PRESERVING ACADEMIC INTEGRITY IN THE AI ERA: VIDEO STIMULATED RECALL (VSR) FOR COGNITIVE ACCOUNTABILITY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35631/IJMOE.831116Keywords:
Academic Integrity, Alternative Assessment, Code Ownership, Generative Artificial Intelligence, Video Stimulated RecallAbstract
Maintaining academic integrity has become incredibly challenging in the era of Generative AI tools like ChatGPT and Gemini. In programming education, these tools can seamlessly generate complete solutions for assignments, leading to a fundamental shift in how students approach their work. Rather than actively developing the code themselves, many now simply rely on AI to generate the implementation. This study examines how we can adapt to this reality through a new assessment technique. Rather than attempting to prohibit AI use, this research explores how changing the assessment design can ensure that students still involve their own critical thinking. By redesigning the way we evaluate, we can hold students cognitively accountable, forcing them to actively engage their minds and truly understand the task even when they utilise AI assistance. Video Stimulated Recall (VSR), combined with live oral questioning was implemented as an alternative assessment in a Mobile Application Programming course at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia involving 91 undergraduate students. Over a 14-week period, students recorded VSR videos in which they explained and justified their code, including AI-assisted code, for five laboratory tasks and two projects. They were subsequently required to modify the code in real time during question-and-answer (Q&A) sessions. At the end of the semester, a questionnaire measuring four constructs such as passive AI dependence, cognitive-active AI use, the washback effect of VSR and code ownership was administered, yielding 89 valid responses. The findings indicate that passive AI dependence was low (M=2.54), whereas cognitive-active AI use was high (M=3.93), suggesting that students tended to perceive AI as a learning support rather than a substitute. The VSR requirement produced a positive washback effect (M=3.51), with 81% of students reporting that they spent additional time studying their own code to prepare for the recordings. Students also reported a strong sense of code ownership (M=3.72). The study provides the conclusion that VSR serves as a useful tool in establishing cognitive accountability and turning AI from a danger to the integrity of education into a structured learning partner.
Downloads
References
Becker, B. A., Denny, P., Finnie-Ansley, J., Luxton-Reilly, A., Prather, J., & Santos, E. A. (2023). Programming is hard – or at least it used to be: Educational opportunities and challenges of AI code generation. Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2023), 500–506. https://doi.org/10.1145/3545945.3569759
Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138871
Bloom, B. S. (1953). Thought-processes in lectures and discussions. The Journal of General Education, 7(3), 160–169.
Calderhead, J. (1981). Stimulated recall: A method for research on teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51(2), 211–217. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1981.tb02474.x
Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2024). Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(2), 228–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148
Denny, P., Prather, J., Becker, B. A., Finnie-Ansley, J., Hellas, A., Leinonen, J., Luxton-Reilly, A., Reeves, B. N., Santos, E. A., & Sarsa, S. (2024). Computing education in the era of generative AI. Communications of the ACM, 67(2), 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1145/3624720
Finnie-Ansley, J., Denny, P., Becker, B. A., Luxton-Reilly, A., & Prather, J. (2022). The robots are coming: Exploring the implications of OpenAI Codex on introductory programming. Proceedings of the 24th Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE 2022), 10–19. https://doi.org/10.1145/3511861.3511863
Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., … Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
Lo, C. K. (2023). What is the impact of ChatGPT on education? A rapid review of the literature. Education Sciences, 13(4), 410. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13040410
Lyle, J. (2003). Stimulated recall: A report on its use in naturalistic research. British Educational Research Journal, 29(6), 861–878. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192032000137349
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). https://doi.org/10.53761/1.20.02.07
Prather, J., Denny, P., Leinonen, J., Becker, B. A., Albluwi, I., Craig, M., Keuning, H., Kiesler, N., Kohn, T., Luxton-Reilly, A., MacNeil, S., Petersen, A., Pettit, R., Reeves, B. N., & Savelka, J. (2023). The robots are here: Navigating the generative AI revolution in computing education. Proceedings of the 2023 Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE-WGR 2023), 108–159. https://doi.org/10.1145/3623762.3633499
Risko, E. F., & Gilbert, S. J. (2016). Cognitive offloading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(9), 676–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.002
Sparrow, B., Liu, J., & Wegner, D. M. (2011). Google effects on memory: Cognitive consequences of having information at our fingertips. Science, 333(6043), 776–778. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1207745
Yilmaz, R., & Karaoglan Yilmaz, F. G. (2023). The effect of generative artificial intelligence (AI)-based tool use on students' computational thinking skills, programming self-efficacy and motivation. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 4, 100147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100147
