In the wake of ChatGPT: Early reflections on marking open-book online accounting assessments

Oluwatoyin Dosumu, Vlad-Andrei Porumb, Anne Stafford*, Alison Zimmer

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

The release of ChatGPT-3.5 as a large-scale, easily accessible Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) tool for students to use makes it harder for accounting academics to ignore the ‘wicked problem’ that AI potentially creates for disruption in accounting education. We used a retrospective collaborative autoethnographic (RCA) methodology and critical reflection theory in our reflective perceptions-based study of the marking process for an open-book online accounting exam that took place in January 2023. Concerned about the impact of ChatGPT-3.5 on student answers, we drew on our collective experiences to manage the uncertainty we felt, drawing up some guidelines to help us navigate through the marking process. We did not perceive high use of ChatGPT-3.5, noting that it was not capable of producing high-quality answers and finding that exam marks were lower than in previous years. Given the rapid improvements in GenAI tools since then, we reflect on how accounting assessment should embrace the new educational paradigm that a powerful AI revolution imposes. We consider how to manage continuously evolving disruptive AI for accounting assessment going forward and include a brief reflection of changes we have made to incorporate AI in teaching, learning and assessment on our module for following years.
Original languageEnglish
JournalAccounting Education
Early online date7 Apr 2025
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 7 Apr 2025

Keywords

  • ChatGPT
  • assessment
  • mark descriptors
  • accounting education
  • retrospective collaborative autoethnography
  • critical reflection theory

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'In the wake of ChatGPT: Early reflections on marking open-book online accounting assessments'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this