Generative Artificial Intelligence in Accounting Education: A Multi-Layer Conceptual Framework for Assessment Redesign and Responsible Use in Higher Education
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70568/ujfiiai.3.1.3Keywords:
Accounting education, Assessment redesign, Generative artificial intelligence, Academic integrity, AI literacy, Higher educationAbstract
The generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools are now able to answer many of the accounting assessment questions, and this situation creates a serious challenge for the accounting education in the universities. On one side, the accounting graduates need to learn how to use the GenAI because the accounting profession is adopting the AI in the auditing, the reporting, and the analysis. On the other side, the uncontrolled use of the GenAI may weaken the learning of the students and the integrity of the assessments, and the recent evidence of 2025 and 2026 shows that the unguided use can improve the product of the students while weakening their learning. The objective of this paper is to develop a conceptual framework that guides the accounting departments in the integration of the GenAI in a responsible way. The paper follows a conceptual research design based on a structured integrative review of the literature on the GenAI in the higher education, the accounting education, the assessment, and the academic integrity. The proposed framework consists from three layers, which are the institutional policy layer, the curriculum and assessment layer, and the pedagogical practice layer, and it suggests five propositions that link these layers with the learning outcomes. The framework argues that the constructively aligned assessment redesign, the integration of the AI literacy within the accounting courses, the competence of the educators, and the self-regulated use of the students are the main conditions for the positive effect of the GenAI.
References
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
Bastani, H., Bastani, O., Sungu, A., Ge, H., Kabakcı, Ö., & Mariman, R. (2025). Generative AI without guardrails can harm learning: Evidence from high school mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(26), Article e2422633122. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2422633122
Bearman, M., & Luckin, R. (2020). Preparing university assessment for a world with AI: Tasks for human intelligence. In M. Bearman, P. Dawson, R. Ajjawi, J. Tai, & D. Boud (Eds.), Re-imagining university assessment in a digital world (pp. 49–63). Springer.
Bearman, M., Ryan, J., & Ajjawi, R. (2023). Discourses of artificial intelligence in higher education: A critical literature review. Higher Education, 86(2), 369–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00937-2
Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138871
Chan, C. K. Y. (2023). A comprehensive AI policy education framework for university teaching and learning. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20, Article 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00408-3
Corbin, T., Dawson, P., & Liu, D. (2025). Talk is cheap: Why structural assessment changes are needed for a time of GenAI. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 50(7), 1087–1097. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2025.2503964
Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2024). Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(2), 228–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148
Dai, Y., Liu, A., & Lim, C. P. (2023). Reconceptualizing ChatGPT and generative AI as a student-driven innovation in higher education. Procedia CIRP, 119, 84–90.
Dawson, P. (2021). Defending assessment security in a digital world: Preventing e-cheating and supporting academic integrity in higher education. Routledge.
Fan, Y., Tang, L., Le, H., Shen, K., Tan, S., Zhao, Y., Shen, Y., Li, X., & Gašević, D. (2025). Beware of metacognitive laziness: Effects of generative artificial intelligence on learning motivation, processes, and performance. British Journal of Educational Technology, 56(2), 489–530. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13544
Gerlich, M. (2025). AI tools in society: Impacts on cognitive offloading and the future of critical thinking. Societies, 15(1), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15010006
Gilson, L. L., & Goldberg, C. B. (2015). Editors' comment: So, what is a conceptual paper? Group & Organization Management, 40(2), 127–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601115576425
International Accounting Education Standards Board. (2019). Handbook of international education pronouncements. International Federation of Accountants.
Jaakkola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: Four approaches. AMS Review, 10(1–2), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0
Kabudi, T., Pappas, I., & Olsen, D. H. (2021). AI-enabled adaptive learning systems: A systematic mapping of the literature. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, 100017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100017
Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., et al. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
Kokina, J., & Davenport, T. H. (2017). The emergence of artificial intelligence: How automation is changing auditing. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting, 14(1), 115–122. https://doi.org/10.2308/jeta-51730
Kotb, A., Abdel-Kader, M., Allam, A., Halabi, H., & Franklin, E. (2019). Information technology in the British and Irish undergraduate accounting degrees. Accounting Education, 28(5), 445–464.
Lawson, R. A., Blocher, E. J., Brewer, P. C., Cokins, G., Sorensen, J. E., Stout, D. E., Sundem, G. L., Wolcott, S. K., & Wouters, M. J. F. (2014). Focusing accounting curricula on students' long-run careers: Recommendations for an integrated competency-based framework for accounting education. Issues in Accounting Education, 29(2), 295–317. https://doi.org/10.2308/iace-50673
Lodge, J. M., Howard, S., Bearman, M., Dawson, P., & Associates. (2023). Assessment reform for the age of artificial intelligence. Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency.
MacInnis, D. J. (2011). A framework for conceptual contributions in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 136–154. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.75.4.136
Mahardika, D. H., Herlani, I. S., Putri, U. F. A., Rifalia, S., Nurul, H., Nurhaini, N. K., Herlambang, A. R., & Oghenero, I. R. (2026). GenAI adoption, academic integrity, and responsible use among first-year accounting students. Journal of Strategic Behaviour Accounting, 2(1), 1–10.
Mcbride, K., & Rose, J. (2026). Let's chat about ChatGPT: Exploring accounting educators' perceptions of nascent generative AI. Accounting Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2026.2657407
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
Moll, J., & Yigitbasioglu, O. (2019). The role of internet-related technologies in shaping the work of accountants: New directions for accounting research. The British Accounting Review, 51(6), 100833.
Rudolph, J., Tan, S., & Tan, S. (2023). ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education? Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 342–363. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.9
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
Strzelecki, A. (2024). To use or not to use ChatGPT in higher education? A study of students' acceptance and use of technology. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(9), 5142–5155.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4
Tharapos, M., Lau, K. H., Peszynski, K., Nguyen, L. A., Magdziarz, S., Morton, E., Borg, V., & Duan, S. (2025). Generative AI in accounting education: Evaluating ChatGPT's role in assessment and skill development. Accounting and Finance, 65(3), 3231–3244. https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.70051
Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283
Tsiligkiris, V., Kéri, A., & Bowyer, D. (2026). Cross-country insights into students' perceptions and applications of generative AI in accounting higher education. Accounting Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2026.2688988
UNESCO. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO.
Wood, D. A., Achhpilia, M. P., Adams, M. T., Aghazadeh, S., Akinyele, K., Akpan, M., Allee, K. D., Allen, A. M., Almer, E. D., Ames, D., et al. (2023). The ChatGPT artificial intelligence chatbot: How well does it answer accounting assessment questions? Issues in Accounting Education, 38(4), 81–108.
Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education: Where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16, Article 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Ibrahim Nehad Ineizeh
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
