ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, SciSpace and Wolfram versus higher education assessments: an updated multi-institutional study of the academic integrity impacts of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) on assessment, teaching and learning in engineering

91Citations
Citations of this article
337Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

More than a year has passed since reports of ChatGPT-3.5’s capability to pass exams sent shockwaves through education circles. These initial concerns led to a multi-institutional and multi-disciplinary study to assess the performance of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) against assessment tasks used across 10 engineering subjects, showcasing the capability of GenAI. Assessment types included online quiz, numerical, oral, visual, programming and writing (experimentation, project, reflection and critical thinking, and research). Twelve months later, the study was repeated using new and updated tools ChatGPT-4, Copilot, Gemini, SciSpace and Wolfram. The updated study investigated the performance and capability differences, identifying the best tool for each assessment type. The findings show that increased performance and features can only heighten academic integrity concerns. While cheating concerns are central, opportunities to integrate GenAI to enhance teaching and learning are possible. While each GenAI tool had specific strengths and weaknesses, ChatGPT-4 was well-rounded. A GenAI Assessment Security and Opportunity Matrix is presented to provide the community practical guidance on managing assessment integrity risks and integration opportunities to enhance learning.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Nikolic, S., Sandison, C., Haque, R., Daniel, S., Grundy, S., Belkina, M., … Neal, P. (2024). ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, SciSpace and Wolfram versus higher education assessments: an updated multi-institutional study of the academic integrity impacts of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) on assessment, teaching and learning in engineering. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 29(2), 126–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/22054952.2024.2372154

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free