGPT and text-to-speech software can be academic lifelines for neurodivergent students, helping them organize thoughts, overcome writer’s block, and express ideas more clearly. These tools can genuinely level the playing field.

On the other hand, the same technologies designed to catch cheating—especially AI detection software—appear to disproportionately flag neurodivergent students’ work. Autistic students or those with ADHD may be at higher risk of false positives from these detection tools, potentially facing misconduct accusations even when they have done their own work. This creates an impossible situation: the tools that help are the same ones that might get students in trouble.

Moving Toward Epistemic Plurality

So what’s the solution? Epistemic plurality, or recognizing that there are multiple valid ways of knowing and expressing knowledge. Rather than demanding everyone demonstrate learning in the exact same way, we should design assessments that allow for different cognitive styles and approaches.

This means:

  • Rethinking assessment design to offer multiple ways for students to demonstrate knowledge
  • Moving away from surveillance technologies like remote proctoring that create anxiety and accessibility barriers
  • Building trust rather than suspicion into our academic cultures
  • Recognizing accommodations as equity, not as “sanctioned cheating”
  • Designing universally, so accessibility is built in from the start rather than added as an afterthought

What This Means for the Future

In the postplagiarism era, where AI and technology are seamlessly integrated into education, we move beyond viewing academic integrity purely as rule-compliance. Instead, we focus on authentic and meaningful learning and ethical engagement with knowledge.

This does not mean abandoning standards. It means recognizing that diverse minds may meet those standards through different pathways. A student who uses AI to help structure an essay outline isn’t necessarily cheating. They may be using assistive technology in much the same way another student might use spell-check or a calculator.

Call to Action

My review of existing research showed something troubling: we have remarkably little data about how neurodivergent students experience academic integrity policies. The studies that exist are small, limited to English-speaking countries, and often overlook the voices of neurodivergent individuals themselves.

We need larger-scale research, global perspectives, and most importantly, we need neurodivergent students to be co-researchers and co-authors in work about them. “Nothing about us without us” is not just a slogan, but a call to action for creating inclusive academic environments.

Key Messages

Academic integrity should support learning, not create additional barriers for students who already face challenges. By reimagining our approaches through a lens of neurodiversity and inclusion, we can create educational environments where all students can thrive while maintaining academic standards.

Academic integrity includes and extends beyond student conduct; it means that everyone in the learning system acts with integrity to support student learning. Ultimately, there can be no integrity without equity.

Read the whole article here:
Eaton, S. E. (2025). Neurodiversity and academic integrity: Toward epistemic plurality in a postplagiarism era. Teaching in Higher Educationhttps://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2025.2583456

______________

Share this post: Breaking Barriers: Academic Integrity and Neurodiversity – https://drsaraheaton.com/2025/11/20/breaking-barriers-academic-integrity-and-neurodiversity/

Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, is a Professor and Research Chair in the Werklund School of Education at the University of Calgary, Canada. Opinions are my own and do not represent those of my employer.


AI Use and Ethics Among Jordanian University Students

November 19, 2025

885 university students in Jordan “generally viewed AI use for tasks such as translation, literature reviews, and exam preparation as ethically acceptable, whereas using AI to cheat or fully complete assignments was widely regarded as unacceptable.”

Check out the latest article in the International Journal for Educational Integrity by Marwa M. Alnsour, Hamzeh Almomani, Latifa Qouzah, Mohammad Q.M. Momani, Rasha A. Alamoush & Mahmoud K. AL-Omiri, “Artificial intelligence usage and ethical concerns among Jordanian University students: a cross-sectional study“.

Screenshot of the title page of a research article published in the International Journal for Educational Integrity. The article is titled “Artificial intelligence usage and ethical concerns among Jordanian University students: a cross-sectional study.” It is marked as “Research” and “Open Access” with a purple header. Authors listed are Marwa M. Alnsour, Hamzeh Almomani, Latifa Qouzah, Mohammad Q.M. Momani, Rasha A. Alamoush, and Mahmoud K. Al-Omiri. The DOI link and journal details appear at the top.

Synopsis

This cross-sectional study examined artificial intelligence usage patterns and ethical awareness among 885 higher education students across various disciplines. Findings showed how Jordanian university students engage with AI tools like ChatGPT in their academic work.

Key Findings

High AI Adoption: A substantial 78.1% of students reported using AI during their studies, with approximately half using it weekly or daily. ChatGPT emerged as the most popular tool (85.2%), primarily used for answering academic questions (53.9%) and completing assignments (46.4%).

Knowledge Gaps: Although 57.5% considered themselves moderately to very knowledgeable about AI, only 44% were familiar with ethical guidelines. Notably, 41.8% were completely unaware of principles guiding AI use, revealing a significant gap between usage and ethical understanding.

Disciplinary Differences: Science and engineering students demonstrated the highest usage rates and knowledge levels, while humanities students showed lower engagement but expressed the strongest interest in training. Health sciences students displayed greater ethical concerns, possibly reflecting the high-stakes nature of their field.

Ethical Perceptions: Students generally viewed AI use for translation, proofreading, literature reviews, and exam preparation as acceptable. However, 39.8% had witnessed unethical AI use, primarily involving cheating or total dependence on AI. Only 35% expressed concern about ethical implications, suggesting many may not fully recognize potential risks.

Demographic Patterns: Female students demonstrated higher ethical awareness than males. Older students and those in advanced programs (particularly PhD students) showed greater AI knowledge and ethical consciousness, with each additional year of age correlating with increased awareness scores.

Training Needs: More than three quarters (76.7%) of students expressed interest in professional training on ethical AI use, with 83.7% agreeing that guidance is necessary. However, 46.6% indicated their institutions had not provided adequate support (which should surprise exactly no one, since similar findings have been found in other studies.)

Implications

The author call for Jordanian universities to develop clear, discipline-specific ethical guidelines and structured training programs. The researchers recommend implementing mandatory online modules, discipline-tailored workshops, and establishing dedicated AI ethics bodies to promote responsible use. These findings underscore the broader challenge facing higher education globally: ensuring students can leverage AI’s benefits while maintaining academic integrity and developing critical thinking skills.

______________

Share this post: AI Use and Ethics Among Jordanian University Students https://drsaraheaton.com/2025/11/19/ai-use-and-ethics-among-jordanian-university-students/

Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, is a Professor and Research Chair in the Werklund School of Education at the University of Calgary, Canada. Opinions are my own and do not represent those of my employer.


Beyond Student Compliance: Building a Culture of Shared Academic Integrity

November 17, 2025

The recent court case in British Columbia, Canada, involving a student suing instructors for alleged plagiarism at University Canada West raises an uncomfortable but important question: Should academic integrity policies apply only to students?

In this case, the court dismissed the lawsuit, noting that the university’s academic integrity policy explicitly applied to students, but not faculty. Although the legal reasoning is sound, the ethical implications are profound. 

Integrity Is a Shared Responsibility

Academic integrity is not a student-only obligation. As Julia Christensen Hughes and I pointed out in our 2022 chapter on why academic integrity is about more than student cheating, faculty members are role models and gatekeepers of scholarly standards. When instructors are exempt from integrity policies, institutions risk creating a double standard that erodes trust and credibility.

Why does this matter?

  1. Role Modeling: Faculty are the standard-bearers of scholarly conduct. When instructors fail to uphold integrity, it undermines the credibility of the entire educational process. This is an idea repeated over and over again in the Second Handbook of Academic Integrity and one that emerged in the Comprehensive Academic Integrity Framework: academic integrity includes, and extends beyond student conduct.
  2. Trust and Fairness: Students trust that their learning environment is built on fairness. A double standard, where plagiarism policies apply only to students, erodes that trust. As I have written about elsewhere, trust has been a central theme of academic integrity for decades and is a foundation for education and it applies not only to students, but to faculty and administrators as well.
  3. Institutional Reputation: Universities thrive on public confidence in their academic rigour. Ignoring faculty misconduct risks reputational damage far beyond the classroom.

What should change?

Institutions need comprehensive integrity policies that apply to everyone—students, faculty, and administrators. These policies should include clear definitions, reporting mechanisms, and consequences for violations. Academic integrity is a shared responsibility, and everyone in the learning community is accountable.

Recommendations for Higher Education Institutions

  1. Expand and Unify Policy Scope: Ensure academic integrity policies explicitly apply to faculty, staff, and administrators, not just students. 
  2. Develop Reporting Mechanisms: Create confidential, transparent processes for reporting and investigating faculty misconduct.
  3. Mandatory Training: Require regular integrity training for faculty, emphasizing ethical scholarship and teaching practices, as well as research ethics.
  4. Institutional Culture: Promote integrity as a shared value through leadership messaging, recognition programs, and open dialogue. 
  5. Accountability Framework: Include consequences for faculty breaches in contracts and performance evaluations. 

Call to Action

Academic integrity is a foundation of higher education. If we expect students to be honest in their work, then faculty must be held to the same (if not higher) standards. Universities and colleges should act now to close the policy gap, embed integrity in institutional culture, and hold everyone accountable. If we want students to take integrity seriously, faculty must lead by example. Anything less is hypocrisy.

References

Eaton, S. E. (2024). Comprehensive Academic Integrity (CAI): An Ethical Framework for Educational Contexts. In S. E. Eaton (Ed.), Second Handbook of Academic Integrity (pp. 1–14). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-54144-5_194 

Eaton, S. E. (2025). Think Piece: Trust as a foundation for ethics and integrity in educational contexts. Critical Studies in Teaching and Learning (CriSTaL), 13(SI2), 4–7. https://doi.org/10.14426/cristal.v13iSI2.3057

Christensen Hughes, J., & Eaton, S. E. (2022). Academic misconduct in Canadian higher education: Beyond student cheating. In S. E. Eaton & J. Christensen Hughes (Eds.), Academic integrity in Canada: An enduring and essential challenge (pp. 81–102). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83255-1

Labbé, S. (2025, November 13). B.C. student sues his teachers over plagiarism, judge strikes case. Business Intellgence for BC. https://www.biv.com/news/human-resources-education/bc-student-sues-his-teachers-over-plagiarism-judge-strikes-case-11485013

______________

Share this post: Beyond Student Compliance: Building a Culture of Shared Academic Integrity – https://drsaraheaton.com/2025/11/17/beyond-student-compliance-building-a-culture-of-shared-academic-integrity/

Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, is a Professor and Research Chair in the Werklund School of Education at the University of Calgary, Canada. Opinions are my own and do not represent those of my employer.


A Brief History of Postplagiarism: Or, Why Fabrication is Not the New Flattery

October 13, 2025
Infographic titled "Postplagiarism: A Brief History" by Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, showing a timeline from 2021 to 2025 that highlights key milestones in the development of the concept of postplagiarism.
2021: Eaton introduces postplagiarism in her book Plagiarism in Higher Education, building on Rebecca Moore Howard’s work.
2023: Eaton explicitly defines postplagiarism in an article published in the International Journal for Educational Integrity.
2024: Eaton and Kumar launch www.postplagiarism.com, offering multilingual translations and open-access content.
2025: Rahul Kumar publishes the first empirical study on postplagiarism in the same journal, analyzing student reactions.

I am always excited to hear about new work that showcases postplagiarism. Imagine my dismay when I read a new article, published in an (allegedly) peer-reviewed journal, that foregrounded the tenets of postplagiarism, but was rife with fabricated sources, including references to work attributed to me, but that I never wrote.

I have opted not to ‘name and shame’ the authors. Anyone who is curious enough need only do an Internet search to find the offending article and those who wrote it.

Instead, I prefer to take a more productive approach. Here I provide a brief timeline of the development of postplagiarism as both a framework and a theory:

2021: Plagiarism in Higher Education: Tackling Tough Topics in Academic Integrity

The book begins with a history of plagiarism. Then, I discuss plagiarism in modern times. In the concluding chapter I contemplate the future of plagiarism. Building on the scholarship of Rebecca Moore Howard, I proposed that  the age of generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI) could launch us into a post-plagiarism era in which human-AI hybrid writing becomes the norm.

2023: Expanding on the ideas first presented in the final chapter of my book, I wrote my first article dedicated to the topic: “Postplagiarism: Transdisciplinary ethics and integrity in the age of artificial intelligence and neurotechnology”, published in the International Journal for Educational Integrity.

2024: Dr. Rahul Kumar (Brock University, Canada) and I launch our website, http://www.postplagiarism.com. We provide open access resources free of charge. Thanks to the generosity of colleagues and friends who speak multipole language, we offer translations of the postplagiarism infographic in multiple languages.

Also, in this year, Rahul Kumar begins a study to test the tenets of postplagiarism.

2025: Rahul Kumar publishes the results of the first empirical article on the tenets of postplagiarism. His article, “Understanding PSE students’ reactions to the postplagiarism concept: a quantitative analysis” is published in the International Journal for Educational Integrity.

If you see references to our work on postplagiairsm as we have conceptualized it that pre-date our work, dig deeper to see if the work is real. There are now fabricated sources published on the Internet that do not — and never did — exist.

Imitation is flattery, as the saying goes. This quip has been used as a way to dismiss plagiarism concerns, as students learn to imitate great writers by quoting them without attribution. The saying digs deep into cultural and historical understandings that are beyond the scope of a blog post. What I can say is that in the postplagiarism era, fabrication is not the new flattery.

One of the tenets of postplagiarism is that humans can relinquish control over what they write to an AI, but we do not relinquish responsibility. The irony of seeing fabricated references about postplagiarism in fabricated is as absurd as it is puzzling. There is no need to fabricate references to post plagiarism, especially since we provide numerous free and open access to resources and research on the topic.

______________

Share this post: A Brief History of Postplagiarism: Or, Why Fabrication is Not the New Flattery – https://drsaraheaton.com/2025/10/13/a-brief-history-of-postplagiarism-or-why-fabrication-is-not-the-new-flattery/

Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, is a Professor and Research Chair in the Werklund School of Education at the University of Calgary, Canada. Opinions are my own and do not represent those of my employer.