Dynamic Evidence Collection Ecosystem for Assessment Integrity and Authentic Competence

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) can produce high-quality essays, code, and design artefacts, challenging the validity of conventional assessments that rely on single-point submissions and product-only grading. This paper proposes a design framework called "Dynamic Evidence Collection Ecosystem" that shifts assessment toward continuous, authentic, multi-source evidence of student learning over time. The framework collects process evidence through iterative artefacts, design logs, activity rounds, self-reflection, and peer collaboration, supported by an AI-enabled layer for learning analytics, formative feedback, and transparency. The approach is grounded in recent assessment-redesign scholarship in AI-rich contexts and aligned with contemporary views of authenticity in assessment. This paper builds on the hypothesis that academic integrity is strengthened when it is treated as an assessment design rather than as an AI detection problem. The tools have limitations and risks of use that carry academic penalties. This paper presents an implementation scenario to support institutional adoption.

Why AI Detection Fails for Academic Integrity

Institutions use commercial AI detectors for academic integrity, yet detectors cannot distinguish AI editing from full LLM drafts and may treat both as misconduct. In a controlled study of published English abstracts (four domains; 2013 to 2015 vs. 2023 to 2025), we quantify this policy failure under proxy human/AI labels at tau=0.50. Light "refine abstract only" edits, a proxy for guideline-compliant AI assistance, are flagged at 38 to 80%. Unmodified 2023 to 2025 originals are flagged at 9 to 15%, with non-STEM rates far above STEM (p<0.001); elevated scores track long-token and Academic Word List density, not authorship intent alone. After Undetectable AI humanization, evasion is near-total: fewer than 4% of AI-labeled rewrites remain flagged (post-humanization detection rate <4%; FNR >96%). Honest AI-editing results in a higher sanction risk than humanizer-assisted evasion. Therefore, detector scores should not serve as standalone misconduct evidence.

Did Alice Do Wrong? Cross-Cultural Differences in Student Perceptions of Generative AI Use in University Computing Education

The rise of generative AI (GenAI) in higher education has prompted urgent debates surrounding academic integrity and ethical use. This study examines cross-cultural differences in student perceptions of GenAI use, comparing responses from students at Canadian and South Korean universities. Using a scenario-based survey administered in Fall 2024, we analyzed how students judged the ethicality and rule compliance of AI-assisted coding practices. Results reveal that Canadian students were consistently more likely to perceive the use of GenAI as both unethical and against institutional policies compared to Korean students, despite functionally identical institutional policies. Statistical analysis, including Mann-Whitney U tests and correlation coefficients, demonstrated significant differences across nearly all scenarios. Analysis of the factors used in generating scenarios indicated that the amount of AI-generated code incorporated into assignments most strongly influenced ethical judgments. Findings were interpreted through Hofstede's cultural dimensions framework, suggesting that cultural factors such as power distance, individualism, and uncertainty avoidance significantly shape students' ethical reasoning regarding GenAI. Our results contribute to the growing body of evidence emphasizing that equitable AI integration in education must be culturally responsive, taking into account diverse conceptions of academic integrity. We advocate for the development of nuanced AI-use guidelines that are sensitive to local cultural contexts while upholding fundamental principles of academic honesty. This study highlights the need for ongoing cross-cultural research to inform ethical AI policies and support responsible GenAI use in global higher education settings.

What is Left for Us? Second Scholarship Against the Degradation of Research by AI

We argue that generative AI can degrade research by eroding the very practices through which scholarly judgement is formed and academic trust is built. As constitutive conditions for the production and validation of knowledge, these practices cannot be reduced to the final outputs of research, which is what AI so effectively simulate. Accordingly, when researchers delegate central tasks of inquiry to systems like Large Language Models, they may stop enacting these practices and, with them, lose access to the formation they provide. An individual research output generated by AI may even appear improved but the researcher behind it fails to develop. Against this risk, merely keeping humans in the loop as prompters or quality checkers of AI outputs is insufficient to preserve research as a site of intellectual formation. What is needed instead is a renewed commitment to research as a lived practice in which judgement is formed gradually, often through frictions, and participation in a scholarly community. We defend it because it rests on four sources and warrants of research that cannot be automated: tacit knowledge, personal commitment, socialisation, and deep reading. This practice enacts what we call second scholarship, by which we understand the reappropriation of scholarly craft, chosen out of a critical experience of what generative AI can and cannot do. What cannot and should not be delegated becomes what research communities must value and answer for. This is what is left for us.