Artificial versus natural intelligence: Overcoming students' cheating likelihood with artificial intelligence tools during virtual assessment

Olalekan J. Akintande
{"title":"Artificial versus natural intelligence: Overcoming students' cheating likelihood with artificial intelligence tools during virtual assessment","authors":"Olalekan J. Akintande","doi":"10.1002/fer3.33","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Assessment techniques need to evolve beyond traditional methods in light of the rapidly developing artificial intelligence (AI) tool technologies, such as Copilot, Bard, and ChatGPT. These AI-powered Chatbot is designed to appear similar to human speech or text and present information conversationally, making them tenable options for student assessment support worldwide. Consequently, to take advantage of the weaknesses in the AI system and foster a creative attitude in their pupils, educators must reconsider their approach to evaluation. The study conducts a comparative experiment on two different assessment methods—the traditional questioning strategy (Experiment I) versus the alternative or modified strategy (Experiment II), to assess how well the AI tools perform in the assessment and how the new technique can deter students from engaging in academic dishonesty. According to the study in Experiment I, the AI-Chatbot had a 100% positive response correlation, but in Experiment II, it had a shockingly low positive response correlation. Comparably, pupils who use AI-Chatbot and those who do not have significant performance disparities (<i>α</i> = 0.05, <i>p</i>-value &lt; 0.001; 1.8331). Inferentially, AI-Chatbot helped students a lot in Experiment I but did considerably less in Experiment II. In other words, Experiment II's questioning approach outperforms the AI tools' level of competence. The study comes to the conclusion that if AI is effectively harnessed, human natural intelligence will always be able to overcome the challenges posed by these powerful AI technologies.</p>","PeriodicalId":100564,"journal":{"name":"Future in Educational Research","volume":"2 2","pages":"147-165"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/fer3.33","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Future in Educational Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/fer3.33","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Assessment techniques need to evolve beyond traditional methods in light of the rapidly developing artificial intelligence (AI) tool technologies, such as Copilot, Bard, and ChatGPT. These AI-powered Chatbot is designed to appear similar to human speech or text and present information conversationally, making them tenable options for student assessment support worldwide. Consequently, to take advantage of the weaknesses in the AI system and foster a creative attitude in their pupils, educators must reconsider their approach to evaluation. The study conducts a comparative experiment on two different assessment methods—the traditional questioning strategy (Experiment I) versus the alternative or modified strategy (Experiment II), to assess how well the AI tools perform in the assessment and how the new technique can deter students from engaging in academic dishonesty. According to the study in Experiment I, the AI-Chatbot had a 100% positive response correlation, but in Experiment II, it had a shockingly low positive response correlation. Comparably, pupils who use AI-Chatbot and those who do not have significant performance disparities (α = 0.05, p-value < 0.001; 1.8331). Inferentially, AI-Chatbot helped students a lot in Experiment I but did considerably less in Experiment II. In other words, Experiment II's questioning approach outperforms the AI tools' level of competence. The study comes to the conclusion that if AI is effectively harnessed, human natural intelligence will always be able to overcome the challenges posed by these powerful AI technologies.

Abstract Image

人工智能与自然智能:在虚拟评估中利用人工智能工具克服学生作弊的可能性
鉴于 Copilot、Bard 和 ChatGPT 等人工智能(AI)工具技术的快速发展,评估技术需要超越传统方法。这些由人工智能驱动的聊天机器人被设计成类似于人类的语音或文本,并以对话的方式呈现信息,使其成为全球学生评估支持的可行选择。因此,为了利用人工智能系统的弱点,培养学生的创新态度,教育工作者必须重新考虑他们的评价方法。本研究对两种不同的评估方法--传统的提问策略(实验一)和替代或修改策略(实验二)--进行了对比实验,以评估人工智能工具在评估中的表现,以及新技术如何阻止学生进行学术不诚实行为。根据实验一的研究,人工智能聊天机器人的正相关度为 100%,但在实验二中,它的正相关度却低得惊人。相比之下,使用 AI-Chatbot 的学生和不使用 AI-Chatbot 的学生的成绩差距很大(α = 0.05,P 值 < 0.001;1.8331)。由此推断,AI-Chatbot 在实验一中对学生的帮助很大,但在实验二中却小得多。换句话说,实验二的提问方式优于人工智能工具的能力水平。研究得出的结论是,如果人工智能得到有效利用,人类的自然智能将始终能够克服这些强大的人工智能技术所带来的挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信