Vol. 2 No. 1 (2027): Volume 2, Issue 1 (2027)
Articles

When Students Can Generate but Cannot Explain: Tackling Unethical AI Use Through Presentation-Based Assessment in Graphic Design Education

PDF
  • Al-hassan Bawa,
  • Professor Penelope Mpako
Al-hassan Bawa
Tamale Technical University
DOI: https://doi.org/10.46787/ijaipil.v2i1.7225

Published 2026-04-26

Keywords

  • Generative AI, graphic communication design, assessment integrity, oral presentation, viva voce, ethical AI use, technical university education, Ghana

How to Cite

Bawa, A.- hassan, & Penelope Mpako, N. (2026). When Students Can Generate but Cannot Explain: Tackling Unethical AI Use Through Presentation-Based Assessment in Graphic Design Education. International Journal of AI in Pedagogy, Innovation, and Learning Futures, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.46787/ijaipil.v2i1.7225

Copyright (c) 2026 Al-hassan Bawa, Professor Penelope Mpako

Creative Commons License

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

Abstract

The ubiquity of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in higher education presents both opportunities and significant pedagogical challenges. In graphic communication design, students increasingly rely on AI to conduct research, prepare presentations, generate design concepts, and produce videos—tasks traditionally requiring competence in computer-aided design (CAD) software. While these tools can enhance productivity, some students use them in ways that bypass learning, submitting AI-generated work without understanding underlying design principles or technical vocabulary. This study reports a qualitative case study conducted at Tamale Technical University in Northern Ghana, where 38 third-year graphic design students completed two presentation-based assessments requiring oral defense of their work. The study addressed three questions: (1) To what extent do students use generative AI in ways that hinder learning? (2) What patterns of terminology deficit, inconsistency, and anxiety emerge during oral defense? (3) How do students perceive the effectiveness of presentation-based assessment? Findings indicate that 81.6% of students used AI extensively, 89.5% could not define basic terminology from their own submissions, and 71.1% showed inconsistencies between submitted work and oral explanation. Despite initial anxiety, 71.1% reported that presentation-based assessment improved their learning. The study offers context-specific recommendations for design educators, including structuring interactive presentations, formulating probing questions, and clearly distinguishing between permitted and unethical AI use. It suggests that oral defense can reveal learning gaps, while treating claims about detecting unethical AI use cautiously and acknowledging alternative explanations such as language anxiety and prior instruction.

PDF

References

  1. Adarkwah, M. A. (2021). “I’m not against online teaching, but what about us?”: ICT in Ghana post COVID-19. Education and Information Technologies, 26(2), 1665–1685.
  2. Blair, B. (2006). Perception, interpretation, impact: An examination of the learning value of formative feedback to students through the design studio critique (Doctoral dissertation, Institute of Education, University of London).
  3. Bozkurt, A., Xiao, J., Lambert, S., Pazurek, A., Crompton, H., Koseoglu, S., … Jandric, P. (2023). Speculative futures on ChatGPT and generative artificial intelligence (AI). Asian Journal of Distance Education, 18(1), 53–130.
  4. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
  5. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE.
  6. Chiu, T. K. F. (2024). Future research recommendations for transforming higher education with generative AI. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6, 100197.
  7. 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.
  8. Dawson, P. (2021). Defending assessment security in a digital world. Routledge.
  9. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2018). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.). SAGE.
  10. Ezennia, I. S., & Agbonome, P. C. (2025). Advances in design studio critique techniques: A narrative review on innovative critique models and lessons for improving architecture education. Discover Education, 4(1), 369.
  11. Gulikers, J. T. M., Bastiaens, T. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2004). A five-dimensional framework for authentic assessment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 67–86.
  12. Jonassen, D. H., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(1), 61–79.
  13. Joughin, G. (2010). A short guide to oral assessment. Leeds Met Press in association with University of Wollongong.
  14. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
  15. Lodge, J. M., Howard, S., Bearman, M., & Dawson, P. (2023). Assessment reform for the age of artificial intelligence. Australian Government Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA). https://www.teqsa.gov.au/guidesresources/resources/corporate-publications/assessment-reform-age-artificial-intelligence
  16. Macquarie University. (2023). Authentic assessment through viva voce. TEACH Resource. https://teche.mq.edu.au/2023/03/authentic-assessment-through-viva-voce/
  17. Meron, Y., & Araci, Y. T. (2023). Artificial intelligence in design education: Evaluating ChatGPT as a virtual colleague. Design Science, 9, e30.
  18. Modiba, F. S., Van den Berg, A., & Mago, S. (2025). Opportunities and challenges of generative AI supporting research in African classrooms. South African Journal of Higher Education, 39(3), 173–193.
  19. Mollick, E. R., & Mollick, L. (2023). Using AI to implement effective teaching strategies in classrooms. Wharton School Research Paper.
  20. Ogunleye, B., Zakariyyah, K. I., Ajao, O., Olayinka, O., & Sharma, H. (2024). Higher education assessment practice in the era of generative AI tools. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 7(1), 46–56.
  21. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). SAGE.
  22. Perkins, M., Roe, J., Postma, D., McGaughran, J., & Hickerson, D. (2024). Detection of GPT-4 generated text in higher education. Journal of Academic Ethics, 22(1), 89–113.
  23. Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent: The future of education. Grossman Publishers.
  24. Rudolph, J., Tan, S., & Tan, S. (2023). ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments? Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 342–363.
  25. Sawyer, R. K. (2017). Teaching creativity in art and design studio classes. Educational Research Review, 22, 99–113.
  26. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. Jossey-Bass.
  27. Schön, D. A. (2010). Educating the reflective practitioner. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 50(2), 448–451.
  28. Sotiriadou, P., Logan, D., Daly, A., & Guest, R. (2020). The role of authentic assessment to preserve academic integrity and promote skill development and employability. Studies in Higher Education, 45(11), 2132–2148.
  29. Southworth, J., Migliaccio, K., Glover, J., Glover, J. N., Reed, D., McCarty, C., Thomas, A., Bracey, E., Heller, R., & Odom, J. (2023). Developing a model for AI across the curriculum. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 4, 100127.
  30. Su, F., O’Dea, M., Wood, M., & Seidl, E. (2026). Embracing a new world: Authentic assessment designs in an age of GenAI. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 1–12.
  31. Sullivan, M., Kelly, A., & McLaughlan, P. (2023). ChatGPT in higher education: Considerations for academic integrity. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 31–40.
  32. Swiecki, Z., Khosravi, H., Chen, G., Martinez-Maldonado, R., Lodge, J. M., Milligan, S., Buckingham Shum, S., & Gasevic, D. (2022). Assessment in the age of artificial intelligence. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100075.
  33. Tisdell, E. J., Merriam, S. B., & Stuckey-Peyrot, H. L. (2025). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Wiley.
  34. Verganti, R., Vendraminelli, L., & Iansiti, M. (2020). Innovation and design in the age of artificial intelligence. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 37(3), 212–227.
  35. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
  36. Weber-Wulff, D., Anohina-Naumeca, A., Bjelobaba, S., Foltýnek, T., Guerrero-Dib, J., Popoola, O., … Waddington, L. (2023). Testing of detection tools for AI-generated text. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 19(1), 1–39.
  37. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications (6th ed.). SAGE.