Date
Publisher
arXiv
The rapid uptake of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in higher education is reshaping assessment practices and intensifying concerns around academic integrity, fairness, and learning quality. While institutional responses increasingly emphasise policy guidance and ethical principles, there remains limited formal understanding of how collective norms of responsible or opportunistic AI use emerge and stabilise within student cohorts. This paper reframes student AI use in assessment as a coordination problem shaped by peer expectations and assessment design rather than individual compliance alone. We develop a coordination-based evolutionary game-theoretic framework that captures learning value, effort, perceived fairness, and transparency, with institutional AI governance modelled implicitly through reflective assessment incentives.
We use analytical results and finite-population simulations to reveal threshold-driven behavioural transitions in student AI use: small, well-calibrated changes in reflective assessment incentives can trigger rapid shifts towards responsible, learning-oriented AI-use norms, whereas weak or misaligned incentives allow opportunistic practices to persist. These non-linear dynamics explain why policy statements alone often fail to change behaviour, while modest assessment redesigns can have disproportionate effects. By providing a mechanism-level account of how assessment structures shape collective AI-use practices, this work offers higher education institutions an analytically grounded tool for Future Facing Learning, supporting proportionate, pedagogy-led AI governance without reliance on surveillance or punitive enforcement.
Study at a glance
- Question: How do assessment incentives and peer dynamics shape student norms around responsible or opportunistic artificial intelligence use?
- Setting and data: Simulated cohort of 100 students in higher education assessment environments.
- Method: Evolutionary game-theoretic modeling and finite-population simulations using Markov chains.
Why it matters
Formal rules and detection policies often fail to guide student artificial intelligence use because choices are socially interdependent. Institutions need formal models of how peer expectations and assessment designs shape collective norms.
Key findings
- Responsible artificial intelligence use emerges abruptly beyond a critical reward threshold of about 1.5, causing opportunistic use to collapse rapidly.
- Higher peer sensitivity accelerates collective shifts toward responsible artificial intelligence practices, whereas low peer sensitivity results in only gradual and marginal adoption.
- Responsible artificial intelligence norms dominate only when reflection rewards outweigh reflective effort costs, while superficial reflection remains consistently low across all reward levels.
Summary drafted with AI from the full paper and may contain errors. See the full paper for details.
What is the application?
Who is the user?
Who age?
Why use AI?
Study design
