The Two-Lane Road to Hell Is Paved with Good Intentions: Why an All-or-None Approach to Generative AI, Integrity, and Assessment Is Insupportable
Saved in:
| Title: | The Two-Lane Road to Hell Is Paved with Good Intentions: Why an All-or-None Approach to Generative AI, Integrity, and Assessment Is Insupportable |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Guy J. Curtis (ORCID |
| Source: | Higher Education Research and Development. 2025 44(8):2151-2158. |
| Availability: | Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 8 |
| Publication Date: | 2025 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Evaluative |
| Education Level: | Higher Education Postsecondary Education |
| Descriptors: | Artificial Intelligence, Technology Uses in Education, Integrity, Higher Education, Educational Assessment, Cheating, Academic Achievement |
| DOI: | 10.1080/07294360.2025.2476516 |
| ISSN: | 0729-4360 1469-8366 |
| Abstract: | A 'two-lane' (All-or-None) approach to the use of generative artificial intelligence (genAI) is the idea that there should be two categories of assessments in higher education--Lane 1/None: where the use of genAI is prohibited, and Lane 2/All: where "any" use of genAI is permitted. This idea has been thoughtfully detailed and continues to be debated. Although this idea is generally well-intentioned, in this comment piece I argue that, if implemented, it will promote an impoverished approach to education and educational assessment. One argument often invoked in favour of an All-or-None approach is that genAI use may sometimes be undetectable. Contract cheating (e.g., students outsourcing assessments to ghostwriters) is sometimes undetectable, yet an argument that there should be an All-or-None approach permitting contract cheating in some assessments is clearly absurd. An All-or-None approach to genAI and assessment is also absurd. A middle lane, where genAI use in assessments is allowed with some limitations, is essential. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2026 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1503562 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| Abstract: | A 'two-lane' (All-or-None) approach to the use of generative artificial intelligence (genAI) is the idea that there should be two categories of assessments in higher education--Lane 1/None: where the use of genAI is prohibited, and Lane 2/All: where "any" use of genAI is permitted. This idea has been thoughtfully detailed and continues to be debated. Although this idea is generally well-intentioned, in this comment piece I argue that, if implemented, it will promote an impoverished approach to education and educational assessment. One argument often invoked in favour of an All-or-None approach is that genAI use may sometimes be undetectable. Contract cheating (e.g., students outsourcing assessments to ghostwriters) is sometimes undetectable, yet an argument that there should be an All-or-None approach permitting contract cheating in some assessments is clearly absurd. An All-or-None approach to genAI and assessment is also absurd. A middle lane, where genAI use in assessments is allowed with some limitations, is essential. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0729-4360 1469-8366 |
| DOI: | 10.1080/07294360.2025.2476516 |
