Vol. 2 No. 1 (2027): AI Literacy, Workforce Learning, and Human–AI Futures
Articles

Toward ethical and credible AI-assisted assessment: Reframing authenticity, transparency, and trust in higher education

PDF
  • CLARK DOMINIC ALIPASA,
  • MARIANO THOMAS RAMIREZ
CLARK DOMINIC ALIPASA
de la salle university-dasmariñas
DOI: https://doi.org/10.46787/ijaipil.v2i1.7301

Published 2026-05-14

Keywords

  • Artificial intelligence, higher education assessment, authenticity, credibility, transparency, trust

How to Cite

ALIPASA, C. D., & RAMIREZ, M. T. (2026). Toward ethical and credible AI-assisted assessment: Reframing authenticity, transparency, and trust in higher education. International Journal of AI in Pedagogy, Innovation, and Learning Futures, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.46787/ijaipil.v2i1.7301

Copyright (c) 2026 CLARK DOMINIC ALIPASA, MARIANO THOMAS RAMIREZ

Creative Commons License

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

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly generative systems, is reshaping higher education assessment by challenging traditional understandings of authenticity, authorship, and credibility. While AI offers affordances such as personalized feedback, instructional efficiency, and enhanced learning support, it also introduces significant risks, including hallucinated outputs, misinformation, and reduced transparency in knowledge production. These developments complicate the evaluation of student performance because AI-generated content may appear academically coherent and credible while lacking epistemic validity. Drawing on scholarship in human–AI interaction, credibility theory, and algorithmic transparency, this paper argues that assessment must be reconceptualized as an interpretive and interactional process shaped by both human and machine agency. In response, it proposes a conceptual framework integrating authenticity, trust, and transparency.

PDF

References

  1. Alkaissi, H., & McFarlane, S. I. (2023). Artificial hallucinations in ChatGPT: Implications in scientific writing. Cureus, 15(2), e35179.
  2. Ananny, M., & Crawford, K. (2018). Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability. New Media & Society, 20(3), 973–989.
  3. Appelman, A., & Sundar, S. S. (2016). Measuring message credibility: Construction and validation of an exclusive scale. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 93(1), 59–79.
  4. Bucher, T. (2017). ‘Machines don’t have instincts’: Articulating the computational in journalism. New Media & Society, 19(6), 918–933.
  5. Burgoon, J. K. (2015). Expectancy violations theory. In C. R. Berger et al. (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of interpersonal communication (pp. 1–9). Wiley.
  6. Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. (1988). Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and application to immediacy behaviors. Communication Monographs, 55(1), 58–79.
  7. Chan, M. (2022). News literacy, fake news recognition, and authentication behaviors after exposure to fake news on social media. New Media & Society, 26, 4669–4688.
  8. Chen, M., Liu, F., & Lee, Y. H. (2022). My tutor is an AI: The effects of involvement and tutor type on perceived quality, perceived credibility, and use intention. In H. Degen & S. Ntoa (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in HCI (pp. 232–244). Springer.
  9. Demartini, G., Mizzaro, S., & Spina, D. (2020). Human-in-the-loop artificial intelligence for fighting online misinformation: Challenges and opportunities. IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin, 43(3), 65–74.
  10. Dicicco-Bloom, B., & Crabtree, B. F. (2006). The qualitative research interview. Medical Education, 40(4), 314–321.
  11. Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., et al. (2023). “So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary perspectives on generative AI. International Journal of Information Management, 71, 102642.
  12. Edgerly, S., Mourão, R. R., Thorson, E., & Tham, S. M. (2020). When do audiences verify? Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 97(1), 52–71.
  13. Endacott, C. G. (2024). Enacting machine agency in AI communication technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 29(4), zmae011.
  14. Faruk, L. I. D., Rohan, R., Ninrutsirikun, U., et al. (2023). University students’ acceptance of generative AI. In Proceedings of the international conference on advances in information technology (pp. 1–8). ACM.
  15. Fui-Hoon Nah, F., Zheng, R., Cai, J., et al. (2023). Generative AI and ChatGPT: Applications and challenges. Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research, 25(3), 277–304.
  16. Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances.
  17. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Routledge.
  18. Goh, D. H. (2024). Media and strategies for deepfake identification. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 75(6), 643–654.
  19. Grady, M. P. (1998). Qualitative and action research: A practitioner handbook. Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
  20. Helmus, T. C. (2022). Artificial intelligence, deepfakes, and disinformation. RAND Corporation.
  21. Himma-Kadakas, M., & Ojamets, I. (2022). Debunking false information. Digital Journalism, 10(5), 866–887.
  22. Hong, J. W., Peng, Q., & Williams, D. (2021). AI music and expectancy violation theory. New Media & Society, 23(7), 1920–1935.
  23. Kang, H., & Lou, C. (2022). AI agency vs. human agency. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 27(5), zmac014.
  24. Khemani, B., Patil, S., Kotecha, K., et al. (2024). Detecting health misinformation. MethodsX, 12, 102737.
  25. Koh, Y. J., & Sundar, S. S. (2010). Heuristic versus systematic processing. Human Communication Research, 36(2), 103–124.
  26. Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. SAGE.
  27. Larsson, S., & Heintz, F. (2020). Transparency in artificial intelligence. Internet Policy Review.
  28. Liew, T. W., Tan, S. M., Yoo, N. E., et al. (2023). AI chatbots in health communication. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 11, 100323.
  29. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE.
  30. Liu, B. (2021). In AI we trust? Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 26(6), 384–402.
  31. Metzger, M. J. (2007). Credibility on the Web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2078–2091.
  32. Metzger, M. J., & Flanagin, A. J. (2015). Psychological approaches to credibility assessment. In S. S. Sundar (Ed.), The handbook of the psychology of communication technology (pp. 445–466). Wiley.
  33. Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., & Medders, R. B. (2010). Credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 413–439.
  34. Monteith, S., Glenn, T., Geddes, J. R., et al. (2024). Artificial intelligence and misinformation. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 224(2), 33–35.
  35. Ooi, K. B., Tan, G. W. H., Al-Emran, M., et al. (2023). Generative AI across disciplines. Journal of Computer Information Systems.
  36. Park, H. E. (2024). Generative AI in digitalization. Psychology & Marketing, 41, 2924–2941.
  37. Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. SAGE.
  38. Pundir, V., Devi, E. B., & Nath, V. (2021). Fake news sharing on social media. Management Research Review, 44(8), 1108–1138.
  39. Qian, S., Shen, C., & Zhang, J. (2023). Fighting misinformation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 28(1), zmac024.
  40. Rai, A. (2020). Explainable AI. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48, 137–141.
  41. Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2011). Qualitative interviewing. SAGE.
  42. Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., et al. (2018). Saturation in qualitative research. Quality & Quantity, 52(4), 1893–1907.
  43. Shin, D. (2022). Perception of humanness in AI journalism. New Media & Society, 24(12), 2680–2704.
  44. Shin, D. (2023). Algorithms, humans, and interactions. CRC Press.
  45. Shin, D. (2024). Artificial misinformation. Palgrave Macmillan.
  46. Shin, D., & Park, Y. J. (2019). Algorithmic affordance. Computers in Human Behavior, 98, 277–284.
  47. Sun, Y. (2022). COVID-19 misinformation verification. Science Communication, 44(3), 261–291.
  48. Sun, Y., Chen, J., & Sundar, S. S. (2024). Chatbot ads with human touch. Journal of Business Research, 172, 114403.
  49. Sundar, S. S. (2020). Rise of machine agency. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 25(1), 74–88.
  50. Tandoc, E. C., Ling, R., Westlund, O., et al. (2018). Authentication in fake news. New Media & Society, 20(8), 2745–2763.
  51. Thomson, T. J., Angus, D., Dootson, P., et al. (2022). Visual misinformation verification. Journalism Practice, 16(5), 938–962.
  52. Torres, R., Gerhart, N., & Negahban, A. (2018). Credibility on social media. ACM SIGMIS Database, 49(3), 78–97.
  53. Tracy, S. J. (2020). Qualitative research methods. Wiley-Blackwell.
  54. Tsang, S. J. (2022). COVID-19 misinformation tactics. Online Media and Global Communication, 1(3), 469–496.
  55. Waruwu, B. K., Tandoc, E. C., Duffy, A., et al. (2021). Social authentication. New Media & Society, 23(9), 2516–2533.
  56. Wathen, C. N., & Burkell, J. (2002). Credibility on the Web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(2), 134–144.
  57. Wiles, R. (2012). What are qualitative research ethics? Bloomsbury Academic.
  58. Xu, D., Fan, S., & Kankanhalli, M. (2023). Combating misinformation. In Proceedings of the ACM international conference on multimedia (pp. 9291–9298).
  59. Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1994). Personal involvement inventory. Journal of Advertising, 23(4), 59–79.
  60. Zhou, Y., & Shen, L. (2022). Confirmation bias and misinformation. Communication Research, 49(4), 500–523.