Grade 11: The AI Researcher’s Oath: Ethical Frameworks for Academic Integrity
Created byNadine Baki
70 views1 downloads

Grade 11: The AI Researcher’s Oath: Ethical Frameworks for Academic Integrity

Grade 11EnglishMathScienceSocial StudiesHistoryForeign LanguageArtPhysical EducationHealthTechnologyComputer ScienceEconomicsReligious StudiesEnvironmental ScienceBiologyChemistryPhysicsGeographySociology4 days
Grade 11 students navigate the complexities of modern scholarship by developing a formal "AI Researcher’s Oath" to govern the ethical use of artificial intelligence in high-stakes academic projects. By investigating algorithmic bias, identifying "hallucinations," and mapping the boundaries of authorship, students learn to treat AI as a cognitive partner rather than a content generator. The project culminates in the creation of a universal transparency protocol and ethical framework that aligns with international scholarly standards for original research.
Artificial IntelligenceAcademic IntegrityEthical FrameworksTheory of KnowledgeResearch MethodologyAuthorshipAlgorithmic Bias
Want to create your own PBL Recipe?Use our AI-powered tools to design engaging project-based learning experiences for your students.
📝

Inquiry Framework

Question Framework

Driving Question

The overarching question that guides the entire project.How can we, as ethical scholars, develop a universal "AI Researcher’s Oath" that empowers students to use AI as a cognitive partner while safeguarding the principles of authorship, originality, and truth across all academic disciplines?

Essential Questions

Supporting questions that break down major concepts.
  • How can we, as student-researchers, establish an 'AI Researcher’s Oath' that balances technological innovation with academic integrity in the Extended Essay? (Driving Question)
  • What defines 'originality' and 'authorship' in a world where human and machine intelligence coexist? (TOK Link)
  • How does the ethical application of AI differ when conducting quantitative research (Math/Science) versus qualitative analysis (History/Literature)?
  • What are the specific risks of 'algorithmic bias' and 'hallucinations' in high-stakes academic research, and how can they be mitigated?
  • How can we develop a citation system that transparently acknowledges AI assistance without diminishing the researcher's contribution?
  • In what ways can AI be used as a 'cognitive partner' rather than a 'content generator' during the five stages of the EE process?
  • How do different global academic institutions define 'academic honesty' in the digital age, and where does our proposed oath fit within that landscape?

Standards & Learning Goals

Learning Goals

By the end of this project, students will be able to:
  • Synthesize a comprehensive "AI Researcher’s Oath" that defines ethical boundaries for LLM usage across diverse academic disciplines, specifically for the IB Extended Essay process.
  • Evaluate the philosophical implications of AI on authorship and originality, applying Theory of Knowledge (TOK) frameworks to distinguish between human-led inquiry and machine-generated content.
  • Develop and implement a technical verification protocol to detect and mitigate algorithmic bias and AI hallucinations in both quantitative (Math/Science) and qualitative (History/Arts) research.
  • Create a standardized citation and documentation system that transparently acknowledges AI as a 'cognitive partner' while maintaining the researcher's primary intellectual ownership.
  • Analyze global institutional policies on academic honesty to justify the proposed framework's alignment with international scholarly standards.

ISTE Standards for Students

ISTE 1.2.b
Secondary
Students demonstrate an understanding of and respect for the rights and obligations of using and sharing intellectual property.Reason: The core of this project is defining the ethical use of AI-generated intellectual property in high-stakes academic research.
ISTE 1.3.b
Secondary
Evaluate the accuracy, perspective, credibility and relevance of information, media, data or other resources.Reason: Students must specifically address AI hallucinations and bias, requiring them to evaluate the credibility of AI-generated data.

IB Theory of Knowledge Framework

IB TOK: Knowledge and Technology
Secondary
How does technology shape the way that we construct and share knowledge? This theme focuses on the impact of technology on knowledge and the knower.Reason: The project uses TOK principles to explore how LLMs influence the creation and validation of knowledge in various disciplines.

IB Diploma Programme Extended Essay Guide

IB EE Policy: Academic Integrity
Secondary
The student must demonstrate academic integrity in all aspects of the research and writing of the Extended Essay.Reason: The project is specifically designed to support the IB requirement for academic honesty within the Extended Essay process.

Entry Events

Events that will be used to introduce the project to students

The Disqualification Tribunal

Students enter a courtroom setting where a mock 'Academic Integrity Hearing' is underway for a fictional student whose IB Diploma is being revoked due to 'ambiguous AI assistance.' This high-stakes simulation forces students to debate where 'helpful editing' ends and 'academic fraud' begins, highlighting the urgent need for the very framework they will create.
📚

Portfolio Activities

Portfolio Activities

These activities progressively build towards your learning goals, with each submission contributing to the student's final portfolio.
Activity 1

The Authorship Audit: Mapping the Human-Machine Frontier

In this foundational activity, students explore the philosophical boundaries of creativity and ownership. By analyzing various case studies of AI-generated content (art, code, and essays), students will determine where human intellectual labor ends and machine generation begins. This activity sets the stage for defining the 'originality' required in the Extended Essay.

Steps

Here is some basic scaffolding to help students complete the activity.
1. Examine three 'blind' samples of research abstracts: one human-written, one AI-generated, and one co-created. Rank them based on perceived 'authenticity.'
2. Participate in a Socratic Seminar discussing the prompt: 'If an AI suggests the research question, is the investigation still yours?'
3. Map various research tasks (brainstorming, outlining, drafting, citing) onto a spectrum from 'Purely Human' to 'Purely Synthetic.'

Final Product

What students will submit as the final product of the activityA 'Spectrum of Authorship' Visual Map and a TOK-style reflection paper (500 words) defining the student's personal stance on what constitutes an 'original thought' in a human-AI collaboration.

Alignment

How this activity aligns with the learning objectives & standardsAligns with IB Theory of Knowledge (TOK) Knowledge and Technology theme. It specifically addresses how technology shapes the way we construct knowledge and explores the concept of the 'knower' in the age of AI.
Activity 2

The Hallucination Hunt: Critical Evaluation of Synthetic Data

Students will act as 'Digital Coroners' to dissect AI-generated outputs for 'hallucinations' (fake citations or facts) and algorithmic bias. They will compare how these errors manifest differently in quantitative fields (Math/Science) versus qualitative fields (History/Literature).

Steps

Here is some basic scaffolding to help students complete the activity.
1. Select a complex topic related to your potential EE subject (e.g., Quantum Mechanics or Post-Colonial Literature).
2. Prompt an LLM to provide a list of five scholarly sources and a summary of the current debate on that topic.
3. Cross-reference every fact and citation against library databases (JSTOR, Google Scholar) to identify 'hallucinations.'
4. Analyze the tone of the AI response for Western-centric or gender-based bias, documenting findings in the dossier.

Final Product

What students will submit as the final product of the activityAn 'AI Fact-Check Dossier' that identifies at least three specific errors or biases in an AI-generated research summary and provides a 'Verification Protocol' for future use.

Alignment

How this activity aligns with the learning objectives & standardsAligns with ISTE Standard 1.3.b (Evaluate the accuracy, perspective, credibility, and relevance of information). It forces students to confront the technical limitations of LLMs.
Activity 3

The Cognitive Partner Lab: Mastering Transparency and Citation

Moving from theory to practice, students will develop a system for documenting their 'prompts' as part of their research methodology. This activity transforms AI from a 'cheating tool' into a 'cognitive partner' by creating a trail of intellectual breadcrumbs.

Steps

Here is some basic scaffolding to help students complete the activity.
1. Experiment with 'Chain-of-Thought' prompting to refine a research question, saving every iteration of the prompt.
2. Develop a 'Contribution Statement' formula (e.g., 'AI was used to suggest structural outlines, but all arguments and source selections are original').
3. Design a citation style that includes the AI model used, the date of the prompt, and the specific output received.

Final Product

What students will submit as the final product of the activityA 'Transparency Appendix' template that includes a Prompt Log, a 'Contribution Statement' (explaining exactly how AI was used), and a specialized citation format for AI interactions.

Alignment

How this activity aligns with the learning objectives & standardsAligns with ISTE Standard 1.2.b (Respect for intellectual property) and the IB EE Policy on Academic Integrity. It focuses on the mechanics of transparency.
Activity 4

The Architect’s Oath: Constructing the Global Integrity Framework

Students will synthesize their findings into a formal 'AI Researcher’s Oath.' This framework will serve as a global standard that can be adopted by schools to govern the ethical use of AI in high-stakes research projects like the Extended Essay.

Steps

Here is some basic scaffolding to help students complete the activity.
1. Review the 'Authorship Audit,' 'Fact-Check Dossier,' and 'Transparency Logs' to identify core ethical principles.
2. Draft 'Articles of Conduct' that specify 'Approved' vs. 'Prohibited' AI uses for different EE subjects (e.g., using AI for data cleaning in Bio vs. thematic analysis in English).
3. Compare the draft Oath against current academic honesty policies from major universities (e.g., Oxford, MIT) to ensure global alignment.
4. Finalize the Oath and present it in a professional format (Digital Charter or Printed Scroll) for 'ratification' by the class.

Final Product

What students will submit as the final product of the activityThe 'Global AI Researcher’s Oath'—a formal, multi-sectioned framework including a Preamble, Articles of Conduct, a Subject-Specific Ethics Matrix, and a Pledge of Integrity.

Alignment

How this activity aligns with the learning objectives & standardsAligns with IB EE Policy: Academic Integrity and the goal of analyzing global institutional policies. It represents the synthesis of all learning goals into a final governing document.
🏆

Rubric & Reflection

Portfolio Rubric

Grading criteria for assessing the overall project portfolio

The AI Researcher’s Oath: Global Academic Integrity Rubric

Category 1

Ethical AI Leadership & Framework Development

Evaluation of the student's ability to navigate the ethical, philosophical, and technical challenges of using AI in high-stakes academic research.
Criterion 1

Philosophical Foundations of Authorship

Analyzes the boundaries between human intellectual labor and machine-generated content, specifically applying TOK concepts of the 'knower' and 'shared knowledge.'

Exemplary
4 Points

Demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the human-machine frontier; reflection paper provides a nuanced, philosophical stance on 'originality' that deeply integrates TOK frameworks and clearly defines the role of the individual researcher.

Proficient
3 Points

Demonstrates a thorough understanding of authorship; reflection paper effectively uses TOK terminology to distinguish between human and AI roles in knowledge construction with clear, logical arguments.

Developing
2 Points

Shows an emerging understanding of authorship; reflection paper makes basic distinctions between human and AI work but lacks philosophical depth or consistent application of TOK concepts.

Beginning
1 Points

Shows initial understanding; reflection paper is largely descriptive, struggles to define personal stance on originality, and provides minimal connection to TOK themes.

Criterion 2

Technical Verification & Bias Detection

Identifies and analyzes AI hallucinations and algorithmic biases in research outputs across various disciplines using a rigorous verification protocol.

Exemplary
4 Points

The Fact-Check Dossier identifies subtle and complex errors; verification protocol is exceptionally robust, utilizing multiple high-quality databases (JSTOR, etc.) and provides a profound analysis of cross-disciplinary bias.

Proficient
3 Points

The Fact-Check Dossier identifies clear hallucinations and biases; provides a functional verification protocol that demonstrates effective critical evaluation of AI-generated data.

Developing
2 Points

The dossier identifies some obvious AI errors; verification protocol is partially developed or inconsistently applied across different subjects (e.g., Math vs. History).

Beginning
1 Points

Dossier provides insufficient evidence of fact-checking; identification of hallucinations is inaccurate or missing, and the verification process is unclear or superficial.

Criterion 3

Methodological Transparency & Citation

Creates a transparent system for documenting AI interactions, including prompt engineering logs and innovative citation formats that acknowledge the AI as a cognitive partner.

Exemplary
4 Points

Develops a meticulous Transparency Appendix with a detailed 'breadcrumb trail' of prompts; 'Contribution Statement' and citation style are innovative, professional, and ensure absolute academic integrity.

Proficient
3 Points

Develops a clear and usable Prompt Log; citation system and Contribution Statement are transparent and appropriately acknowledge AI assistance in line with IB EE requirements.

Developing
2 Points

Transparency documentation is incomplete; prompt logs are vague and the citation format for AI interactions is inconsistent or lacks necessary technical detail.

Beginning
1 Points

Provides minimal documentation of the research process; 'Contribution Statement' is missing or ambiguous, failing to distinguish between student work and AI output.

Criterion 4

Policy Synthesis & Framework Design

Synthesizes research into a formal, multi-sectioned ethical framework that aligns with global academic standards and addresses subject-specific nuances.

Exemplary
4 Points

The 'Architect’s Oath' is a professional-grade framework; includes a sophisticated Subject-Specific Ethics Matrix and demonstrates exceptional alignment with policies from top-tier global institutions.

Proficient
3 Points

The 'Architect’s Oath' is a comprehensive and well-organized framework; includes clear Articles of Conduct and a functional Ethics Matrix that covers major subject groups.

Developing
2 Points

The 'Architect’s Oath' includes basic ethical guidelines but lacks specific detail in the Ethics Matrix or fails to align clearly with broader institutional policies.

Beginning
1 Points

The final product is incomplete or disorganized; the Oath consists of generic statements without clear application to high-stakes academic research like the EE.

Reflection Prompts

End-of-project reflection questions to get students to think about their learning
Question 1

How has your definition of 'originality' evolved after mapping the spectrum of authorship? To what extent can an idea be considered 'yours' if its initial spark was generated by an algorithm?

Text
Required
Question 2

How confident do you feel in your ability to apply the 'AI Researcher’s Oath' and the 'Verification Protocol' to your own Extended Essay research this year?

Scale
Required
Question 3

Based on your 'Hallucination Hunt' and 'Subject-Specific Matrix,' which academic discipline do you believe is most vulnerable to the unethical use of AI?

Multiple choice
Required
Options
Quantitative Research (Math/Science - focus on data/hallucination)
Qualitative Analysis (History/Literature - focus on bias/interpretation)
Creative Production (Arts/Music - focus on stylistic mimicry)
Foundational Research (Structuring/Literature Reviews - focus on authorship)
Question 4

Reflecting on the 'Architect’s Oath' you co-created: which specific article or pledge do you find most challenging to uphold personally, and why is that principle vital for the global scholarly community?

Text
Required