Generative AI Use in a Business Ethics Course Assignment: A Descriptive Study on Student AI Choice and Perceptions
In this descriptive study I wanted to see how including an assignment which required students to use generative artificial intelligence (AI) would affect students’ perceptions of generative AI, including their own assessment and grading of generative AI-created content. I theorized that more than h...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Community College of Baltimore County
2025-08-01
|
| Series: | Teaching and Learning Excellence through Scholarship |
| Online Access: | https://tales.journals.publicknowledgeproject.org/index.php/tales/article/view/3491 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | In this descriptive study I wanted to see how including an assignment which required students to use generative artificial intelligence (AI) would affect students’ perceptions of generative AI, including their own assessment and grading of generative AI-created content. I theorized that more than half the students would assess the generative AI’s answer as earning at least a C, i.e., a passing grade. In my business ethics course, I created a discussion assignment in which students would be required to use the generative AI of their choice to answer a prompt, after having written their own answer. Students were then asked to compare the generative AI’s response to their own, and give it a grade. In addition to these steps, many students shared their personal points of view about generative AI use, including but not limited to college coursework and professional use. This study lasted for 2 semesters, fall 2025 and spring 2026. The sections included 4 fully online courses and 2 traditional in-person courses. Most students concluded that the answers given by generative AI were very general, not well detailed, and vague. Most students did not think the generative AI would earn a high grade. I found that the data did support my hypothesis, in that more than half the students rated the generative AI’s answer at a C or better. That being said, commentary from students was generally underconfident in the generative AI’s ability to give a high-quality answer, and most students believed the level of specific detail was poor. The implication of this is that students may not trust generative AI to produce high quality answers, but they may trust it to produce work which earns at least a C grade. A second implication is that when students are required to use generative AI in class, they know the instructor is aware of the use. This leads to the question whether that awareness makes them less likely to use it.
|
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2766-8991 |