Evaluation Becomes Ethical Dilemma at the Age of AI

 

2026-10-30-12-10-02-FRI-30Oct-01.pdf

Evaluation Becomes Ethical Dilemma at the Age of AI

Pokhara University introduced Academic Writing course ( PRC 114) for BBA 4th semester in 2026, with the course assumed to serve approximately 2,182 students.  A 16- hour course is designed to cultivate critical reading and basic writing skills with writing reflection notes, outlining the paragraphs and thesis formulation  for essay writing. The prescribed references include Patterns for College Writing: A Rhetorical Reader and Guide by Kirszner, G. Laurie & Stephen R. Mandell which is a course book for 1st year bachelor’s level at Tribhuvan University. The book includes one essay written by Brent Staples highlighting the impact of plagiarism and cheating in college. Staples elucidates an experience of a teacher who acts like a cop because of plagiarism. Similarly, I felt the same when I taught 74 students in an Academic Writing class in a Pokhara University affiliated college in Kathmandu. I lectured them on the impact of plagiarism and tried to influence them to write their reflective ideas through narrative style of writing. However, to my wonder, instead of stirring their emotions by writing creatively, most of them opted for artificial intelligence. All of them were allotted essay writing assignments after spending at least seven hours, only 46 submitted essay writing assignments. Of those submissions, 32 of them submitted AI generated papers with the percentage of AI usage varying from approximately 30% to 100%. This incident  made the evaluation process a difficult one leaving me with a profound ethical dilemma.

 

Before the invention of generative artificial intelligence, the equation of teacher’s and student’s integrity used to be measured by the detection of plagiarism. In that sense, it was teachers versus students, when students were only prone to plagiarism. At the current phase of the digital revolution, policing from the perspective of plagiarism of typed assignment is not enough in Nepal. Hence, is it teachers versus students relying on AI generated paper now? Or rather teacher versus students?

 

It is a mind boggling question as it haunts the existence of teachers and their role in the lives of adult learners. As we have immersed ourselves into the road of machine learning, the role of teachers seems feeble. Henry Kissinger in his book The Age of AI and Our Human Future argues extensively on digital revolution and its easy accessibility to internet users.Cursorily,  digital revolution jeopardizes the existence of books, exclusive media outlets and teachers.

 

The unprecedented acceleration in the dynamics of artificial intelligence seems inevitable and its impact is also evident among graduate students in Nepal. Having taught bachelor's- level courses such as English for IT Professionals, Technical communication, Business Communication and lately, Academic Writing; I have come to the conclusion that students are far more into adapting copy-pasting culture, using generative AI tools than ever which is alarming profound ethical concerns about academic integrity.

 

As a part of the first assessment, students from BBA, BCA, BCSIT and BHM are given to write their introduction including strengths and weaknesses in the subject, assuming they would think about qualities they have and they want to learn in the subject I teach. These tasks help me to identify the students' problems and plan my lesson to help them overcome their weakness. Within a word limit and deadline I ask them to email me their first assignment. Most of them would do it on time, some of them do it themselves and some of them use AI. I happen to know the usage of AI when I see gaps in the information that they are missing. Rather than incorporating instructions given to them in the class, they submit their write-ups as they have received through generative AI with the command they are able to make, resulting in a difficult evaluation process.

 

Additionally, Dean of Pokhara University Prof. Dr Gyaneshwor Sharma states that currently, the university neither has any formal guidelines for the evaluation of the practicum nor formal policy governing the use of AI in academic work. Nevertheless, he cautions that  instructors should not overlook the use of AI during evaluation. He further adds “since every profession is integrating technology for better results, it is challenging for teachers to play the role of a gatekeeper advocating academic integrity, fairness, originality and creativity but these are crucial steps in the process of learning.”

 

Some of the teachers are worried about the outcome of continuous usage of AI while other questions on their existence as a teacher. Now, can they justify their meaningful presence in the life of students?

 

Rabindra Ghimire, Director of Curriculum Department at PU argues that only true learners will never question the presence of a teacher who not only talks about the reference of the books or scholars. Teachers should be ready to play the role of the coach who is ready for mass crafting, who doesn't limit themselves pointing to literal meaning in the class. Hence, he suggests incorporating activities such as VIVA and Presentation as supplementary activities along with paper writing before the approval of the final draft.

 

The foundational policy to govern and evaluate the usage of AI that sets the road map for handling AI appropriately is National Artificial Intelligence A.I Policy 2025. The policy necessitates accountability and ethical integration from the perspective of data privacy and protection ensuring the ethical and human-Centered use of AI as “guided by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and fostering the development and use of ethical, responsible, and transparent AI systems.” Postulated provisions 8.4 and 8.5 support AI skilled professionals through universities and educational institutions whereas policy 5.5 embraces the approach, regarding AI literacy targeting the students at the basic education level. If implemented, future university goers may develop a culture of AI use, potentially affecting subjects that require critical and creative thinking.

Nevertheless hope lies on the provision 9.9 which describes, “Set up AI Excellence Centres in universities, research institutions, and educational institutions for AI studies, research, and development.” Likewise, provision 9.11 voices for the ethical AI use that needs clear guidelines for and from university to intervene the coping and pasting tendency of students from AI generated content. This is particularly alarming since the university seeks to cultivate critical and creative thinkers in the absence of proper guidelines for teachers at the rampant use of AI in Nepal.