No Cover Image

Journal article 440 views 106 downloads

Education and Training Assessment and Artificial Intelligence. A Pragmatic Guide for Educators

Phil Newton Orcid Logo, Sue Jones

British Journal of Biomedical Science, Volume: 81

Swansea University Author: Phil Newton Orcid Logo

  • 68814.VoR.pdf

    PDF | Version of Record

    © 2025 Newton and Jones. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).

    Download (648.39KB)

Check full text

DOI (Published version): 10.3389/bjbs.2024.14049

Abstract

The emergence of ChatGPT and similar new Generative AI tools has created concern about the validity of many current assessment methods in higher education, since learners might use these tools to complete those assessments. Here we review the current evidence on this issue and show that for assessme...

Full description

Published in: British Journal of Biomedical Science
ISSN: 2474-0896
Published: Frontiers Media SA 2025
Online Access: Check full text

URI: https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa68814
first_indexed 2025-02-06T12:21:40Z
last_indexed 2025-03-27T07:17:49Z
id cronfa68814
recordtype SURis
fullrecord <?xml version="1.0"?><rfc1807><datestamp>2025-03-26T14:40:51.1968404</datestamp><bib-version>v2</bib-version><id>68814</id><entry>2025-02-06</entry><title>Education and Training Assessment and Artificial Intelligence. A Pragmatic Guide for Educators</title><swanseaauthors><author><sid>6e0a363d04c407371184d82f7a5bddc8</sid><ORCID>0000-0002-5272-7979</ORCID><firstname>Phil</firstname><surname>Newton</surname><name>Phil Newton</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author></swanseaauthors><date>2025-02-06</date><deptcode>MEDS</deptcode><abstract>The emergence of ChatGPT and similar new Generative AI tools has created concern about the validity of many current assessment methods in higher education, since learners might use these tools to complete those assessments. Here we review the current evidence on this issue and show that for assessments like essays and multiple-choice exams, these concerns are legitimate: ChatGPT can complete them to a very high standard, quickly and cheaply. We consider how to assess learning in alternative ways, and the importance of retaining assessments of foundational core knowledge. This evidence is considered from the perspective of current professional regulations covering the professional registration of Biomedical Scientists and their Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) approved education providers, although it should be broadly relevant across higher education.</abstract><type>Journal Article</type><journal>British Journal of Biomedical Science</journal><volume>81</volume><journalNumber/><paginationStart/><paginationEnd/><publisher>Frontiers Media SA</publisher><placeOfPublication/><isbnPrint/><isbnElectronic/><issnPrint/><issnElectronic>2474-0896</issnElectronic><keywords>generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), assessment practices, academic integrity, professionalregulation, cheating</keywords><publishedDay>5</publishedDay><publishedMonth>2</publishedMonth><publishedYear>2025</publishedYear><publishedDate>2025-02-05</publishedDate><doi>10.3389/bjbs.2024.14049</doi><url/><notes/><college>COLLEGE NANME</college><department>Medical School</department><CollegeCode>COLLEGE CODE</CollegeCode><DepartmentCode>MEDS</DepartmentCode><institution>Swansea University</institution><apcterm/><funders>The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</funders><projectreference/><lastEdited>2025-03-26T14:40:51.1968404</lastEdited><Created>2025-02-06T12:21:10.3736333</Created><path><level id="1">Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences</level><level id="2">Swansea University Medical School - Medicine</level></path><authors><author><firstname>Phil</firstname><surname>Newton</surname><orcid>0000-0002-5272-7979</orcid><order>1</order></author><author><firstname>Sue</firstname><surname>Jones</surname><order>2</order></author></authors><documents><document><filename>68814__33891__56f08658d3ef45079149d6b3054d3aa3.pdf</filename><originalFilename>68814.VoR.pdf</originalFilename><uploaded>2025-03-26T14:39:03.7642677</uploaded><type>Output</type><contentLength>663951</contentLength><contentType>application/pdf</contentType><version>Version of Record</version><cronfaStatus>true</cronfaStatus><documentNotes>&#xA9; 2025 Newton and Jones. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).</documentNotes><copyrightCorrect>true</copyrightCorrect><language>eng</language><licence>https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</licence></document></documents><OutputDurs/></rfc1807>
spelling 2025-03-26T14:40:51.1968404 v2 68814 2025-02-06 Education and Training Assessment and Artificial Intelligence. A Pragmatic Guide for Educators 6e0a363d04c407371184d82f7a5bddc8 0000-0002-5272-7979 Phil Newton Phil Newton true false 2025-02-06 MEDS The emergence of ChatGPT and similar new Generative AI tools has created concern about the validity of many current assessment methods in higher education, since learners might use these tools to complete those assessments. Here we review the current evidence on this issue and show that for assessments like essays and multiple-choice exams, these concerns are legitimate: ChatGPT can complete them to a very high standard, quickly and cheaply. We consider how to assess learning in alternative ways, and the importance of retaining assessments of foundational core knowledge. This evidence is considered from the perspective of current professional regulations covering the professional registration of Biomedical Scientists and their Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) approved education providers, although it should be broadly relevant across higher education. Journal Article British Journal of Biomedical Science 81 Frontiers Media SA 2474-0896 generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), assessment practices, academic integrity, professionalregulation, cheating 5 2 2025 2025-02-05 10.3389/bjbs.2024.14049 COLLEGE NANME Medical School COLLEGE CODE MEDS Swansea University The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. 2025-03-26T14:40:51.1968404 2025-02-06T12:21:10.3736333 Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences Swansea University Medical School - Medicine Phil Newton 0000-0002-5272-7979 1 Sue Jones 2 68814__33891__56f08658d3ef45079149d6b3054d3aa3.pdf 68814.VoR.pdf 2025-03-26T14:39:03.7642677 Output 663951 application/pdf Version of Record true © 2025 Newton and Jones. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). true eng https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
title Education and Training Assessment and Artificial Intelligence. A Pragmatic Guide for Educators
spellingShingle Education and Training Assessment and Artificial Intelligence. A Pragmatic Guide for Educators
Phil Newton
title_short Education and Training Assessment and Artificial Intelligence. A Pragmatic Guide for Educators
title_full Education and Training Assessment and Artificial Intelligence. A Pragmatic Guide for Educators
title_fullStr Education and Training Assessment and Artificial Intelligence. A Pragmatic Guide for Educators
title_full_unstemmed Education and Training Assessment and Artificial Intelligence. A Pragmatic Guide for Educators
title_sort Education and Training Assessment and Artificial Intelligence. A Pragmatic Guide for Educators
author_id_str_mv 6e0a363d04c407371184d82f7a5bddc8
author_id_fullname_str_mv 6e0a363d04c407371184d82f7a5bddc8_***_Phil Newton
author Phil Newton
author2 Phil Newton
Sue Jones
format Journal article
container_title British Journal of Biomedical Science
container_volume 81
publishDate 2025
institution Swansea University
issn 2474-0896
doi_str_mv 10.3389/bjbs.2024.14049
publisher Frontiers Media SA
college_str Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences
hierarchytype
hierarchy_top_id facultyofmedicinehealthandlifesciences
hierarchy_top_title Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences
hierarchy_parent_id facultyofmedicinehealthandlifesciences
hierarchy_parent_title Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences
department_str Swansea University Medical School - Medicine{{{_:::_}}}Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences{{{_:::_}}}Swansea University Medical School - Medicine
document_store_str 1
active_str 0
description The emergence of ChatGPT and similar new Generative AI tools has created concern about the validity of many current assessment methods in higher education, since learners might use these tools to complete those assessments. Here we review the current evidence on this issue and show that for assessments like essays and multiple-choice exams, these concerns are legitimate: ChatGPT can complete them to a very high standard, quickly and cheaply. We consider how to assess learning in alternative ways, and the importance of retaining assessments of foundational core knowledge. This evidence is considered from the perspective of current professional regulations covering the professional registration of Biomedical Scientists and their Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) approved education providers, although it should be broadly relevant across higher education.
published_date 2025-02-05T05:21:50Z
_version_ 1851459853892976640
score 11.089572

Similar Items