The Double Crisis Integrity of Evaluation and Efficacy of Pedagogy in the Era of Generative AI
Main Article Content
Abstract
The advent of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools is provoking a seismic event in the academic world, triggering a "double crisis" that impacts both the integrity of evaluation and the efficacy of consolidated pedagogical methods. This article analyzes the nature of this crisis, examining the specific challenges faced by students, from the risk of atrophy of critical thinking to the difficult management of technological plagiarism, and by faculty, who are called to radically rethink their roles as evaluators and educators, as well as by institutions, prompted to rethink tools and formative objectives. The response to the crisis cannot be mere prohibition, but a redesign of assignments and the promotion of new competencies, transforming the educator from a "guardian of knowledge" to a "curator of critical thinking" in the new ecosystem where man and machine are destined for a profound interaction.
Article Details

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license is the most permissive Creative Commons license. It allows others to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon your work, even for commercial purposes, as long as they give you credit for the original creation.
How to Cite
References
Cotton, D.R.E., Cotton, P.A., Shipway, J.R., “Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT”, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, no. 61(2) (2023): 228-239. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148.
Dacquino, P.O., “Insegnare a pensare criticamente: Il metodo socratico”, Forum. Supplement to Acta Philosophica, no. 8 (2022). https://doi.org/10.17421/2498-9746-08-03.
Dalalah, D., Dalalah, O. M.A., “The false positives and false negatives of generative AI detection tools in education and academic research: The case of ChatGPT”, The International Journal of Management Education, no. 21(2): art. 100822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100822.
Floridi, L. A., “Conjecture on a Fundamental Trade-Off Between Certainty and Scope in Symbolic and Generative AI”, Philosophy & Technology, no. 38 (2025): art. 93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-025-00927-z.
Laudadio, A., “Ehi ChatGPT, ridefinisci ontologicamente la pedagogia e la formazione!”, Lifelong, Lifewide Learning, Vol 23 no. 46 (2025): 15-27. https://doi.org/10.19241/lll.v23i46.986.
Liang, H. et al., “GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writers”, Patterns, no. 4(7) (2023): art. 100779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2023.100779.
Morales García, W. C. et al., “Development and validation of a scale for dependence on artificial intelligence in university students”, Frontiers in Education, no. 9 (2024): art. 1323898. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1323898
Oravec, J.A., “Artificial Intelligence Implications for Academic Cheating: Expanding the Dimensions of Responsible Human-AI Collaboration with ChatGPT and Bard”, Journal of Interactive Learning Research, no. 34(2) (2023): 213-237.
Ramírez Fueyo, F., “Los Ejercicios Espirituales como fuente inspiradora de la pedagogía ignaciana”, Ignaziana no. 36 (2023): 5-52.
Tan, M.J.T., Maravilla N.M.A.T., “Shaping integrity: why generative artificial intelligence does not have to undermine education”, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence no. 7 (2024). https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2024.1471224.
Unesco, Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research. Paris (2023). https://doi.org/10.54675/EWZM9535.
Ziwei J.I. et al., “Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation”, ACM Computing Surveys, no. 55(12) (2023): 1-38. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2202.03629.
Wangdi, T. et al., K., “Using ChatGPT as an assessment tool in education: A systematic literature review of practices and limitations”, Issues in Educational Research, no. 35(2) (2025): 818-837. http://www.iier.org.au/iier35/wangdi.pdf.