Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Arrow An icon of an arrow. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Comment An icon of a speech bubble. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Menu An icon of 3 horizontal lines. Hamburger Menu Icon An icon used to represent a collapsed menu. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Twitter An icon of the Twitter logo. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo. Information An icon of an information logo. Plus A mathematical 'plus' symbol. Duration An icon indicating Time. Success Tick An icon of a green tick. Success Tick Timeout An icon of a greyed out success tick. Loading Spinner An icon of a loading spinner. Facebook Messenger An icon of the facebook messenger app logo. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Facebook Messenger An icon of the Twitter app logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. WhatsApp Messenger An icon of the Whatsapp messenger app logo. Email An icon of an mail envelope. Copy link A decentered black square over a white square.

Exam submissions by AI found to earn higher grades than real-life students

AI-generated exam submissions evade detection in a real-world test (Chris Ison/PA)
AI-generated exam submissions evade detection in a real-world test (Chris Ison/PA)

Exam submissions generated by artificial intelligence (AI) can not only evade detection but also earn higher grades than those submitted by university students, a real-world test has shown.

The findings come as concerns mount about students submitting AI-generated work as their own, with questions being raised about the academic integrity of universities and other higher education institutions.

It also shows even experienced markers could struggle to spot answers generated by AI, the University of Reading academics said.

Peter Scarfe, an associate professor at Reading’s School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences said the findings should serve as a “wake-up call” for educational institutions as AI tools such as ChatGPT become more advanced and widespread.

He said: “The data in our study shows it is very difficult to detect AI-generated answers.

“There has been quite a lot of talk about the use of so-called AI detectors, which are also another form of AI but (the scope here) is limited.”

For the study, published in the journal Plos One, Prof Scarfe and his team generated answers to exam questions using GPT-4 and submitted these on behalf of 33 fake students.

Exam markers at Reading’s School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences were unaware of the study.

Answers submitted for many undergraduate psychology modules went undetected in 94% of cases and, on average, got higher grades than real student submissions, Prof Scarfe said.

He said AI did particularly well in the first and second years of study but struggled more in the final year of study module.

Last year Russell Group universities, which include Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial College London and other top universities, pledged to allow ethical use of AI in teaching and assessments, with many others following suit.

But Prof Scarfe said the education sector will need to constantly adapt and update guidance as generative AI continues to evolve and become more sophisticated.

He said universities should focus on working out how to embrace the “new normal” of AI in order to enhance education.

Prof Scarfe added that reverting back to in-person sit-down exam assessments, would “be a step backwards in many ways”.

He said: “Many institutions have moved away from traditional exams to make assessment more inclusive.

“Our research shows it is of international importance to understand how AI will affect the integrity of educational assessments.

“We won’t necessarily go back fully to hand-written exams, but the global education sector will need to evolve in the face of AI.”

Study co-author Professor Etienne Roesch, of Reading’s School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, added: “As a sector, we need to agree how we expect students to use and acknowledge the role of AI in their work.

“The same is true of the wider use of AI in other areas of life to prevent a crisis of trust across society.

“Our study highlights the responsibility we have as producers and consumers of information.

“We need to double down on our commitment to academic and research integrity.”