A student-staff partnership evaluated ChatGPT-generated output in response to diverse coursework assessments on an undergraduate medical sciences programme¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitativer2·q1
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2028: tool and model accuracy changes quickly
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q1 i? A collaborative student-staff partnership focused on evaluating ChatGPT-generated output produced in response to diverse coursework assessments on an undergraduate medical sciences programme. → Williams 2025
Evidence¶
Williams 2025¶
Williams, A., & Ingle, E. (2025). Assessment design through co-creation: Student-staff partnership in evaluating the impact of artificial intelligence. International Journal for Students as Partners, 9(1), 214–226. https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v9i1.5802
q1 · i? · qualitative · r2
Case study of a student-staff partnership on an undergraduate medical sciences programme; per the abstract, the partnership "focused on evaluating ChatGPT-generated output in response to diverse coursework assessments". No effect sizes are reported.
"The case study presents a collaborative partnership which focused on evaluating ChatGPT-generated output in response to diverse coursework assessments on an undergraduate medical sciences programme."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- A student-staff co-creation initiative explored generative AI technologies in the context of higher education assessments — a broader claim this one bears on
- ChatGPT produced submissions judged of passing quality for 36 of 40 undergraduate psychology assessments (90%) — related
- GenAI implementation research with medical students expanded rapidly after 2024 and is dominated by OpenAI models across controlled and comparative designs — related
- Students and staff co-designed evaluation criteria, and resultant challenges were explored through dialogue, interview, and thematic analysis — related
- The value of the student-staff collaboration was explored from student, staff, and institutional perspectives, with benefits, limitations, and recommendations presented — a broader claim this one bears on
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
partnership-evaluated-chatgpt-output-coursework-assessments |
title |
A student-staff partnership evaluated ChatGPT-generated output in response to diverse coursework assessments on an undergraduate medical sciences programme |
description |
A student-staff partnership evaluated ChatGPT-generated output in response to diverse coursework assessments on an undergraduate medical sciences programme |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2025 |
recheck_by |
2028 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-12 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — williams-2025 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.