Chapter 2

AI and Academic Integrity Decussation:

Implications for Higher Education

Nicky Tjano
Director of Teaching & Learning Strategy,
Projects, and Portfolio Performance
University of South Africa
Pretoria, South Africa

Introduction
AI (artificial intelligence) refers to systems that display intelligent
behaviour by analysing their environment and taking actions
– with some degree of autonomy – to achieve specific goals.
AI-based systems can be purely software-based, acting in the
virtual world (e.g., voice assistants, image analysis software,
search engines, speech, and face recognition systems) or AI
can be embedded in hardware devices (e.g., advanced robots,
autonomous cars, drones, or IoT [internet of things] applications).
This definition was proposed by HLEG (the High-Level Expert
Group on Artificial Intelligence) in 2019. Samoili, Cobo, Gómez,
De Prato, Martínez-Plumed, & Delipetrev (2020:4) suggest that
there are two broad categories that can be identified from this
definition, namely the ability of machines to reason and make
decisions and learn.

There is a transformative force in the era of rapid

advancements in technology that is reforming various sectors,
communities, political and educational landscapes, and so on.
Nonetheless, this force is transforming the very foundation of
human knowledge, and arguably human intelligence. Albert
Einstein once stated that ‘the true sign of intelligence is not
knowledge but imagination’ (Ganiev & Tashev 2021:3570).
Einstein went further to argue that imagining is a far more

29
 Artificial Intelligence Transforming Higher Education Vol. 2

important skill than knowledge itself. This view implies

that imagination is more important than knowledge thus
emphasising the need for imagination alongside knowledge in
fostering creativity. One would posit that AI’s transformative
agenda lies in changing the status quo on knowledge creation.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s views on contemporary education and
the role of digital technologies as captured by Jergus (2018:395-
396) and Carvalho and Yeoman (2021:28) respectively emphasise
the significance of student’s natural development in the learning
journey and situate learning activity as an emergent process.
With this evolution, technological advancement and digital
revolution, spearheaded by AI, undoubtedly the longstanding
and uncontested dominant status of IHEs (institutions of
higher education), in particular universities, in the creation
and dissemination of knowledge has now been challenged.
Therefore, drawing from the views of both Einstein and
Rousseau, it is undeniable that AI has reimagined the principle
of the knowledge creation process, learning activity, as well as
pedagogical and andragogical strategies. This assertion aligns
with a point made by Eaton (2023:4 of 10) that with AI we have
witnessed the era of post-plagiarism, where human creativity is
enhanced rather than threatened.

The role of AI has been a subject of discussion both in the

mainstream media and academic discourse. The developments
in AI are fast changing the educational landscape as these
advancements are intimately associated with improvements
in computer capabilities, thus resulting in super-intelligent
machines. This intelligence is actually the cornerstone of AI as its
definition anchors ML (machine learning), whereby computers
impersonate humans. Likewise, Trott, Jones, Chang, Michaelov,
and Bergen (2023:2 of 21) expound on the human impressionist
abilities LLMs (large language models) by asking if LLMs know
what humans know. In that piece of work, the authors cite
activities such as the ability to learn, adapt, synthesise, and self-
correct to complete complex tasks. This happens through LPMs
(language processing models). Without a doubt, advancements
bring about a lot of opportunities, so there are challenges and
associated risks (Neha 2020:308; Popenici & Kerr 2017:1 of 13).

30
 Chapter 2

AI’s influence in education builds on and extends what the 4IR

(fourth industrial revolution) has done as Oliver (2022b:27)
affirms that 4IR alongside IoT, big data, the IIoT (industrial
internet of things), and cloud computing cyber-physical systems,
to mention a few, has taken the world by storm. Oliver (2022a:53),
reflecting on Society 5.0 and Education 5.0, recommends that it is
the responsibility of IHEs to lead in innovation incubators and be
the cornerstone of ‘sustainable and positive transformation and
change.’ This implies, argues Oliver (2022b:27), that IHEs should
be instrumental in this era of development given the influence
they have in shaping the lives of the youths, their beliefs, skills,
future livelihoods, and expectations.

With the advent of ChatGPT (chat generative pre-trained

transformer), there have been many other competing and
complementary AI tools and systems focusing on computer-
generated text, such as Claude, Google Bard, and DALE, to
mention a few. These tools fall within the field of Gen-AI
(generative artificial intelligence) and can also be used as AWAs
(automated writing assistants), AWTs (automated writing tools),
and APTs (automated paraphrasing tools) (Roe & Perkins 2022).
Other groups of effective AI tools useful for the field of education
fall within the realm of IESs (intelligent educational systems)
including ITSs (intelligent tutoring systems), educational
robotics, and automated grading tools for multimedia systems.

The emergence and launch of ChatGPT in late 2022 by

OpenAI has catalysed a rapid rise in open AI technologies and has
effectively created an almost instant technological panic about
the impact of AI on the HE (higher education) space. There has
been worries around technological advancements, while some of
the fears centred around diminishing our ability to think (Eaton
2023:2 of 10). Drawing on the developments, (Eaton 2023:2 of
10) adds that the results of technological advancements and by
extension AI, are evident in how AI has quickly redefined teaching,
learning, and assessment practices.

From a research perspective, advancements in AI present

an opportunity for a transformative wave that is reshaping the
landscape of academic inquiry across diverse disciplines. Ongoing

31
 Artificial Intelligence Transforming Higher Education Vol. 2

debates surround the ethical use of AI, with protagonists citing

the associated benefits such as enhanced adaptive teaching and
assessment, personalised learning experiences, and improved
virtual tutoring and support. Among these divergent debates, calls
for transformative changes, the need to safeguard the integrity
of assessments, and to strike a balance from an ethical viewpoint
forms the basis of this chapter.

This chapter adopts a risk-oriented mindset and ethical lens

to comprehend how advancements in AI intersect with academic
integrity. By dissecting the AI decussation with academic integrity
within a HE landscape, the chapter embarks on a journey through
the evolving landscape of AI and its profound implications for
academic integrity. First, the popularity and development cycles
of AI are explored, digging into the hype surrounding Gen-AI and
also projecting its future applications. Second, the transformative
role of AI, particularly in the health sector is explored. The
third section navigates the ongoing debate between AI and
human capabilities.

The fourth section closely examines the decussation

of AI and academic integrity from the global perspectives of
academic dishonesty. This is followed by an exploration of
challenges commanded by the rise of a repertoire of LLMs, with
special attention to AI authoring tools. In this section, the costs
and benefits of AI’s authoring tools are discussed. The positive
impacts of the tools such as supporting teaching and learning to
negative costs like students’ dependency on AI and plagiarism
dangers as well as communication threats arising from reduced
human interaction are detailed in the discussion.

The chapter then discourses the proposed strategies to

strike a balance between AI benefits and how to maintain academic
integrity. As we peer into the future, the second last section
reflects on future evolving trends in the AI space in education with
commitment challenges. This reflection offers valuable insights
for educators, policymakers, and researchers who are constantly
navigating the delicate cross paths between technological
advancement, specifically AI and academic integrity. The last
section provides concluding remarks on the chapter.

32
 Chapter 2

AI Popularity and Seasons of Development

AI paradigm shifts can be examined from three distinct but
intertwined phases of development as described by Delipetrev,
Tsinaraki, and Kostic (2020) in their 2020 AI-Watch report for
the EU (European Union) Commission’s JRC (Joint Research
Centre) examining the evolution of AI. Delipetrev et al. (2020:3)
regard the development of AI and its popularity as a seasonal
change phenomenon emulating economic cycles as illustrated
in Figure 2.1. These phases are referred to as AI’s seasons of
development and are characterised by sequential stages of
upswings (springs for growth) and downswings (winters for
decline) that happen over time. The latter stages are largely due
to cuts in funding opportunities or budgets for development.
The first phase is called AI foundations and occurred between
1950 and 1970. The instrumental pioneers during this primitive
era include Alan Turing and John McCarthy. Turing published
what would arguably and undoubtedly be his breakthrough
seminal paper in the field of AI, that debated machines’ ability
to think (Turing 1950). The debate continued and was propelled
by deliberations at Dartmouth’s conference that took place
six years later after Turing’s paper on computing machinery
and intelligence. At the conference, McCarthy presented his
definition of AI, which he coined in 1955 as ‘the science and
engineering of making intelligent machines’ (Delipetrev et al.
2020:7).

Since that conference, excitement about machines,

specifically computers’ ability to assist with human challenges,
mathematical and science equations, and continued excellence
in language translation abilities surged. Furthermore, a myriad
of AI initiatives and developments were witnessed – from
computer programming, the discovery of perceptron, the
realisation of the ELIZA NLP (natural language processing) model
to Shakey the Robot (Delipetrev et al. 2020:7). Likewise, Roberts
(2016:14) affirms these developments by reflecting that ‘despite
the Dartmouth conference’s failure to produce an intelligent
machine,’ the aftermath of the conference was nothing but a

33
 Artificial Intelligence Transforming Higher Education Vol. 2

success. Narrow programmes like the Logic Theorists1 were born,

overwhelmingly buying into McCarthy’s optimism and dream, as
the government was optimistic about smart machines’ potential
to ‘analyze masses of geological data for oil and coal exploration’
(Roberts 2016:14).

Figure 2.1: AI’s seasons of development. (Source: Delipetrev et

al. 2020:3)

The symbolic AI phase ensued between 1970 and 1990. In this

era, the underlying discovery was the advent of expert and
knowledge systems. The nervous part of these systems was the
integration of human beings’ expert knowledge through computer
programming. The expert systems were able to perform blood
disease diagnostics and prescriptions (Shortliffe & Davis 1975:11),
the ID3 (iterative dichotomiser 3) which was able to generate
decision trees (Quinlan 1986:82), and the ability for humans to
have dialogue with computers (Winograd 1971:75).

The era between 1990 and 2020 indicates that the

development of AI took an upward trajectory in an exponential
form. The advent of ML and DL (deep learning) has characterised
this era, and without a doubt, more is yet to come. The use of
convolutional neural networks that read handwritten digits

1 Logic Theorists is a computer programme written in 1956 by Allen

Newell and two colleagues, Simon and Shaw, engineered to perform
automated reasoning, and has been described as the first artificial
intelligence programme.

34
 Chapter 2

(LeCun, Boser, Denker, Henderson, Howard, Hubbard, & Jackel

1989:400), the rise of GANs (generative adversarial networks),
and transformers in language modelling for the translation and
answering of questions happened in this era. The other instance
of AI capabilities surpassing humans includes the 1997 era when
IBM (International Business Machines) supercomputer Deep
Blue defeated Gary Kasparov in a chess game. No one would have
predicted that to happen to the world-renowned world chess
master. There is a high degree of uncertainty associated with
the future directions of AI and its advancement; however, its
maximum potential can only be realised if there is trust in how
it is deployed, developed, and used (Thiebes, Lins, & Sunyaev
2021:447).

Notwithstanding all these developments in AI, and it being

an important aspect of modern-day life, there are probabilities
on the cards where winter seasons in AI development may follow.
The same goes for seasons of greater AI spring. This, as Delipetrev
et al. (2020:3) accentuate, signifies an uncertainty of the future
of AI. Similarly, Schuchmann in his 2019 paper on prospects of
an approaching AI winter earlier predicted that given critiques
around AI, especially on DL approaches and variations in funding
models through R&D (research and development). In fact, on
funding R&D, the key role players as far as allocating substantial
amounts of funds to AI are concerned, are the US (United States
[of America]), China, European Commission through EU member
states, India, South Korea, Canada, Japan, Israel, Russia, and
Singapore (Samoili et al. 2020). Between 2009 and 2018, there
were 34,000 role players globally with the US and China amassing
this large concentration.

AI’s Hype Cycles: Focus on Generative AI and Future

Expectations
In the history of human evolution, AI is arguably the most
intricate and beyond-belief invention where human creativity
has been tested and will arguably continue to be tested. Epstein
and Hertzmann (2023:1110) affirm this view by stating that new
classes of AI tools, especially Gen-AI, have the capability to likely

35
 Artificial Intelligence Transforming Higher Education Vol. 2

and fundamentally turn around creativity and the idea generation

– from conception to deployment.

AI’s presumed ‘godfather,’ Geoffrey Hinton, a renowned

computer scientist who is credited with having built influential
and crucial AI tools has shared his crusade on the evolution of AI
and the possibility of outsmarting the intelligence of humankind.
This was reflected by Joshua Rothman is his article, Why the
godfather of AI fears what he’s built, after the intimate interview
with Hinton (Rothman 2023). In his reflections, Rothman conveys,
what worried Hinton is how humans would prevent AI machines
from taking control. His reflection is that no one knows the
answer. This evolution and subsequent successes have amplified
the debate on machine’s capability to outclass human beings.

Nonetheless, of the debates and successes of machines’

capabilities, the AI field has experienced periods of hype cycles.
The AI hype cycle 2023 sheds light on the path and evolution
of innovations within AI space, and how they have influenced
various sectors (Gartner 2023). Figure 2.2 depicts five phases
of the hype cycle characterised by technology triggers, also
known as innovation triggers, followed by a peak of an inflated
expectation phase.

The third phase relates to the trough of disillusionment,

where the ‘hype’ or interest in the innovation starts to wane
due to experimental and implementation failures. It is at this
stage where the technology fails to meet the expectations. The
fourth phase is characterised by a slope of enlightenment where
potential benefits of technology start to make sense. The last stage
is referred to as a plateau of productivity, where the mainstream
adoption of technology takes off and all previous efforts including
R&D and marketing start to pay off as Chaffey and Ellis-Chadwick
(2019:74) attribute this success to serving the niche market.

36
 Chapter 2

Figure 2.2: AI hype cycles. (Source: Gartner 2023)

Aligned with hype cycles, AI tools are expected to reach a plateau

of productivity in four periodic phases. The Grand View Research
(2023) report projects the global market size of AI to plateau
at almost $2 trillion, a surge of 38.1%. In phase one, tools will
reach a plateau in a period of less than two years. This period is
followed by the next plateau phase, which is two to five years. In
the third phase, a plateau is reached between five and 10 years,
while the fourth phase constitutes a period of a decade or more. AI
engineering, prompt engineering, AI simulation, and data-centric
AI are selected AI fields whose productivity plateaus would mature
within two years. Before the impact of AI on academic integrity is
explored, Figure 2.3 illustrates how AI is applied and has benefited
11 major industries and sectors, and as Takyar (2022) asserts, AI
continues to amass huge potential for the future expansion of
these industries.

37
 Artificial Intelligence Transforming Higher Education Vol. 2

Figure 2.3: Application of AI in various industries. (Source:

Takyar 2022)

Some of these breakthroughs have influenced and propelled the

discovery of many AI tools in various other sectors, for example,
various fields, like the food technology, real estate, health
sector, hospitality, travel, and manufacturing (Takyar 2022).
The next section selectively explores how AI has transformed
the health sector. The choice of this sector is that the results are
almost visible as the majority of the people interacts with the
sector as patients to consult with their healthcare professionals.
This discussion is then followed by a reflection on the big debate
between AI and human capability.

Application of AI in the Health Sector

AI has cemented its place as a significant driver for economic
development and has been dubbed an ‘area of strategic
importance’ given its broader impact on society (Delipetrev et
al. 2020:1). The growing influence of AI-driven capabilities in
various sectors can be forgiven for making someone believe that
they are in a world where they are watching sci-fiction. In this
‘sphere,’ one is experiencing AI algorithms’ superpower and
astonishing capabilities. These amazing capabilities include the
ability of AI algorithms to compose a masterpiece, which by far
outclasses the best classical symphonies of all time. If one thinks

38
 Chapter 2

of the age of the universe (Planck 2018) and the power of the
universe, where Coutinho (2022) refers to the latter as ‘a wonder
ahead of medicine,’ which has caught the attention of scientists
and researchers and how AI has transcended into this space,
the results are astonishing. To date, scientists are still trying to
determine the age of the universe as Russ and his colleagues in
1997 concluded that the impact of the inhomogeneities on the
global expansion factor was found to be miniature (Russ, Soffel,
Kasai, & Börner 1997:2046). They went further to reveal that to
use Hubble constantly in the usual way to determine the age of the
universe produced an error that was negligible.

According to Manne and Kantheti (2021:78-80), some

of the benefits of AI for the health industry include aiding in
understanding the needs of patients, cost reduction, and most
importantly, improved efficiency. At the heartbeat of this
advancement is the availability and processing of healthcare data,
which are often voluminous. PWC (2017) cautions that although
it is undeniable that AI is gradually becoming more and more
sophisticated in performing human activities, the sustainability
and accessibility of quality healthcare need to be rethought, given
the increasing costs associated with the new discoveries.

In diagnosis and treatment design, the application of and

advancement in AI research have been growing and improving. In
their 2008 paper, Eren, Subasi, and Coskun (2008) showcase the
power of AI in telemedicine through the efficient use of mobile
devices and reveal how medical decision support systems can be
effective in the provision of quality healthcare services, especially
in developing countries that are usually under-resourced and
limited by advancement in technologies. Some of the interesting
applications of AI in the sector include the deployment of mobile
device apps to effectively diagnose pregnant women (Carter,
Sandall, Shennan, & Tribe 2019:2) and monitoring nutritional
triage for oncology patients (De Bruin, Schuh, Seeling, Luger, Gall,
Hütterer, Kornek, Ludvik, Hoppichler, & Schindler 2018:34‑35).

The increasing use of AI and robotics in redefining the

health sector through examination, diagnosis, and treatment
prescription has been witnessed. Exploration of AI chatbots to

39
 Artificial Intelligence Transforming Higher Education Vol. 2

assist in understanding depression and anxiety in patients (Manne

& Kantheti 2021:80) and detecting psychiatric diseases (Erguzel
& Ozekes 2014:52) are a few of the AI technologies being tested.
Eren et al. (2008:32) suggest that AI techniques like computerised
decision support system e.g., ANNs (artificial neural networks),
decision trees, and support vector machines are also being used
through mobile applications to diagnose and treat problematic
diseases like cancer.

In the last decade, the focus was more on a differentiation

strategy through explosive innovation in medical products
such as newly developed pieces of equipment and consumables.
Historical and evidence-based healthcare was influenced by an
enormous amount of health data at the disposal of scientists,
health practitioners, and regulatory bodies (Frost & Sullivan
2016). These data are in the form of the overwhelming volume
of health records, research findings, and diagnosis data that are
generated daily. For example, there were approximately 11,000
articles published annually in the field of skincare. One could
imagine how this data have assisted dermatologists to more
accurately diagnose skin care problems for millions of patients
across the globe. In terms of data, the volume of healthcare data
was reported to have reached 4 ZBs (zettabytes), considering that
one ZB equates a trillion gigabytes. It was projected that these
data would exponentially grow by 10 times (PWC 2017:3).

AI versus Humans: The Big Debate!

The field of AI is dynamic and evolving at a fast pace. With its
dynamism comes many transformative opportunities. The
same can be stated for threats. The latter attests to the need to
closely monitor AI through regulatory frameworks, policies,
and guidelines. The ample potential impact of AI on humanity
is yet to be fully explored. Ironically, the ‘intelligence’ of AI has
been debated, and the debate is still ongoing to have the capacity
to supersede human intelligence in the near future. In almost
affirming this claim, Arrieta, Díaz-Rodríguez, Del Ser, Bennetot,
Tabik, Barbado, García, Gil-López, Molina, Benjamins, and
Chatila (2020:82) explain that with the manner and speed with
which AI-powered systems are sophisticated, the advancement

40
 Chapter 2

has led to a situation in which these systems can act or operate

independently of human intervention, especially in their design
and deployment.

For example, in the health sector, Manne and Kantheti

(2021:78) are pondering whether the availability and use of AI
tools in the future will replace physicians. The authors quickly
respond by stating that practically, it is impossible. At most,
however, these tools will enable physicians to achieve improved
and accurate results. The vantage point lies in its ability to
process enormous amounts of information a billion times faster,
thus enabling it to decide much quicker than human beings can.
Lu (2023), in an article headlined How smart is ChatGPT? reveals
riveting results on how it is able to compete with humans in
examinations. These results are worth reflecting on. In the
latest release, ChatGPT 4 is reportedly capable of matching the
human performance level in most of professional and academic
assessments. Despite these breakthroughs, it is still struggling
in subjects like English language and literature (Lundgren
2024; Nasrullah & Wahyu 2024). ChatGPT 4’s performance in
language tasks is still exhibiting inconsistencies, thus suggesting
its insufficient grasp of language and literature intricacies.
The subjects in which it is demonstrating high grading and
comprehension accuracy and it is performing well are in the
STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics)
field with subjects like physics, statistics, mathematics, and
biology (Lundgren 2024; Ragolane, Patel, & Salikram 2024). This
is particularly true when questions are objective i.e., multiple-
choice or sort-answer.

The often mystic and evolving incredible capabilities of

AI and its algorithms fuel the ‘big debate’ on intelligence about
AI versus human intelligence, as discussed in this section. The
question of whether AI can surpass human intelligence is explored
with questions like the following:

• Is it possible to use technology (AI, modelling, or data science)

for the good of humanity?
• Can a human mind keep up with AI?
• Can AI be humane and ethical?

41
 Artificial Intelligence Transforming Higher Education Vol. 2

The questions lean on the protagonists who are on the side of

those arguing that AI will replace humans in their jobs. The debate
is not new as advancements in technology and the prevalence of
automated machines, robots, and production processes, especially
in the automotive industries and huge supply chains have
replaced human beings. In an attempt to respond to the first and
last questions, I argue that the potential of technology, especially
AI and data science, to benefit humanity is substantial, yet it is not
without challenges. Various studies (e.g., Beduschi 2024; Thiebes
et al. 2021) highlight how these technologies can contribute
positively to societal goals, but they also caution against the risks
of inequality and ethical concerns. Hence, there is a quest in some
parts of the literature geared towards promoting responsible and
sustainable AI in protection of human rights against bias and
discrimination in algorithms, whether intentional or otherwise
(Lamchek 2023; Yadav, Tudela, & Marco-Lajara 2024). With
reference to the second question, sections 2 and 3 focused on the
capabilities of AI and its impact in various sectors such as health,
education and labour market among others.

It is undeniable that AI has transcended and has been

transformative in enriching the human experience. Contemporary
advancement in AI and its applications in various industries and
sectors of the economy is unprecedented. In this section, the
impact of AI in the health sector is highlighted. The healthcare
sector experienced outstanding AI advancements that are on the
brink of revolutionising patient care and outcomes. Advancing
medical diagnostics through image recognition and predictive
analytics, enabling early disease detection, and personalised
treatment plans are some of the developments AI has advanced
in the industry. The influence of AI in the health sector was
evidenced in 2012 when Geoffrey developed a neural network at
the University of Toronto with two of his students. The system
they have built, was able to mimic humans’ behaviour and
function just like the human brain (Apperly & Butterfill 2009:953)
where one could feed it with a large amount of data, and through
ML it could learn how to identify objects with almost near
perfect efficacy.

42
 Chapter 2

The working paper of the ILO (International Labour

Organization) on the global analysis of jobs that are exposed to AI,
specifically Gen-AI, projects that the effects vary across countries
based on their income level (Gmyrek, Berg, & Bescond 2023). For
example, countries with low-income levels have 0.4% of their
total labour force exposed compared to 5.5% of countries in the
upper bound. Administrative jobs that are clerical in nature are the
most exposed at 24%. Meanwhile, other occupational groups vary
between one and four percent (Gmyrek Berg, & Bescond 2023:1-
10). Along the same lines, the OECD (Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development) (OECD 2023:42) suggests that AI
is changing the jobs landscape and estimates that 42% and 47%
of automated jobs (AI adoption) in finance and manufacturing
respectively, were motivated by reduction in staff costs.

The quote by Kevin Kelly, co-founder of Wired magazine

in his book, The inevitable shares rather interesting views on the
future of jobs in the world of AI: ‘Your job won’t be taken by AI,
but it will be taken by someone who uses AI’ (Kelly 2016:2). At
the core of Kelly’s view is that AI is not here to replace people in
their jobs, however, there is a need for adaptability and an urge
for self-fulfilment and motivation in one’s career development.
Likewise, in an interview with CNBC (2023), Elon Musk, the
CEO of X, a leading social media platform previously known as
Twitter, has advised people, youths in particular, to embark on a
career journey that keeps them captivated and always satisfied.
This background in a way opines that there are varied views on
the pros and cons of AI evolution. Now that the impact of AI has
been discussed alongside the great debate on AI versus humans,
in the next section the decussation of AI and academic integrity
is presented.

AI on Academic Integrity Decussation: Plausibility

for Evolution of Academic Dishonesty and Academic
Misconduct
There is no universal definition of academic dishonesty,
just as there is none for plagiarism. Both the concepts of
academic dishonesty and academic misconduct are often used

43
 Artificial Intelligence Transforming Higher Education Vol. 2

interchangeably, referring to the acts of violating academic

integrity (Eaton 2017:272). Alongside plagiarism, the concepts
have dominated ethical discourse in IHEs (Hua 2023:160). Eaton
(2017:272) continues to suggest that academic dishonesty and
misconduct are regarded as forms of an academic integrity
antithesis. This affirms what the ICAI (International Centre for
Academic Integrity) on the fundamental values of academic
integrity stated, viewing both academic dishonesty and
misconduct as compromising essential ethical principles and
values of trust, honesty, responsibility, fairness, and respect
(ICAI 2021:4-10). Tracey Bretag, the Australian scholar, who is
popular for, and an avid advocate of academic integrity (cf. Marais
2022:57), borrows from the definition of APFEI (assessment of
process for efficiency improvement) of academic integrity as
follows: ‘A commitment to key values of honesty, trust, fairness,
equity, respect and responsibility, and the translation of these
values into action’ (Bretag 2016:28).

The popularity of the term ‘academic integrity’ is credited

to Donald McCabe, Rutgers Business School’s Professor of
Management and global Business, who is dubbed to be its father
and to some known as ‘Dr. Ethics’ (Rutgers Business School
2014). In his summer reflection on liberal education, McCabe
(2005:26) writes that ‘it takes a village: Academic dishonesty and
educational opportunity [and argues that] if we truly believe in
our role as educators, we would do better to view most instances
of cheating as educational opportunities.’ There are other
prominent scholars who have made and some still are making an
immense contribution to the field of academic integrity.2 Enacting
behavioural principles and values is the backbone of academic
integrity, while the aim is to avoid acts of plagiarism and contract
cheating, as Clarke and Lancaster (2006:19) as well as Eaton
(2018) put it. In affirmation, Kirk (1996:16) continues to argue
that maintaining academic integrity upholds high standards of
honesty and rigour in academic research and publishing.

2 Examples are Tracey Bretag and Cath Ellis, both from Australia,
Tricia Bertram Gallant from the US, Sarah Elaine Eaton from Canada,
Thomas Lancaster from the UK, and Tomáš Foltýnek from the Czech
Republic.

44
 Chapter 2

On the backdrop of proliferation in AI, the growing

importance of protecting and maintaining the practice of a
moral or principled code of ethical behaviour, which is the core
value of academic integrity is concomitantly taking centre stage
(Marais 2022:57). Since the COVID-19 (Coronavirus disease
of 2019) pandemic, IHEs across the globe had to, willingly
and unwillingly, transition to online assessments (Perkins
2023:1 of 24). Inevitably, this transition was accompanied by
concerns on the rising prevalence of academic dishonesty.
To comprehend the complexity of academic dishonesty, it is
important to note the origins of assessments, which date back
as far as the primitive era of the first tests3 in the 18th century
(Lang 2013:14). Time-honoured methods such as plagiarism,
unauthorised collaboration, and exam cheating remain prevalent
challenges. Students have, historically, sought to gain an unfair
advantage through these means, raising concerns for educators
and institutions globally. The use of crib sheets, copying from
peers, and recycling assignments have been persistent issues,
emphasising the need for ongoing vigilance in upholding
academic integrity (Armstead 2001:10; Stevens 2013:17).

It has been argued that academic integrity tends to place

the responsibility of good ethical conduct on the individual,
which, according to Fishman (2015:13-16) in her book chapter
on Academic integrity as education concept: Concern, and movement
in US institutions of higher learning assumes that approach to be
problematic. Other scholars point to the Chinese civil service
over a millennium when the Chinese emperor in early 2200 BCE
administered an elementary form of testing for his officials once
every three years as a measure of assessing their fit-for-office
(Bushway & Nash 1977:4). In the context of the US, Gregory
(2004:59) documents the late 1800s to be the era during which
tests were popularised. James McKeen Cattell was credited to
have imported brass testing instruments to the US; hence he

3 According to Fishman (2015:7-8), the historical evolution of academic

integrity shaped American approaches to academic integrity and can
be traced back to the early conceptions, which were based on British
higher education models. These models explicitly addressed ethical
and moral lessons through explicit, religious beliefs and mandatory
practices.

45
 Artificial Intelligence Transforming Higher Education Vol. 2

earned an accolade of being referred to as ‘undisputed dean of

American psychology’ (Gregory 2004:60-61). This long and
distinct period of history was preceded by the Francis Galton
era (1822-1911). Galton who was reported to have been obsessed
with measurements, devised the first battery of tests within the
field of psychology in Great Britain. Akin to the introduction
of any other system, administering the assessments was not
without challenges, and this led to testing environments needing
refinements and modifications over centuries. It was until this
time that written exams were enacted in the Han dynasty. Some
of the challenges relates to unnecessary demanding assessment
practices and invalidated selections tests (Gregory 2004:57).
Other challenges include cheating and bribing of examiners,
which were popular despite these acts carrying the death penalty
as a form of deterrent for both examiner and test taker should it
be proven that they are guilty of misconduct (Bushway & Nash
1977:623; Gregory 2004:57-59; Zhang 2017:153). The next section
takes a closer view on the contemporary challenges in academic
integrity from the context of pre- and post-COVID-19 pandemic.

Global Perspectives on Academic Integrity

This section explores the contemporary issues surrounding
the management of academic integrity, looking at both the
conventional forms and evolving forms of academic dishonesty.
Additionally, we examine this through contrasting the global and
local perspectives on academic integrity. The focus of this exercise
is on selected developed countries contrasted with emerging
nations like Brazil, India, and South Africa. The aim of this
comparative analysis is to shed light on the complex consequences
of academic integrity issues in various learning environments and
educational landscapes.

The challenges in maintaining are on the one hand

precipitated by perspectives on the development of academic
integrity measures, while on the other there is the role played by
technology. On the former, Fishman (2015:8) attributes and relates
challenges to the narrow view of academic integrity. Authors go
further to suggest that there needs to be a paradigm shift away
from students as possible threats on academic integrity, towards

46
 Chapter 2

focusing on educators and researchers, practices, and entrenched

institutional ethical cultures. The shortcoming of this one-
dimensional perspective rests on the responsibility of managing
academic integrity on individual choices, hence the inefficiencies.
Therefore, a multi-dimensional perspective of responsibility of
managing academic integrity, a principle which this chapter is
underpinned on, remains the effective and responsible way of
managing academic integrity.

Developed nations like the US, UK (United Kingdom), Italy,

and Australia often face challenges associated with technology-
driven academic misconduct. For the longest time, academic
integrity has been the anchor behind fair, valid, and reliable
education system. The assurance of fair and honest representation
of one’s work in assessments underpins the basis for principles of
academic integrity. Sadler (1989:119), in the theory of formative
assessment, suggests that there are multiple criteria applied in
judging the quality of students’ assessments. It is the ‘quality’
in this assessment that is a beacon of hope when it comes to
protecting academic integrity. However, owing to evolutions
in the educational landscape, the course or journey to manage
and maintain academic integrity, is by extension raddled with
allied challenges.

Current Challenges in Academic Integrity

Using AI tools does not automatically constitute academic
dishonesty. Eaton (2023:3 of 10) uses the six tenets of post-
plagiarism by reflecting writing in the age of AI and argues that
attempts to detect where the human ends and where the AI
begins in this era is pointless. Examining academic integrity on
a global scale reveals a spectrum of practices and attitudes. The
proliferation of essay mills and the use of advanced cheating
technologies pose threats to the integrity of assessment processes.
On the other hand, developing countries such as Brazil, India, and
South Africa grapple with issues rooted in resource constraints
and varying levels of academic support. The implications for
educational institutions in these diverse contexts are profound,
necessitating tailored strategies to address the unique challenges
each faces.

47
 Artificial Intelligence Transforming Higher Education Vol. 2

Academic integrity literature provides valuable insights

into the implications and challenges in academic integrity, both
in developed and developing nations. In both the US, Canada,
and the UK, studies highlight the prevalence of contract cheating
and the need for rigorous academic policies (Eaton 2018; Eaton,
Rothschuh, Fernández Conde, Guglielmin, Otoo, Wilson, & Burns
2018:2; Eaton 2017:271; Lancaster 2020:1-2 of 14; Stone 2023:357).
Perkins (2023:2 of 24) suggests that in Italy and Australia the
focus has shifted towards the impact of cultural attitudes on
academic honesty and considerations of academic integrity in
the era of AI LLM models (Ellis, Van Haeringen, Harper, Bretag,
Zucker, McBride, Rozenberg, Newton, & Saddiqui 2020:454;
Bretag 2016:8-10). Conversely, in India and South Africa, the
reviewed research underscores the role of socioeconomic factors
in influencing academic misconduct (Marais 2022; Mwamwenda
2006; Vandana & Nagaveni 2019).

Key implications gleaned from the literature include the

urgent need for standardised global frameworks that acknowledge
the contextual differences between developed and developing
nations. Institutions must not only adopt proactive measures to
deter academic misconduct but also foster a culture of academic
honesty through educational initiatives. As we navigate the post-
COVID educational landscape, understanding these implications
becomes paramount in crafting effective strategies to safeguard
academic integrity worldwide.

The Costs of the Rise in AI’s Large Language Models

Authoring Tools on Academic Integrity
The advent of technology has ushered in a new era of challenges
for academic integrity. While traditional forms of cheating
persist, there is a notable evolution in the methods employed.
According to Epstein and Hertzmann (2023:1110), the capability
and influence of Gen-AI tools lead to reimagining the creativity,
as such, posing a need to understand the impact as it cuts across
many sectors of the society. The HE landscape, and by extension,
academic integrity is no exception. For example, one of the
concerns raised against LLMs is their ability to generate text

48
 Chapter 2

that may be difficult for academics to detect that it is machine-

generated (Perkins 2023:8 of 24; Wahle, Ruas, Kirstein, & Gipp
2022:952). Another challenge is the difficulty with which to
establish relevant policies if the use of LLMs as a tool for student
cognitive offloading is considered. LLMs are transformer-
based ML models characterised from language-based activities
(Vaswani, Shazeer, Parmar, Uszkoreit, Jones, Gomez, Kaiser,
& Polosukhin 2017). In this section, the key question under
exploration is, ‘To what extent does the rise in AI authoring tools
compromise academic integrity?’

The evolution of AI academic authoring tools has its own

‘the good and the bad’ story. Much as there are benefits – intended
or unintended – there are also associated consequences or costs.
These costs are propelling the debates and arguments for and
against embracing AI. Grappling with the challenges brought by
the rise in AI authoring tools, universities and other IHEs around
the world have recently developed (and are still developing, whilst
others are yet to develop) their policy stances on the usage of AI
authoring tools. On the backdrop of the downside of the rise in AI
authoring tools, the likes of the AWG (Australian Writers’ Guild)
have in its response to this explosion, released a statement where
the association vehemently affirms its stringent stance against
the unregulated use of AI within Australia’s creative industries
(AWG 2023). Similarly, the WGA (Writers Guild of America) has
tailed its concerns and issues they have on AI within the US screen
industry, and this went as far as the protracted protests. The WGA
ultimately won critical contract protections, although this victory
was not enough, according to Winter (2023). Despite the critics,
at the core of the settlement, it was agreed that AI would not be
used to weaken writers’ credits and compensation. In another
prominent example of concerns against AI, the technology
reporter of the BCC (British Broadcasting Corporation), Shiona
McCallum wrote that ‘ChatGPT [was] banned in Italy over privacy
concerns’ (McCallum 2023). Unexpectedly and ironically, the
headline would coincide with the April fool’s day, and uncertainly
some would wonder if this was a gimmick. However, it was found
to be a true story. As reported in the article, the data protection

49
 Artificial Intelligence Transforming Higher Education Vol. 2

authority in Italy was grimly concerned about privacy of the data

on the chatbot’s model (McCallum 2023).

To borrow from the economics literature, there is a popular

phrase about the hidden or opportunity costs that states: ‘There
ain’t no such thing as a free lunch’, to which Safire William (1993)
argues that it was popularised by the free market economist
Milton Friedman in 1975 (Friedman 1975). This phrase puts
meaning and understanding to the existence and impact of costs
in any transaction. Brue and McConnell (2014:3) put it succinctly
as they write that the phrase is ‘at the core of economics.’ It
is undeniable that much as there are benefits brought by AI
authoring tools, there are also concomitant costs. The impact of
the LLMs on academic integrity is complex and is continuously
evolving. This is partly attributed to unremitting development and
deployment of new tools. For example, Poola (2023:16) states that
with the development of new technologies and advancement in AI,
the efficiency and effectiveness of LLMs such as ChatGPT is likely
to be impacted. This is more of a paradox situation with positive
and negative potential consequences and will be discussed in the
next sections.

Positive Benefits of AI Authoring Tools

The rise of AI authoring tools represents a transformative wave
that is reshaping the landscape of academic inquiry across diverse
disciplines (Currie 2023:723). Notwithstanding the negative
consequences of AI authoring tools which are discussed in the
next section, the positive impact of AI on academic integrity
leans towards supporting and enhancing the individual’s learning
experience. The focus of the next two sections is to demonstrate
how AI can be positively used to support learning. This is
followed by a discussion on how AI systems can collaborate with
human beings.

AI Support for Teaching and Learning

Much of AI proliferation and transformation has simplified and

made the job of educators in an efficient and effective way easy
(Pokrivcakova 2019). The application of AI-related systems and

50
 Chapter 2

tools in education through an integration of VR (virtual reality)

in mobile devices has also transformed the way in which these
devices are used for learning. The added benefit of this transition
is personalised and improved learning experiences for students.
Robotic teaching, AWT, APT, reading and pacing tools, as well
as automatic grading are some of the pioneering examples as
to how AI has permeated the education space (Neha 2020:305).
Ordinarily, AI tools and systems, especially AI authoring tools
are imitating human behaviour, in particular human intelligence.
Kaartemo and Helkkula (2018:212) hold a similar view as they
state that AI machines and systems carbon copy humans’
cognitive abilities, and their advantage is that their ‘intelligence’
is programmable to be able to execute quite complex tasks.
For researchers, LLMs offer a variety of potential benefits. For
example, they amass an influential potential to be valuable tools
for organising literature reviews as they can aid finding relevant
sources (e.g., Litmaps, [Link], and Connected Papers).
In addition, these tools also offer the benefit of being able to
understand complex concepts and stimulate the user’s creativity
process through idea-generation.

The launch of ChatGPT has catalysed a rapid rise in open AI

technologies, mainly Gen-AI (Currie 2023:719). These capabilities
have revolutionised and redefined teaching, learning, and
assessment practices in HE space. Yeo (2023) puts it succinctly
that ChatGPT is debatably the most erudite free-to-use AI
authoring tool that affords the benefit of being able to generate
large sums of text or write-up with less effort required of the
author. Hellman (2019) points to augmented writing, denoting
to academic writing tools that allow authors to basically pose a
question or title, and the outcome is generated text or content.
This process of simply posing a question and getting a response
in the form of generated text relates to prompt engineering.
Additionally, there are other AI tools with text completion
features and the capability of writing a whole essay (Yeo 2023).

The sheer capability of Gen-AI tools and chatbots is

founded on GPT 3 (generative pretrained transformer 3) models.
AI writing tools and digital writing assistants like ChatGPT,
Google Bard, and Claude POE have the capability to automate

51
 Artificial Intelligence Transforming Higher Education Vol. 2

or aid with ideas during the write-up process. These tools use
ML algorithms to generate human-like text, responding to the
users’ text-based prompts. In line with the GIGO (garbage in,
garbage out) metaphor, Poola (2023:16) cautions that the quality
of ML algorithm responses is equally dependent on the quality
of the prompts. The same sentiments are shared by Bouchard
(2022) on the efficacy of ChatGPT who argues that its efficiency
relies on the inputted prompt. With advancements in AI and the
introduction of new tools, prompt engineering is regarded as the
most after-sought skill. In support of this claim, Meskó (2023:2
of 6) narrates that one of the emergent skills requisites of medical
professionals is that of prompt engineering. The strength of
effective prompting models lies in DL capabilities, which are built
on ML and NLP capabilities (Fan, Chen, Li, Sun, Feng, Hassanin, &
Sareh 2021:3955).

To protect the academic integrity of assessments,

especially at a postgraduate level, IHEs have turned their focus
to plagiarism and AI-detection mechanisms. By doing this, they
have considered increasing concerns and critics over threats
to creativity and critical thinking, security, and ethical issues,
and most importantly an overreliance on AI, specifically the use
of AI authoring tools. Regardless of these developments, the
effectiveness, ethical implications, and challenges attending to
the use of these AI technologies in safeguarding academic honesty
remain ambiguous. The measures that can be taken to strike a
balance between the usage of AI authoring tools and maintaining
academic integrity will be discussed below. In the next section, the
possibility of human and AI co-creation is explored.

Potential for AI Systems and Machines Facilitating Co-Creation

With Humans

Drawing from the earlier discussion above on the debate between

AI and human intelligence, and the former standing to replace
humans, the question that is explored in this section is whether
co-creation between AI systems and human beings is possible.
AI is known to have revolutionised the field of education, as it is
known to have been applied in disciplines like physics, finance,
mathematics, and English (Sharma, Kawachi, & Bozkurt 2019:1).

52
 Chapter 2

The distinctive key feature of AI lies in its intimate intelligence

(Neha 2020:305-306), which previously has been exclusive to
only humans until the prevalence of AI systems (Chassignol,
Khoroshavin, Klimova, & Bilyatdinova 2018:16-17; Coppin
2004:45; Whitby 2008:28).

AI is considered to be one of the most debated subjects

in the contemporary era (Korteling, Van de Boer-Visschedijk,
Blankendaal, Boonekamp, & Eikelboom 2021) and its capabilities
are undoubtedly beyond belief, thereby intensifying the discourse
on the comparison between human and AI abilities. In relation
to this debate, there have been reports on AI replacing humans
(Neha 2020), thus ultimately/possibly causing human extinction.
Despite these predictions, the literature on AI versus humans
(Dong 2023; Mu 2023; Korteling et al. 2021; Venugopal & Mamatha
2023) suggests that this displacement is not conclusive, however,
terms such as ‘possible,’ ‘potential,’ and ‘might’ are mentioned,
thus signalling the existence of such likelihood of replacement.
Mboti (2023:2) reflects on replacement perceptions by asking
whether this is all in the name of hype. The author concludes that
the sentience is rather mistaken, pointing to the fundamental
misunderstanding of what it means to be human (Mboti 2023:2).
This view corroborates Dong’s point on AI capabilities in
education that as much as it may sound plausible that AI stands to
replace educators (Dong 2023), the AI’s misgivings are that it does
not possess similar emotions to those of human beings. Therefore,
the possibility is co-creation where humans would add these
emotions to enhance the performance of AI systems in the future.

Russell and Norvig (2021:1005) point out that as much as

AI’s superintelligence is potentially on the horizon, advancements
in technology, in particular AI cannot be absolute exponential
growth, thus exhibiting the S-shape. This mere shortcoming
of AI suggests that coexistence with humans is still needed for
it to be more perfected. This era of synchronicity may lead to
transhumanism, a term which was initially predicted by Moravec
in 1988 in his book titled Mind children (Moravec 1988). However,
Julian Huxley, a biologist and philosopher is credited to have first
used it in his 1957 academic work on directed improvements in
human evolution (Huxley 1957:13). The tenets of transhumanism

53
 Artificial Intelligence Transforming Higher Education Vol. 2

can be traced to the work of the English professor, novelist, and

non-fiction writer Robert Ettinger4 and Fereidoun Esfandiary,
who are touted as the ‘early pioneers’ (Kamiya 2023). Moravec
is a renowned specialist for his work on robotics (cf. Moravec
1988). Thomas Fuchs in his transhumanism critique chapter titled
Beyond the human states the following: ‘While biological humanity
is slowly dying out, humans will ensure the continued existence
of their minds through computer simulation’ (Fuchs 2021:49).
Fuchs’ view illustrates the possibility of human and machine
merging and collaboration, which is the essence of co-creation.

With the talks of human extinction possibilities, AI

protagonist leaders in the form of hundreds (more than 350) of AI
experts and professors pledged their signatures on the Statement
on AI Risk (Centre for AI Safety 2023). The statement was preceded
by an open letter cautioning against the risks of AI. Roose (2023)
reports that those who signed varied from top executives to
the key role players of the leading AI corporates which include
the CEOs of OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic. With these high
profile individuals, this indicates the extent to which the AI
threat is creating uncertainty on the future. The signatory pledge
was driven by the Centre for AI Safety, which is a non-profit
establishment (Centre for AI Safety 2023). These concerns delve
into the responsible AI domain whereby ethical use and trust in AI
are of paramount importance.

Wu, Ji, Yu, Zeng, Wu, and Shidujaman (2021), the

proponents of AI co-creation, suggest an AI creativity and
human-AI co-creation model after analysing more than 1,600
application cases of AI across 45 areas. By means of this model,
the authors have coined and introduced the ‘AI creativity’ concept.
The argument for their model is that it expounds the creative
process in the AI era and that there are new opportunities and
possibilities for collaboration with humans, enabled by AI.

4 Ettinger is the well-known father of cryonics, a process of preserving

the dead in a frozen liquid nitrogen, with the goal of revival later.
Amongst his published work, the two notable books related to his work
on cryonics, are The prospect of immortality (Ettinger 1965) and Man in
superman: The startling potential of human evolution – and how to be part
of it (Ettinger 2005).

54
 Chapter 2

Within the IHE space, Robayo-Pinzon, Rojas-Berrio,

Rincon-Novoa, and Ramirez-Barrera (2023:17 of 17) reflect on
the relevance of AI creativity and value the co-creation process
stating that this also garners support from students. They propose
that more conceptual studies are necessary to understand and
leverage the associated benefits. Other parts of AI and human
interaction literature refer to HCI (human-computer interaction)
to denote the merger and collaboration between humankind
and machines. For example, Kurosu (2021:v) in his HCI theory,
methods, and tools book comprised of conference papers reflects
that the HCI field is gaining evolving attention and importance
from both the scientific and industrial communities. Zaphiris
and Ioannou (2021) further elaborate that in the 8th international
conference held in 2021, over 5,000 individuals from various fields
across 81 countries – academic sectors, research institutions,
industry players, and public (government) sectors – submitted
1,276 papers and 241 posters.

Whereas AI is here to stay, it needs the human element to

assist it, especially to develop and demonstrate empathy. This
view resonates well with Dong’s perspective on AI and emotions
as stated earlier (Dong 2023). The other important consideration
on human and AI collaboration is on understanding issues of
explainability and interpretability. These two principles rest
within XAI (explainable artificial intelligence), which is a branch
of AI alongside Gen-AI and responsible AI, all explored further
in this chapter on AI and big data in education. Therefore, as our
everyday lives and activities are influenced by AI and we are slowly
moving away to the digital space, away from the physical world,
collaboration rather contestation between humans and AI is likely
to influence the future, both of AI and humans. It is crucial that
ethical boundaries in this development remain uncompromised
above all.

The negative impacts of AI Authoring Tools

The global transformative power of the AI landscape across the

various sectors of the economy cannot be ignored. The immense
potential and transformative power of AI are shaping the future
of education (Khan & Vivek 2022). The concomitant impact of AI’s

55
 Artificial Intelligence Transforming Higher Education Vol. 2

transformation points to influencing the way we teach, learn,

and do research (Takyar 2022). Gen-AI LLMs such as ChatGPT,
Google Bard, Gemini, DALL, and Claude are arguably pioneers in
this transformation (cf. Figure 2.4), and this is largely attributed
to their text generation capability which is perceived to be better
than that of the humans. These models have gone through various
waves of AI development, of which the first wave was more on
rule-based technologies, followed by the second wave which was
characterised by the start of big data, ML, and Gen-AI. The last
wave is sluggishly transcending from the era of cognitive AI into
AGI (artificial general intelligence).

Figure 2.4: Growing capabilities of Gen-AI LLMs. (Source: Voss

& Jovanovic 2023)

Given the prominence that AI and by extension LLMs, has gained

over the last few years, contract cheating has been one of the
major unethical behaviours that potentially compromise academic
integrity within the HE space. With this form of academic
dishonesty, students engage in transactional relationships in

56
 Chapter 2

return for tailored assignments (Medway, Roper, & Gillooly

2018:413). There is a growing body of academic literature
discussing students’ use of LLMs in their assessments and
academic integrity, for example Eaton et al. (2018), Perkins (2023),
and Stone (2023). The rise in essay mills and the easy access of
online resources present new ethical dilemmas (Medway et al.
2018). This, therefore, calls for a new way of thinking regarding
policy and guidelines, assessment methods and practices, as well
as capacity development. The following two sections explore the
concerns raised against the impact of AI authoring tools.

Students’ AI Dependency and Plagiarism

The Covid-19 era (and afterwards) has evoked a massive and

rapid transition to online learning by IHEs across the world.
This inspired more and more use of digital technology tools to
enhance teaching and learning as well as research activities.
Just as educators are thought to be playing a crucial role in how
educational technology tools are adopted and adapted to enhance
quality in learning experiences and assessment practices (Fajet,
Bello, Leftwich, Mesler, & Shaver 2005:717), more and more
students are easily accessing these tools, whether in free-to-use
or paid form. The cause for concern is that these students are
increasingly becoming too dependent on AI, thus transferring the
burden of responsibility to perform one’s work to technology (AI).
The concomitant alarms to this dependency among others are
increasing incidents of plagiarism and other forms of academic
dishonesty as described by Medway et al. (2018:393).

The blurred lines between collaboration and plagiarism in

digital environments add layers of complexity to the landscape. As
education increasingly embraces online platforms, IHEs ought to
grapple with how to adapt their policies to address these emerging
challenges effectively. Yeo (2023:2 of 18) points to the issues of
equity and access which are being associated with the AI authoring
tools proliferation. The paradox in these costs is that the outcome
– intended or unintended (Motala 2018:15) – may be costly.

With electronic journals available in their plenitude,

enhanced by the rise in AI tools, plagiarism can be supported

57
 Artificial Intelligence Transforming Higher Education Vol. 2

inadvertently as students can easily access papers online, use

services of writing companies, thus enabling ghost-writing to
thrive (Walker 2010:43). Signifying the students’ dependency
on AI, Perkins (2023:5 of 24) warns of inaccurate and falsified
reference lists and citations, thus recommending the need to
doublecheck and verify their veracity. According to Zhang (2020),
most of AI AWE (automated writing evaluation) systems for
providing students’ feedback are equally gaining prominence
in research writing space and are amassing clear benefits over
human-geared reviews and assessments. AWEs like other AI
authoring tools and systems such as DWAs (digital writing
assistants), AAGs (automated article generators), and APTs (Roe &
Perkins 2022) were initially geared for commercial enterprises for
SEO (search engine optimisation) but were consequently adapted
to support student learning (Perkins 2023:3 of 24).

While transition to online learning has brought some

benefits, undue consequences, whether intended or otherwise
have surfaced. On the downside, Stone (2023:358) underscores
this point by stating that this transition has opened doors for more
breaches and compromising of academic integrity, evidenced by
an increasing reporting of acts of academic dishonesty. With LLMs
within reach, students can easily put their reliance on AI for their
thinking – argumentative and critical thinking. The usage of the
AI authoring and LLM tools if not properly managed and regulated
may increase chances of academic dishonesty, like plagiarism.

Plagiarism is a longstanding global ethical challenge

troubling IHEs, given the disruptive behaviour it possesses
on teaching and learning and knowledge transmission (Eaton
2017:271; 2023:2 of 10; Jones & Sheridan 2015:712; Thomas &
De Bruin 2015:1-2 of 3; Walker 2010:42). Perkins, Gezgin, and
Gordon (2019:5) define plagiarism as an act of misrepresentation
of efforts carried out by the original authors. Another interesting
definition of plagiarism is that of Sutherland (2008:11) who
regards plagiarism as an act of using one’s intellectual work by
kidnapping their ideas without relevant sources of reference.
Although some students plead ignorance or that they were
unintentional in committing it (Stone 2023:258), academic
integrity is threatened, and by extension IHEs, academic staff,

58
 Chapter 2

and students themselves suffer reputational damage (Currie

2023:720), with IHEs’ programmes and qualifications under
scrutiny (Perkins 2023:1 of 24; Stone 2023:358-359). This,
according to Pecorari (2008:44; cf. Mahabeer & Pirtheepal 2019:2)
may potentially lead to students’ work and intelligibility being
questioned and rejected. Plagiarism is assumed to be taking the
edge off one’s thinking, creative abilities, and originality (Jones &
Sheridan 2015:715).

Reduced Human Interaction and Communication Threat

The non-debatable capacity of AI systems leans towards the

ability of these systems to enhance individual experiences and
to personalise digital services (Leslie 2019:6). Although these
capabilities hold the potential, risks are potentially inherent.
With more and more excessive automation, the dependency on
AI systems and tools increases, thus threatening the need for
human-to-human interaction. From a research perspective, a
communication gap between educators and students is also a
possibility, and this may well polarise social relationships. Leslie
(2019:6) argues that ‘well-ordered and cohesive societies are
built on relations of trust, empathy, and mutual understanding.’
Therefore, as AI systems become more and more available, it
is vital for human beings to preserve these relations. Trilling
and Fadel (2009:44-45) identify the following skills as key
learning and innovation as well as life and career skills needed for
the future:

• Critical thinking and problem solving;

• creativity and innovation;
• collaboration and communication;
• flexibility and adaptability;
• initiative and self-direction;
• social and cross-cultural; and
• leadership and responsibility.

These skills remain highly relevant in a contemporary and

dynamic job market and education characterised by AI revolution
(Almazroa & Alotaibi 2023; Timenko 2021). Furthermore, these
skills are considered requisite competencies in a publication by

59
 Artificial Intelligence Transforming Higher Education Vol. 2

the WEF (World Economic Forum) reflecting 21st-century skills

that every student needs (WEF 2016). The report goes further to
state that SEL (social and emotional learning) is a crucial driver to
the development of these skills and possessing them will enable
students to be successful in an ever-evolving digital economy
(WEF 2016). Therefore, with an over-reliance on technology and
by extension, AI systems and tools, the development of these
important skills is at stake, just like the economic inclusion and
participation of students of the future.

Striking a Balance Between AI Usage and Maintaining Academic

Integrity

Notwithstanding these revolutionary benefits amid the IHEs’

endeavour to embrace and manage the abundance of AI
technologies and related tools, preserving academic integrity
remains a paramount ethical issue. Despite the potential
prospects, this proliferation comes with associated risks and
challenges. One of the challenges relates to the balance between
creativity (ML/automation) and integrity (human interaction)
in education. This is where ethics intersects creativity and
advancements in technology.

This implies that AI advancement has concomitant

significant ethical concerns, which if not well-managed or taken
care of, will erode, if it does not compromise the integrity of
the field – from assessments, teaching and learning methods,
a governance process and policies, and most importantly the
knowledge creation process. With this context in mind, the
nuanced AI-driven ethical challenges on academic integrity
are explored here, emphasising the need for a thoughtful and
principled approach.

While there is a need to embrace AI given its benefits and

the paradigm shift it has caused, there is a need to also strike a
balance in an endeavour to maintain academic integrity. This
should be done without suffocating the technology. Stone
(2023:357), in her paper on student perceptions on academic
integrity cites that academic integrity is increasingly becoming an
important aspect for IHEs, however maintaining it, it has equally

60
 Chapter 2

become a serious issue. Without a doubt, advancements in AI have

contributed to this struggle. The bottom line is that there should
be a balance for safe usage. The AI governance, transparency and
accountability, content ownership, fact-checking, and AI ethical
usage as some of the principles that form the cornerstone of this
balance are discussed below.

Future Trends: Evolution of AI and Related

Challenges
The future of AI and its continuous advancements remain
uncertain. This evolution is dynamic in nature and will
undoubtedly continue to bring many surprises. In turn, the future
of academic integrity stands at a crossroads, marked by the
transformative influence of AI and the challenges it introduces. As
we propel into an era characterised by reduced human interaction,
communication threats, students’ increasing dependency on
AI, and ethical concerns stemming from heightened academic
dishonesty, it becomes imperative to recalibrate our strategies
and fortify the foundations of academic integrity.

The reduction in human interaction, exacerbated by

the widespread adoption of digital platforms and automated
assessment tools, poses a communication threat that widens the
gap between educators and students. The traditional channels for
guidance and mentorship may dwindle, necessitating innovative
approaches to foster meaningful connections. Educators and
institutions must proactively leverage technology to bridge this
gap, establishing clear lines of communication, virtual support
systems, and avenues for students to seek guidance and feedback,
especially on clarifying the difference between plagiarism and
poor referencing techniques (Stone 2023:372).

The growing dependency on AI among students raises

concerns about diminishing capacities for critical thinking. As
AI tools streamline processes and offer ready-made solutions,
there is a risk of stifling the development of essential analytical
and problem-solving skills. The future demands a recalibration
of educational approaches to strike a balance between leveraging
AI for efficiency and preserving the space for students to cultivate

61
 Artificial Intelligence Transforming Higher Education Vol. 2

critical thinking. Encouraging inquiry-based learning, complex

problem-solving, and projects that require creative thought
will be crucial in nurturing students’ intellectual independence
in attempting to overcome transparency issues in the current
available LLMs, alternative open source LLMs known as OPTs
(open pre-trained transformers) are being developed as they
boost the advantage of a text generation ability and are more open
to scrutiny (Perkins 2023:7 of 24).

Conclusion
In the face of changing educational environments and
advancements in AI, the survival of academic integrity depends on
the current and future generation’s capacity to adjust, create, and
preserve instead of subverting moral principles. To fully utilise
AI’s benefits while preserving the values that guide academic
success, a deliberate effort is needed. There is a need to create
an educational future that is both technologically advanced
and morally sound. This involves tackling issues presented by a
worryingly mounting students’ dependency on AI, less human
interaction, communication, and ethical gaps. The journey to
maintaining academic integrity in the AI age remains a dynamic
call that requires ongoing self-examination, adjustment, and
a resolute dedication to the values that constitute the core of
intellectual endeavours. Eaton (2023) thus argues that we need
to be talking about post-plagiarism and reflects on ethics and
integrity in the era of AI.

Equally so, the ethical threat posed by increased academic

dishonesty in the digital age demands a proactive and multi-
faceted response. IHEs must not only employ advanced
technological tools for plagiarism detection, as they need to
up their investment game as far as comprehensive educational
programmes that instil a strong sense of academic ethical culture
are concerned. Fostering a culture of integrity, emphasising
the value of original thought, and equipping staff – students,
educators, and management – with the skills to navigate the
ethical challenges posed by AI are essential steps for mitigating
the possible threat against academic integrity.

62
 Chapter 2

References
Almazroa, H. & Alotaibi, W. 2023. Teaching 21st century skills:
Understanding the depth and width of the challenges to shape
proactive teacher education programmes. Sustainability 15(9).
7365. 25 pages. [Link]
Apperly, IA. & Butterfill, SA. 2009. Do humans have two systems to track
beliefs and belief-like states? Psychological Review 116(4):953-
970. [Link]
Armstead, PK. 2001. What factors affect cheating in secondary school
and why? PhD thesis, Department of Psychology, University of
Plymouth, England.
Arrieta, AB., Díaz-Rodríguez, N., Del Ser, J., Bennetot, A., Tabik, S.,
Barbado, A., García, S., Gil-López, S., Molina, D., Benjamins,
R., & Chatila, R. 2020. Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI):
Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward
responsible AI. Information fusion 58:82-115. [Link]
org/10.1016/[Link].2019.12.012
AWG (Australian Writers’ Guild). 2023. Australian Writers’ Guild rejects
unregulated AI in the creative sector. 28 September 2023.
Available at: [Link]
93&title=Australian-Writers-Guild-rejects-unregulated-AI-in-
the-creative-sector. (Accessed on 25 December 2023).
Beduschi, A. 2024. Synthetic data protection: Towards a paradigm change
in data regulation? Big Data & Society 11(1):20-53. [Link]
org/10.1177/20539517241231277
Bouchard, L. 2022. Prompting explained: How to talk to ChatGPT. 12
December 2022. Available at: [Link]
prompting-explained/. (Accessed on 2 January 2024).
Bretag, T. 2016. Handbook of academic integrity. Singapore: Springer.
[Link]
Brue, S. & McConnell, C. 2014. Essentials of economics. New York: McGraw
Hill.
Bushway, A. & Nash, WR. 1977. School cheating behaviour. Review
of Educational Research 47(4):623-632. [Link]
org/10.3102/00346543047004623

63
 Artificial Intelligence Transforming Higher Education Vol. 2

Carter, J., Sandall, J., Shennan, AH., & Tribe, RM. 2019. Mobile phone apps
for clinical decision support in pregnancy: A scoping review. BMC
Medical Informatics and Decision Making 19(1):1-13. [Link]
org/10.1186/s12911-019-0954-1
Carvalho, L. & Yeoman, P. 2021. Performativity of materials in learning:
The learning-whole in action. Journal of New Approaches in
Educational Research 10(1):28-42. [Link]
naer.2021.1.627
Centre for AI Safety. 2023. Statement on AI risk: AI experts and public
figures express their concern about AI risk. Centre for AI Safety.
Available at: [Link]
(Accessed on 7 January 2024).
Chaffey, D. & Ellis-Chadwick, F. 2019. Digital marketing. Harlow: Pearson.
Chassignol, M., Khoroshavin, A., Klimova, A., & Bilyatdinova, A. 2018.
Artificial intelligence trends in education: A narrative overview.
Procedia Computing Science 136:16-24. [Link]
procs.2018.08.233
Clarke, R. & Lancaster, T. 2006. Eliminating the successor to plagiarism?
Identifying the usage of contract cheating sites. Proceedings of 2nd
international plagiarism conference, June 2006, 19-21.
CNBC. 2023. Tesla CEO Elon Musk discusses the implications of A.I. on his
children’s future in the workforce. 16 May 2023. Video. Available
at: [Link]
musk-discusses-the-implications-of-a-i-on-the-future-of-
[Link]. (Accessed on 3 January 2024).
Coppin, B. 2004. Artificial intelligence illuminated. Boston: Jones & Bartlett.
Coutinho, L. 2022. The power of the universe: How to make it work for
you. The Free Press Journal. 9 April 2022. Available at: https://
[Link]/weekend/the-power-of-the-universe-
how-to-make-it-work-for-you. (Accessed on 9 December
2023).
Currie, GM. 2023. Academic integrity and artificial intelligence: Is ChatGPT
hype, hero or heresy? Seminars in Nuclear Medicine 53(5):719-730.
[Link]

64
 Chapter 2

De Bruin, JS., Schuh, C., Seeling, W., Luger, E., Gall, M., Hütterer, E.,
Kornek, G., Ludvik, B., Hoppichler, F., & Schindler, K. 2018.
Assessing the feasibility of a mobile health-supported clinical
decision support system for nutritional triage in oncology
outpatients using Arden Syntax. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine
92:34-42. [Link]
Delipetrev, B., Tsinaraki, C., & Kostic, U. 2020. Historical evolution of
artificial intelligence. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the
European Union.
Dong, Z. 2023. Research on the impact of artificial intelligence on the
development of education. Proceedings of the 2nd International
Conference on Interdisciplinary Humanities and Communication
Studies.
Eaton, SE. 2017. Comparative analysis of institutional policy definitions
of plagiarism: A Pan-Canadian university study. Interchange
48:271-281. [Link]
Eaton, SE. 2018. Contract cheating: A Canadian perspective. BMC. 24
July 2018. Available at: [Link]
bmcblog/2018/07/24/contract-cheating-a-canadian-
perspective/. (Accessed on 29 November 2023).
Eaton, SE. 2023. Postplagiarism: Transdisciplinary ethics and integrity
in the age of artificial intelligence and neurotechnology.
International Journal for Educational Integrity 19(1). 23. 10 pages.
[Link]
Eaton, SE., Rothschuh, S., Fernández Conde, C., Guglielmin, M., Otoo, BK.,
Wilson, J., & Burns, I. 2018. Understanding faculty perceptions
and approaches to academic integrity in a Canadian school
of education. Available at: [Link]
[Link]. (Accessed on 4 January 2024).
Ellis, C., Van Haeringen, K., Harper, R., Bretag, T., Zucker, I., McBride, S.,
Rozenberg, P., Newton, P., & Saddiqui, S. 2020. Does authentic
assessment assure academic integrity? Evidence from contract
cheating data. Higher Education Research & Development
39(3):454-469. [Link]

65
 Artificial Intelligence Transforming Higher Education Vol. 2

Epstein, Z. & Hertzmann, A. 2023. Investigators of human creativity. In

Akten, M., Farid, H., Fjeld, J., Frank, MR., Groh, M., Herman, L.,
Leach, N., & Mahari, R. (Eds.): Art and the science of generative
AI. Science 380(6650):1110-1111. [Link]
adh4451
Eren, A., Subasi, A., & Coskun, O. 2008. A decision support system for
telemedicine through the mobile telecommunications platform.
Journal of Medical Systems 32(1):31-35. [Link]
s10916-007-9104-x
Erguzel, TT. & Ozekes, S. 2014. Artificial intelligence approaches in
psychiatric disorders. The Journal of Neurobehavioral Studies 1:52-
53. [Link]
Ettinger, RCW. 1965. The prospect of immortality. London: Sidgwick and
Jackson.
Ettinger, RCW. 2005. Man in superman: The startling potential of human
evolution – and how to be part of it. New York: Routledge.
Fajet, W., Bello, M., Leftwich, SA., Mesler, JL., & Shaver, AN. 2005.
Pre-service teachers’ perceptions in beginning education
classes. Journal of Teaching Education 21(6):717-727. [Link]
org/10.1016/[Link].2005.05.002
Fan, W., Chen, Y., Li, J., Sun, Y., Feng, J., Hassanin, H., & Sareh, P. 2021.
Machine learning applied to the design and inspection of
reinforced concrete bridges: Resilient methods and emerging
applications. Structures 33:3954-3963. [Link]
istruc.2021.06.110
Fishman, T. 2015. Academic integrity as an educational concept, concern
and movement in US institutions of higher learning. In Bretag, T.
(Ed.): Handbook of academic integrity, 7-22. Singapore: Springer.
[Link]
Friedman, M. 1975. There’s no such thing as a free lunch. Chicago: Open
Court Publishing Company.
Frost, K. & Sullivan, B. 2016. Transforming healthcare through artificial
intelligence systems. Artificial Intelligence in Health and Life
Sciences. DocPlayer. 19 slides. Available at: [Link]
net/36848717-Transforming-healthcare-through-artificial-
[Link]. (Accessed on 30 December 2023).

66
 Chapter 2

Fuchs, T. 2021. Beyond the human? A critique of transhumanism. In Fuchs,

T. (Ed.): In defence of the human being: Foundational questions of an
embodied anthropology, 49-82. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[Link]
Ganiev, AG. & Tashev, SN. 2021. The role of ‘imagination’ in the process
of ‘creative thinking’ developing students’ ‘imagination’
and ‘creative thinking’ skills in teaching physics. Psychology
and Education 58(1):3569-3575. [Link]
v58i1.1309
Gartner, 2023. What’s new in artificial intelligence from the 2023 Gartner
hype cycle. 17 August 2023. Available at: [Link]
com/en/articles/what-s-new-in-artificial-intelligence-from-
the-2023-gartner-hype-cycle. (Accessed on 5 December 2023).
Gmyrek, P., Berg, J., & Bescond, D. 2023. Generative AI and jobs: A global
analysis of potential effects on job quantity and quality. ILO Working
Paper 96. Geneva: ILO. [Link]
Grand View Research. 2023. Digital transformation market to reach
$4,617.78 billion by 2030. 8 August 2023. Available at: https://
[Link]/press-release/global-digital-
transformation-market#. (Accessed on 7 December 2023).
Gregory, RJ. 2004. Psychological testing: History, principles, and applications.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Hellman, M. 2019. Augmented writing technology: A writer’s friend
or foe? The Seattle Times. 30 April 2019. Available at: https://
[Link]/business/technology/augmented-
writing-technology-a-writers-friend-or-foe/. (Accessed on 30
December 2023).
Hua, JH. 2023. Beyond exams: Investigating AI tool impact on student
attitudes, ethical awareness, and academic dishonesty in
online college assessments. International Journal of Educational
Management and Development Studies 4(4):160-185. [Link]
org/10.53378/353030
Huxley, J. 1957. Transhumanism. London: Chatto & Windus.
ICAI (International Centre for Academic Integrity). 2021. The fundamental
values of academic integrity. 3rd ed. Albany: ICAI.

67
 Artificial Intelligence Transforming Higher Education Vol. 2

Jergus, K. 2018. Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778). In Smeyers, P (Ed.):

International handbook of philosophy of education, 395-406. Part 1.
Cham: Springer. [Link]
Jones, M. & Sheridan, L. 2015. Back translation: An emerging sophisticated
cyber strategy to subvert advances in ‘digital age’ plagiarism
detection and prevention. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education 40(5):712-724. [Link]
4.950553
Kaartemo, V. & Helkkula, A. 2018. A systematic review of artificial
intelligence and robots in value co-creation: Current status and
future research avenues. Journal of Creating Value 4(2):211-228.
[Link]
Kamiya, A. 2023. Transhumanism: History, criticisms & future of
humanity. [Link]. 8 March 2023. Available at: [Link]
com/academy/lesson/transhumanism-overview-history-
[Link]. (Accessed on 2 January 2024).
Kelly, K. 2016. The inevitable: Understanding the 12 technological forces that
will shape our future. New York: Penguin.
Khan, MA. & Vivek, MA. 2022. Artificial intelligence and big data:
The advent of new pedagogy in the adaptive e-learning
system in the higher educational institutions of Saudi Arabia.
Education Research International 2022. 10 pages. [Link]
org/10.1155/2022/1263555
Kirk, A. 1996. Learning and the marketplace: A philosophical, cross-cultural
(and occasionally irreverent) guide for business and academe.
Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Korteling, JH., Van de Boer-Visschedijk, GC., Blankendaal, RA.,
Boonekamp, RC., & Eikelboom, AR. 2021. Human- versus
artificial intelligence. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 4. 622364.
13 pages. [Link]
Kurosu, M. (Ed.): Human-computer interaction: Theory, methods and tools.
HCII 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 12762. Cham:
Springer. [Link]
Lamchek, JS. 2023. Ensuring data science and its applications benefit
humanity: Data monetization and the right to science. Human
Rights Law Review 23(3):1-23. [Link]
ngad018

68
 Chapter 2

Lancaster, T. 2020. Commercial contract cheating provision through

micro-outsourcing web sites. International Journal for Educational
Integrity 16(4). 14 pages. [Link]
00053-7
Lang, JM. 2013. Cheating lessons: Learning from academic dishonesty.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
LeCun, Y., Boser, B., Denker, JS., Henderson, D., Howard, RE., Hubbard,
W., & Jackel, LD. 1989. Handwritten digit recognition with a
back-propagation network. In Touretzky, D. (Ed.): Advances
in neural information processing systems, 396-404. Part 5. NIPS
Conference. Denver: Morgan Kaufmann.
Leslie, D. 2019. Understanding artificial intelligence ethics and safety: A guide
for the responsible design and implementation of AI systems in the
public sector. London: The Alan Turing Institute. [Link]
org/10.2139/ssrn.3403301
Lu, M. 2023. How smart is ChatGPT? Visual Capitalism. 26 April 2023.
Available at : [Link]
is-chatgpt/#:~:text=ChatGPT%2C%20a%20language%20
model%20developed,help%20them%20with%20their%20
homework. (Accessed on 12 December 2023).
Lundgren, M. 2024. Large language models in student assessment:
Comparing ChatGPT and human graders. arXiv preprint. https://
[Link]/10.2139/ssrn.4874359
Mahabeer, P. & Pirtheepal, T. 2019. Assessment, plagiarism and its effect
on academic integrity: Experiences of academics at a university
in South Africa. South African Journal of Science 115(11-12):1-8.
[Link]
Manne, R. & Kantheti, SC. 2021. Application of artificial intelligence in
healthcare: Chances and challenges. Current Journal of Applied
Science and Technology 40(6):78-89. [Link]
cjast/2021/v40i631320
Marais, IE. 2022. Institutionalisation of academic integrity: Experiences at
a distance education university in South Africa during COVID-19.
Critical Studies in Teaching and Learning 10(2):57-79. [Link]
org/10.14426/cristal.v10i2.585

69
 Artificial Intelligence Transforming Higher Education Vol. 2

Mboti, N. 2023. Artificial general intelligence, sentience, and

replaceability of humans: Hype or not? A heated theoretical
exchange between two University of the Free State professors. 1st
Foundational Digital Capabilities Research Seminar, Tshwane,
South Africa. Available at: [Link]
publication/271390398_Artificial_General_Intelligence_
Concept_State_of_the_Art_and_Future_Prospects. (Accessed
on 31 December 2023).
McCabe, DL. 2005. It takes a village: Academic dishonesty and educational
opportunity. Liberal Education 91(3):26-31.
McCallum, S. 2023. ChatGPT banned in Italy over privacy concerns. BBC
News. 1 April 2023. Available at: [Link]
technology-65139406. (Accessed on 26 December 2023).
Medway, D., Roper, S., & Gillooly, L. 2018. Contract cheating in UK
higher education: A covert investigation of essay mills. British
Educational Research Journal 44:393-418. [Link]
berj.3335
Meskó, B. 2023. Prompt engineering as an important emerging skill
for medical professionals: Tutorial. Journal of Medical Internet
Research 25. p.e50638. 6 pages. [Link]
Motala, S. 2018. Achieving ‘free education’ for the poor: A realisable goal
in 2018? Introduction Part III. Journal of Education 68:15-29.
Moravec, H. 1988. Mind children: The future of robot and human intelligence.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Mu, C. 2023. Based on natural language processing, human-computer
dialogue, image recognition, and machine learning analysis
whether artificial intelligence will surpass the human brain.
Applied and Computational Engineering 5(1):40-47. [Link]
org/10.54254/2755-2721/5/20230526
Mwamwenda, TS. 2006. Academic integrity: South African and American
university students. The Journal of Independent Teaching and
Learning 1(1):34-44.
Nasrullah, N. & Al Wahyu, T. 2024. The application of Chat GPT in
English Language evaluation: A systematic literature review.
Futurity Education 4(3):217-235. [Link]
FED.2024.09.25.13

70
 Chapter 2

Neha, K. 2020. Role of artificial intelligence in education. Alochana Chakra

Journal 9:305-309.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2023.
The impact of AI on the workplace: Main findings from the OECD
AI surveys of employers and workers. Available at: [Link]
[Link]/employment-outlook/2023/#ai-jobs. (Accessed on 12
December 2023).
Oliver, E. 2022a. Society 5.0 and Education 5.0 with reference to higher
education. In Oliver, E. (Ed.): Global initiatives and higher
education in the fourth industrial revolution, 53-68. Auckland Park:
UJ Press. [Link]
Oliver, WH. 2022b. Global initiatives within the 4IR and the role of
higher education. In Oliver, E. (Ed.): Global initiatives and higher
education in the fourth industrial revolution, 27-52. Auckland Park:
UJ Press. [Link]
Pecorari, D. 2008. Academic writing and plagiarism: A linguistic analysis.
London: Bloomsbury.
Perkins, M. 2023. Academic integrity considerations of AI large language
models in the post-pandemic era: ChatGPT and beyond. Journal
of University Teaching & Learning Practice 20(2). 24 pages. https://
[Link]/10.53761/[Link]
Perkins, M., Gezgin, UB., & Gordon, RD. 2019. Plagiarism in higher
education: Classification, causes and controls. Pan-Pacific
Management Science 2:1-12.
Planck. 2018. From an almost perfect universe to the best of both worlds.
17 July 2018. Available at: [Link]
/60499-from-an-almost-perfect-universe-to-the-best-of-
both-worlds. (Accessed on 2 January 2024).
Pokrivcakova, S. 2019. Preparing teachers for the application of AI-
powered technologies in foreign language education. Journal
of Language and Cultural Education 7(3):135-153. [Link]
org/10.2478/jolace-2019-0025
Poola, I. 2023. Overcoming ChatGPT’s inaccuracies with pre-trained AI
prompt engineering sequencing process. International Journal of
Technology and Emerging Sciences 3(3):16-19.

71
 Artificial Intelligence Transforming Higher Education Vol. 2

Popenici, SAD. & Kerr, S. 2017. Exploring the impact of artificial

intelligence on teaching and learning in higher education.
Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning 12. 22. 13
pages. [Link]
PWC (Price Waterhouse Coopers). 2017. No longer science fiction, AI and
robotics are transforming healthcare. Available at: [Link]
to/2weGo5v. (Accessed on 12 December 2023).
Quinlan, JR. 1986. Induction of decision trees. Machine Learning 1:81-106.
[Link]
Ragolane, M., Patel, S., & Salikram, P. 2024. AI versus human graders:
Assessing the role of large language models in higher education.
Asian Journal of Education and Social Studies 50(10):244-263.
[Link]
Robayo-Pinzon, O., Rojas-Berrio, S., Rincon-Novoa, J., & Ramirez-
Barrera, A. 2023. Artificial intelligence and the value co-creation
process in higher education institutions. International Journal of
Human-Computer Interaction. 17 pages. [Link]
447318.2023.2259722
Roberts, J. 2016. Thinking machines: The search for artificial intelligence.
Distillations Magazine 2(2):14-23.
Roe, J. & Perkins, M. 2022. What are automated paraphrasing tools
and how do we address them? A review of a growing threat to
academic integrity. International Journal for Educational Integrity
18. 15. 10 pages. [Link]
Roose, K. 2023. A.I. poses ‘risk of extinction,’ industry leaders warn. The
New York Times. 30 May 2023. Available at: [Link]
com/2023/05/30/technology/[Link]. (Accessed
on 7 January 2024).
Rothman, J. 2023. Why the godfather of A.I. fears what he’s built. The New
Yorker. 13 November 2023. Available at: [Link]
com/magazine/2023/11/20/geoffrey-hinton-profile-ai.
(Accessed on 5 December 2023).
Russ, H., Soffel, MH., Kasai, MA., & Börner, G. 1997. Age of the universe:
Influence of the inhomogeneities on the global expansion factor.
Physical Review D56(4):2044-2050. [Link]
PhysRevD.56.2044

72
 Chapter 2

Russell, SJ. & Norvig, P. 2021. Artificial intelligence a modern approach. 4th
ed. London: Pearson.
Rutgers Business School. 2014. New academic integrity award will honor
research of retiring Professor Donald L. McCabe. Rutgers Newark.
20 April 2014. Available at: [Link]
news/new-academic-integrity-award-will-honor-research-
retiring-professor-donald-l-mccabe. (Accessed on 7 January
2024).
Sadler, DR. 1989. Formative assessment and the design of instructional
systems. Instructional Science 18:119-144. [Link]
BF00117714
Samoili, S., Cobo, ML., Gómez, E., De Prato, G., Martínez-Plumed, F.,
& Delipetrev, B., 2020. AI watch. Defining artificial intelligence:
Towards an operational definition and taxonomy of artificial
intelligence. JRC Technical Report. Luxembourg: Publications
Office of the European Union.
Sharma, RC., Kawachi, P., & Bozkurt, A. 2019. The landscape of artificial
intelligence in open, online and distance education: Promises
and concerns. Asian Journal of Distance Education 14(20):1-2.
Shortliffe, T. & Davis, R. 1975. Some considerations for the implementation
of knowledge-based expert systems. ACM SIGART Bulletin (55):9-
12. [Link]
Stevens, TN. 2013. Promoting a culture of integrity: A study of faculty and
student perceptions of academic dishonesty at a large public
Midwestern university. PhD thesis. University of Missouri-St.
Louis. Available at: [Link]
pdf. (Accessed on 5 January 2024).
Stone, A. 2023. Student perceptions of academic integrity: A qualitative
study of understanding, consequences, and impact. Journal of
Academic Ethics 21:357-375. [Link]
09461-5
Sutherland, SW. 2008. Plagiarism, the internet, and student learning:
Improving academic integrity. New York: Routledge.
Takyar, A. 2022. AI use cases & applications across major industries.
LeewayHertz-Software Development Company Publications.
Available at: [Link]
applications/. (Accessed on 12 December 2023).

73
 Artificial Intelligence Transforming Higher Education Vol. 2

Thiebes, S., Lins, S., & Sunyaev, A. 2021. Trustworthy artificial intelligence.
Electronic Markets 31:447-464. [Link]
020-00441-4
Thomas, A. & De Bruin, GP. 2015. Plagiarism in South African management
journals. South African Journal of Science 111(1/2). 3 pages. https://
[Link]/10.17159/sajs.2015/20140017
Timenko, M. 2021. 21st century skills in school education in the United
Kingdom. Тhe Sources of Pedagogical Skills 26:202-206. https://
[Link]/10.33989/2075-146x.2020.26.227654
Trilling, B. & Fadel, C. 2009. 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Trott, S., Jones, C., Chang, T., Michaelov, J., & Bergen, B. 2023. Do large
language models know what humans know? Cognitive Science
47(7). p.e13309. 21 pages. [Link]
Turing, AM. 1950. Computing machinery and intelligence. Journal of Mind
59(236):433-460. [Link]
Vandana, KL. & Nagaveni, NB. 2019. University grants commission
(promotion of academic integrity and prevention of plagiarism in
higher educational institutions) regulations, 2018. CODS-Journal
of Dentistry 9(2):iv-vi.
Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez,
AN., Kaiser, Ł., & Polosukhin, I. 2017. Attention is all you need.
In Guyon, I., Von Luxburg, U., Bengio, S., Wallach, H., Fergus,
R., Vishwanathan, S., & Garnett, R. (Eds.): Advances in neural
information processing systems 30. NeurIPS Proceedings. Available
at: [Link]
(Accessed on 11 January 2024).
Venugopal, R. & Mamatha, V. 2023. Impact of artificial intelligence (AI)
on teaching and learning in India’s higher education sector. IOSR
Journal of Research & Method in Education 13(5). 6 pages.
Wahle, JP., Ruas, T., Kirstein, F., & Gipp, B. 2022. How large language
models are transforming machine-paraphrased plagiarism.
In Goldberg, Y., Kozareva, Z., & Zhang, Y. (Eds.): Proceedings of
the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language
Processing (EMNLP) in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 952-963. Available at:
[Link] (Accessed on 25
January 2024). [Link]

74
 Chapter 2

Walker J. 2010. Measuring plagiarism: Researching what students do, not

what they say they do. Studies of Higher Education 35(1):41-59.
[Link]
WEF (World Economic Forum). 2016. Future of work: Ten 21st-century
skills every student needs. 10 May 2016. Available at: https://
[Link]/agenda/2016/03/21st-century-skills-future-
jobs-students/. (Accessed on 9 January 2024).
Whitby, B. 2008. Artificial intelligence: A beginner’s guide. Oxford: One
World.
William, S. 1993. On language: Words left out in the cold.
The New York Times. 14 February 1993. Available
at: [Link]
html?res=9F0CE7DF1138F937A25751C0A965958260. (Accessed
on 25 January 2024).
Winograd, T. 1971. Procedures as a representation for data in a computer
program for understanding natural language. PhD thesis,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge. Available at:
[Link] (Accessed on 6
January 2024).
Winter, A. 2023. The Hollywood writers AI deal sure puts a lot of trust in
studios to do the right thing. Wired. 28 September 2023. Available
at: [Link]
protections/. (Accessed on 25 December 2023).
Wu, Z., Ji, D., Yu, K., Zeng, X., Wu, D., & Shidujaman, M. 2021. AI creativity
and the human-AI co-creation model. In Kurosu, M. (Ed.):
Human-computer interaction: Theory, methods and tools, 171-190.
HCII 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 12762. Cham:
Springer. [Link]
Yadav, P., Tudela, LAM., & Marco-Lajara, B. 2024. The role of AI in
assessing and achieving the sustainable development goals
(SDGs). In Irfan, M., Hussainey, K., Bukhari, SAC., & Nam, Y.
(Eds.): Issues of sustainability in AI and new-age thematic investing,
1-17. Hershey: IGI Global. [Link]
3282-5.ch001
Yeo, MA. 2023. Academic integrity in the age of artificial intelligence (AI)
authoring apps. TESOL Journal 14(3). e716. 18 pages. [Link]
org/10.1002/tesj.716

75
 Artificial Intelligence Transforming Higher Education Vol. 2

Zaphiris, P. & Ioannou, A. (Eds.). 2021. Learning and collaboration

technologies: New challenges and learning experiences. 8th
International Conference, LCT 2021, held as part of the 23rd HCI
International Conference, HCII 2021, Virtual Event, 24-29 July 2021.
Proceedings Part I (Vol. 12784). Cham: Springer Nature.
Zhang, Y. 2017. ‘Type 20: Corruption in education.’ The book of swindles:
Selections from a late Ming collection. New York: Columbia
University Press. [Link]
Zhang, ZV. 2020. Engaging with automated writing evaluation (AWE)
feedback on L2 writing: Student perceptions and revisions.
Assessing Writing 43. 100439. [Link]
asw.2019.100439

76