Responsible Institutional Analytics: Interpreting Bias with AI Support

The rapid uptake of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in higher education is reshaping assessment practices and intensifying concerns around academic integrity, fairness, and learning quality. While institutional responses increasingly emphasise policy guidance and ethical principles, there remains limited formal understanding of how collective norms of responsible or opportunistic AI use emerge and stabilise within student cohorts. This paper reframes student AI use in assessment as a coordination problem shaped by peer expectations and assessment design rather than individual compliance alone. We develop a coordination-based evolutionary game-theoretic framework that captures learning value, effort, perceived fairness, and transparency, with institutional AI governance modelled implicitly through reflective assessment incentives. We use analytical results and finite-population simulations to reveal threshold-driven behavioural transitions in student AI use: small, well-calibrated changes in reflective assessment incentives can trigger rapid shifts towards responsible, learning-oriented AI-use norms, whereas weak or misaligned incentives allow opportunistic practices to persist. These non-linear dynamics explain why policy statements alone often fail to change behaviour, while modest assessment redesigns can have disproportionate effects. By providing a mechanism-level account of how assessment structures shape collective AI-use practices, this work offers higher education institutions an analytically grounded tool for Future Facing Learning, supporting proportionate, pedagogy-led AI governance without reliance on surveillance or punitive enforcement.

Business analytics education requires diverse datasets to support different learning objectives, student backgrounds, and analytical tasks. Real-world data can be difficult to obtain and offer limited flexibility for adapting a case to a particular course. Even when suitable data are available, instructors must investigate the patterns, verify the results, and prepare assignments and reference solutions, requiring substantial time and effort. The use of large language models (LLMs) introduces an additional concern about training data contamination. Widely used public datasets often have extensive tutorials and worked analyses that models may have encountered during training. Students may therefore receive explanations drawn from existing analyses without practicing how to investigate unfamiliar data in collaboration with AI. This paper presents DataCanvas-EDU, an agentic framework for instructor-guided synthetic data generation in business analytics education. Instructors specify teaching goals and intended patterns through conversation, while an AI agent writes generation code, checks the resulting data, and prepares assignments, reference analyses, and rubrics. Four phases, Plan, Create, Verify / Test Analysis, and Evaluate, organize the process and support instructor review and revision. The framework is intended to simplify case preparation while creating opportunities for students to investigate newly designed patterns with AI. We illustrate the approach with WindowDash, a food delivery case containing 15,000 orders and nine designed patterns. DataCanvas-EDU is packaged as a reusable AI Agent Skill for compatible agent environments, with the package and installation instructions available at https://github.com/BANG23333/datacanvas-edu

This study reports findings from a cross-sectional survey (n = 72) of higher education practitioners examining beliefs, behaviors, and institutional conditions related to artificial intelligence (AI) integration in teaching and learning. Grounded in the DOT Framework, which integrates design thinking and open systems theory, the study investigates AI familiarity, usage patterns, design-oriented practices, and pedagogical beliefs. Exploratory factor analysis of 19 belief items identified a three-factor structure: AI Functional Capabilities, Oversight and Governance, and Instructor Collaboration and Planning (α = .90). Results indicate that practitioners hold favorable views of AI as a pedagogical support while maintaining strong commitments to human oversight and critical evaluation. Reported practices emphasize iterative prompting and content generation, with less consistent use of needs assessment and feedback loops. Institutional barriers including limited policy, training, and infrastructure were widely reported. These findings provide preliminary empirical support for the DOT Framework as a descriptive model of practitioner beliefs and practices, while also highlighting gaps between design-oriented theory and current implementation. The study contributes an initial measurement structure and identifies directions for confirmatory validation and outcome-based research linking AI-supported design practices to instructional quality.