ESP-3265

Published

2025-05-25

Issue

Vol. 10 No. 5 (2025): Published

Section

Research Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Anesito L. Cutillas, Enrique E. Balili, Jr., Evangeline C. Rellin, Mariel H. Remo, Estrella S. Quindala, Fritz D. Bacalso

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The journal adopts the Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0), which means that anyone can reuse and redistribute the materials for non-commercial purposes as long as you follow the license terms and the original source is properly cited.

Author(s) shall retain the copyright of their work and grant the Journal/Publisher rights for the first publication with the work concurrently licensed since 2023 Vol.8 No.2.

Under this license, author(s) will allow third parties to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute and/or copy the content under the condition that the authors are given credit. No permission is required from the authors or the publisher.

This broad license intends to facilitate free access, as well as the unrestricted use of original works of all types. This ensures that the published work is freely and openly available in perpetuity.

By providing open access, the following benefits are brought about:

  • Higher Visibility, Availability and Citations-free and unlimited accessibility of the publication over the internet without any restrictions increases citation of the article.
  • Ease of search-publications are easily searchable in search engines and indexing databases.
  • Rapid Publication – accepted papers are immediately published online.
  • Available for free download immediately after publication at https://esp.as-pub.com/index.php/ESP

 

Copyright Statement

1.The authors certify that the submitted manuscripts are original works, do not infringe the rights of others, are free from academic misconduct and confidentiality issues, and that there are no disputes over the authorship scheme of the collaborative articles. In case of infringement, academic misconduct and confidentiality issues, as well as disputes over the authorship scheme, all responsibilities will be borne by the authors.

2. The author agrees to grant the Editorial Office of Environment and Social Psychology a licence to use the reproduction right, distribution right, information network dissemination right, performance right, translation right, and compilation right of the submitted manuscript, including the work as a whole, as well as the diagrams, tables, abstracts, and any other parts that can be extracted from the work and used in accordance with the characteristics of the journal. The Editorial Board of Environment and Social Psychology has the right to use and sub-licence the above mentioned works for wide dissemination in print, electronic and online versions, and, in accordance with the characteristics of the periodical, for the period of legal protection of the property right of the copyright in the work, and for the territorial scope of the work throughout the world.

3. The authors are entitled to the copyright of their works under the relevant laws of Singapore, provided that they do not exercise their rights in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Journal.

About Licence

Environment and Social Psychology is an open access journal and all published work is available under the Creative Commons Licence, Authors shall retain copyright of their work and grant the journal/publisher the right of first publication, and their work shall be licensed under the Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0).

Under this licence, the author grants permission to third parties to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute and/or copy the content with attribution to the author. No permission from the author or publisher is required.

This broad licence is intended to facilitate free access to and unrestricted use of original works of all kinds. This ensures that published works remain free and accessible in perpetuity. Submitted manuscripts, once accepted, are immediately available to the public and permanently accessible free of charge on the journal’s official website (https://esp.as-pub.com/index.php/ESP). Allowing users to read, download, copy, print, search for or link to the full text of the article, or use it for other legal purposes. However, the use of the work must retain the author's signature, be limited to non-commercial purposes, and not be interpretative.

Click to download <Agreement on the Licence for the Use of Copyright on Environmental and Social Psychology>.

How to Cite

L. Cutillas, A., Balili, Jr., E. E., C. Rellin, E., H. Remo, M., S. Quindala, E., & D. Bacalso, F. (2025). Analyzing alternative academic assessments (AAAs) in universities with cheat-proofing behaviors and instructor-formulated mechanics in an AI-dependent setting. Environment and Social Psychology, 10(5), ESP-3265. https://doi.org/10.59429/esp.v10i5.3265

Analyzing alternative academic assessments (AAAs) in universities with cheat-proofing behaviors and instructor-formulated mechanics in an AI-dependent setting

Anesito L. Cutillas

College of Arts and Sciences & College of Education, Cebu Technological University-Argao Campus, Argao 6021, Cebu, Philippines

Enrique E. Balili, Jr.

Southern Leyte State University-Tomas Oppus Campus, Tomas Oppus 6605, Leyte, Philippines

Evangeline C. Rellin

Faculty, College of Arts & Sciences, Cebu Technological University-Argao Campus, Argao 6021, Cebu, Philippines

Mariel H. Remo

College of Technology and Engineering, Cebu Technological University-Argao Campus, Argao 6021, Cebu, Philippines

Estrella S. Quindala

College of Technology and Engineering, Cebu Technological University-Argao Campus, Argao 6021, Cebu, Philippines

Fritz D. Bacalso

College of Technology and Engineering, Cebu Technological University-Argao Campus, Argao 6021, Cebu, Philippines


DOI: https://doi.org/10.59429/esp.v10i5.3265


Keywords: academic dishonesty; AI dependency; artificial intelligence; learning assessment

Abstract

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) has profoundly disrupted the education system, reshaping how knowledge is accessed, delivered, and assessed. Tools such as ChatGPT and other generative AI models have revolutionized academic practices by offering instantaneous information retrieval, personalized tutoring, automated grading, and content creation. This paper investigated the strategies employed by higher education instructors in evaluating student outputs in light of the challenges posed by AI to learners’ critical thinking abilities and cognitive development. A total of 22 instructors from higher education institutions in Central Visayas, Philippines, were purposively selected to participate in one-on-one interviews. The findings revealed a profound shift in the academic assessment landscape of higher education due to the use of AI technologies. Instructors expressed heightened concern over academic dishonesty, intellectual disengagement, and over-reliance on AI, fearing that students were bypassing essential cognitive processes and undermining the authenticity of their academic outputs. These concerns prompted instructors to adopt Alternative Assessment Approaches (AAAs) designed to reinforce academic integrity and critical thinking. Key strategies included real-world reflective tasks that demand contextualized knowledge application, scaffolded assignments that track the learning process, timed assessments to limit AI interference, and the use of reflective journals to build metacognitive awareness. The pervasive use of AI challenges traditional assessment methods, prompting educators to adopt more process-oriented, reflective, and context-based strategies that prioritize critical thinking and authentic engagement. Policy reforms may be necessary to guide ethical AI use and ensure assessments continue to serve as valid measures of student understanding and intellectual growth.

References

[1]. 1.Gruenhagen, J. H., Sinclair, P. M., Carroll, J. A., Baker, P. R., Wilson, A., & Demant, D. (2024). The rapid rise of generative AI and its implications for academic integrity: students’ perceptions and use of chatbots for assistance with assessments. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 7, 100273.

[2]. 2.Mundo, M. A. D., Reyes, E. F. D., & Gervacio, E. M. (2024). Discourse analysis on experience-based position of science, mathematics, and Tech-Voc educators on generative AI and academic integrity. Environment and Social Psychology, 9(8), 3028.

[3]. 3.Kim, H. J., Yi, P., & Hong, J. I. (2020). Students’ academic use of mobile technology and higher-order thinking skills: The role of active engagement. Education Sciences, 10(3), 47. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10030047

[4]. 4.Hodge-Zickerman, A. N. G. I. E., & York, C. S. (2024). Embracing ChatGPT in the evolving landscape of mathematics teacher education and assessment. Exploring new horizons: Generative artificial intelligence and teacher education, 111.

[5]. 5.Cotton, D. R., 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.

[6]. 6.Plata, S., De Guzman, M. A., & Quesada, A. (2023). Emerging research and policy themes on academic integrity in the age of chat GPT and generative AI. Asian Journal of University Education, 19(4), 743-758.

[7]. 7.Sullivan, M., Kelly, A., & McLaughlan, P. (2023). ChatGPT in higher education: Considerations for academic integrity and student learning. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 6(1).

[8]. 8.Adiyono, A., Suwartono, T., Nurhayati, S., Dalimarta, F. F., & Wijayanti, O. (2025). Impact of artificial intelligence on student reliance for exam answers: A case study in IRCT Indonesia. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 24(3), 519-544.

[9]. 9.Cardina, Y., & Kristiani, K. B. S. (2022). Qualitative survey of academic dishonesty on higher education: Identify the factors and solutions. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 6(3), 8705-8719.

[10]. 10.Chiang, F. K., Zhu, D., & Yu, W. (2022). A systematic review of academic dishonesty in online learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(4), 907-928.

[11]. 11.Lee, G., Shi, L., Latif, E., Gao, Y., Bewersdorff, A., Nyaaba, M., ... & Zhai, X. (2025). Multimodality of ai for education: Towards artificial general intelligence. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies.

[12]. 12.Peters, M. A., Jackson, L., Papastephanou, M., Jandrić, P., Lazaroiu, G., Evers, C. W., ... & Fuller, S. (2024). AI and the future of humanity: ChatGPT-4, philosophy and education–Critical responses. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 56(9), 828-862.

[13]. 13.Chen, X., Zou, D., Xie, H., Cheng, G., & Liu, C. (2022). Two decades of artificial intelligence in education. Educational Technology & Society, 25(1), 28-47.

[14]. 14.Prahani, B., Rizki, I., Jatmiko, B., Suprapto, N., & Tan, A. (2022). Artificial intelligence in education research during the last ten years: A review and bibliometric study. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 17(8), 169-188.

[15]. 15.Zhang, K., & Aslan, A. B. (2021). AI technologies for education: Recent research & future directions. Computers and education: Artificial intelligence, 2, 100025.

[16]. 16.Zhai, X., Yin, Y., Pellegrino, J. W., Haudek, K. C., & Shi, L. (2020). Applying machine learning in science assessment: a systematic review. Studies in Science Education, 56(1), 111-151.

[17]. 17.Guo, S., Zheng, Y., & Zhai, X. (2024). Artificial intelligence in education research during 2013–2023: A review based on bibliometric analysis. Education and Information Technologies, 29(13), 16387-16409.

[18]. 18.Holmes, W., Persson, J., Chounta, I. A., Wasson, B., & Dimitrova, V. (2022). Artificial intelligence and education: A critical view through the lens of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Council of Europe.

[19]. 19.Borenstein, J., & Howard, A. (2021). Emerging challenges in AI and the need for AI ethics education. AI and Ethics, 1(1), 61-65.

[20]. 20.Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature machine intelligence, 1(9), 389-399.

[21]. 21.Raji, I. D., Scheuerman, M. K., & Amironesei, R. (2021, March). You can't sit with us: Exclusionary pedagogy in ai ethics education. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency (pp. 515-525).

[22]. 22.Evangelista, E. D. L. (2025). Ensuring academic integrity in the age of ChatGPT: Rethinking exam design, assessment strategies, and ethical AI policies in higher education. Contemporary Educational Technology, 17(1), ep559.

[23]. 23.Lancaster, T. (2024). Contract cheating: practical considerations. In Second Handbook of Academic Integrity (pp. 799-811). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.

[24]. 24.Mohammadkarimi, E. (2023). Teachers’ reflections on academic dishonesty in EFL students’ writings in the era of artificial intelligence. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 105-113.

[25]. 25.Floridi, L. (2023). AI as agency without intelligence: On ChatGPT, large language models, and other generative models. Philosophy & technology, 36(1), 15.

[26]. 26.Halaweh, M. (2023). ChatGPT in education: Strategies for responsible implementation. Contemporary educational technology, 15(2).

[27]. 27.Meyer, J. G., Urbanowicz, R. J., Martin, P. C., O’Connor, K., Li, R., Peng, P. C., ... & Moore, J. H. (2023). ChatGPT and large language models in academia: opportunities and challenges. BioData mining, 16(1), 20.

[28]. 28.Talan, T., & Kalınkara, Y. (2023). The role of artificial intelligence in higher education: ChatGPT assessment for anatomy course. Uluslararası Yönetim Bilişim Sistemleri ve Bilgisayar Bilimleri Dergisi, 7(1), 33-40.

[29]. 29.Kumar, A., Kumar, A., Bhoyar, S., & Mishra, A. K. (2024). Does ChatGPT foster academic misconduct in the future?. Public Administration and Policy, 27(2), 140-153.

[30]. 30.Zhao, C. (2024). AI-assisted assessment in higher education: A systematic review. Journal of Educational Technology and Innovation, 6(4).

[31]. 31.Kusumaningtyas, D. A., Manyunu, M., Kurniasari, E., Awalin, A. N., Rahmaniati, R., & Febriyanti, A. (2024). Enhancing learning outcomes: A study on the development of higher order thinking skills based evaluation instruments for work and energy in high school physics. Indonesian Journal on Learning and Advanced Education (IJOLAE), 14-31.

[32]. 32.Liu, Y. & Páztor, A. (2022) Effects of problem-based learning instructional intervention on critical thinking in Higher education: A meta-analysis. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 45, 101069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101069

[33]. 33.Wolf, R. R., & Wolf, A. B. (2023). Using AI to Evaluate a Competency-Based Online Writing Course in Nursing. Online Learning, 27(3), 41-69.

[34]. 34.Chavez, J. V., Adalia, H. G., & Alberto, J. P. (2023). Parental support strategies and motivation in aiding their children learn the English language. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 5(2), 1541-1541.

[35]. 35.Hunter, D., McCallum, J., & Howes, D. (2019). Defining exploratory-descriptive qualitative (EDQ) research and considering its application to healthcare. Journal of Nursing and Health Care, 4(1).

[36]. 36.Olawale, S. R., Chinagozi, O. G., & Joe, O. N. (2023). Exploratory research design in management science: A review of literature on conduct and application. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 7(4), 1384-1395.

[37]. 37.Inoferio, H. V., Espartero, M., Asiri, M., Damin, M., & Chavez, J. V. (2024). Coping with math anxiety and lack of confidence through AI-assisted Learning. Environment and Social Psychology, 9(5). https://doi.org/10.54517/esp.v9i5.2228

[38]. 38.Harrison, R. L., Reilly, T. M., & Creswell, J. W. (2020). Methodological rigor in mixed methods: An application in management studies. Journal of mixed methods research, 14(4), 473-495.

[39]. 39.Adalia, H. G., Chavez, J. V., Hayudini, M. A. A., Kinarang, A. J., Sabbaha, N. A., & Salasain, A. A. M. (2025). Relevance of Grammar among Gen Z College Students Using Social Learning Perspectives. In Forum for Linguistic Studies, 7(3), 432-450.

[40]. 40.Comeros, N. A., Cuilan, J. T., & Chavez, J. V. (2024). Parental Discretionary Influence on Their Children’s Manner of Learning English Language. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 6(4), 284-299.

[41]. 41.Comeros, N. A., Cuilan, J. T., & Chavez, J. V. (2024). Parental Discretionary Influence on Their Children’s Manner of Learning English Language. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 6(4), 284-299.

[42]. 42.Campbell, S., Greenwood, M., Prior, S., Shearer, T., Walkem, K., Young, S., ... & Walker, K. (2020). Purposive sampling: complex or simple? Research case examples. Journal of research in Nursing, 25(8), 652-661.

[43]. 43.Rai, N., & Thapa, B. (2015). A study on purposive sampling method in research. Kathmandu: Kathmandu School of Law, 5(1), 8-15.

[44]. 44.Barratt, M. J., Ferris, J. A., & Lenton, S. (2015). Hidden populations, online purposive sampling, and external validity: Taking off the blindfold. Field methods, 27(1), 3-21.

[45]. 45.Adeoye‐Olatunde, O. A., & Olenik, N. L. (2021). Research and scholarly methods: Semi‐structured interviews. Journal of the american college of clinical pharmacy, 4(10), 1358-1367.

[46]. 46.Ruslin, R., Mashuri, S., Rasak, M. S. A., Alhabsyi, F., & Syam, H. (2022). Semi-structured Interview: A methodological reflection on the development of a qualitative research instrument in educational studies. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education (IOSR-JRME), 12(1), 22-29.

[47]. 47.Kallio, H., Pietilä, A. M., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M. (2016). Systematic methodological review: developing a framework for a qualitative semi‐structured interview guide. Journal of advanced nursing, 72(12), 2954-2965.

[48]. 48.Gani, A., Imtiaz, N., Rathakrishnan, M., & Krishnasamy, H. N. (2020). A pilot test for establishing validity and reliability of qualitative interview in the blended learning English proficiency course. Journal of critical reviews, 7(05), 140-143.

[49]. 49.Monday, T. U. (2020). Impacts of interview as research instrument of data collection in social sciences. Journal of Digital Art & Humanities, 1(1), 15-24.

[50]. 50.Aung, K. T., Razak, R. A., & Nazry, N. N. M. (2021). Establishing validity and reliability of semi-structured interview questionnaire in developing risk communication module: A pilot study. Edunesia: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan, 2(3), 600-606.

[51]. 51.Dowling, R., Lloyd, K., & Suchet-Pearson, S. (2016). Qualitative methods 1: Enriching the interview. Progress in human geography, 40(5), 679-686.

[52]. 52.Chavez, J. V., & Ceneciro, C. C. (2023). Discourse analysis on same-sex relationship through the lens of religious and social belief systems. Environment and Social Psychology, 9(1).

[53]. 53.Benlahcene, A., & Ramdani, A. (2020). The process of qualitative interview: Practical insights for novice researchers. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences. The European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences, 405-413.

[54]. 54.Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2011). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Sage.

[55]. 55.Khan, S. N. (2014). Qualitative research method-phenomenology. Asian Social Science, 10(21), 298.

[56]. 56.Kapborg, I., & Berterö, C. (2002). Using an interpreter in qualitative interviews: does it threaten validity?. Nursing inquiry, 9(1), 52-56.

[57]. 57.Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2024). Thematic analysis. In Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research (pp. 7187-7193). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

[58]. 58.Chavez, J. V. (2020). The effects of English as a second language on bilingual parents’ English language dispositions. International Journal of Novel Research in Education and Learning, 7(1), 12-25.

[59]. 59.Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.

[60]. 60.Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. American Psychological Association. APA Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology, 2, 57-71.

[61]. 61.Chavez, J. V., & Vicente, M. B. (2025). Halal compliance behaviors of food and accommodation businesses in the Zamboanga Peninsula, Philippines. Multidisciplinary Science Journal, 7(5), 2025259-2025259.

[62]. 62.Terry, G., & Hayfield, N. (2020). Reflexive thematic analysis. In Handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 430-441). Edward Elgar Publishing.

[63]. 63.Rodrigues, M., Silva, R., Borges, A. P., Franco, M., & Oliveira, C. (2024). The impact of AI on academic integrity. J. Educ. Technol, 36, 45-56.

[64]. 64.Ateeq, A., Alzoraiki, M., Milhem, M., & Ateeq, R. A. (2024, October). Artificial intelligence in education: implications for academic integrity and the shift toward holistic assessment. In Frontiers in education (Vol. 9, p. 1470979). Frontiers Media SA.

[65]. 65.Zhai, C., Wibowo, S., & Li, L. D. (2024). The effects of over-reliance on AI dialogue systems on students' cognitive abilities: a systematic review. Smart Learning Environments, 11(1), 28.

[66]. 66.Jie, A. L. X., & Kamrozzaman, N. A. (2024). The Challenges of Higher Education Students Face in Using Artificial Intelligence (AI) against Their Learning Experiences. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 12(10), 362-387.

[67]. 67.Abarzosa, V. J., & Balaba, E. I. (2025). The Negative Effects of Over-Reliance on AI Tools in IT Student Learning. Wisdom Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(5 (May)), 20-29.

[68]. 68.Kaisar, S. (2023). Alternative assessment practices in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Learning and Educational Policy, 3(5).

[69]. 69.Dinç, E., Wherley, M. S., & Sankey, H. (2024). Student perception of journaling as an assessment for an engagement experience. Journal of Experiential Education, 47(3), 484-503.

[70]. 70.Brown, B. (2024). Journaling about interaction: Metacognition around language learning. Focus on ELT Journal, 6(3), 16-35.

[71]. 71.Ain, N. (2021). Prospective physics teacher’s ability in developing HOTS questions: CRI analysis. Momentum: Physics Education Journal, 5(1), 85-93.

[72]. 72.Fikri, A. B., Susapti, P., & Setya, M. A. (2021). The Teacher’s Ability in Making HOTS Questions in The Thematic Learning Content of Social Studies. AULADUNA: Jurnal Pendidikan Dasar Islam, 8(2), 129-137.

[73]. 73.Tai, J. H. M., Dollinger, M., Ajjawi, R., Jorre de St Jorre, T., Krattli, S., McCarthy, D., & Prezioso, D. (2022). Designing assessment for inclusion: an exploration of diverse students’ assessment experiences. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(3), 403–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2082373

[74]. 74.Holmes, W., Porayska-Pomsta, K., Holstein, K., Sutherland, E., Baker, T., Shum, S. B., ... & Koedinger, K. R. (2022). Ethics of AI in education: Towards a community-wide framework. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 1-23.

[75]. 75.Labadze, L., Grigolia, M., & Machaidze, L. (2023). Role of AI chatbots in education: systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 56.



21 Woodlands Close #02-10, Primz Bizhub,Postal 737854, Singapore

Email:editorial_office@as-pub.com