Integrity and Technology: Rethinking Learning Culture

Jude Mathurine

This was the central theme explored by Jude Mathurine, lecturer at Mandela University’s Department of Media and Communication, during the latest edition of the Faculty of Humanities’ increasingly popular AI Coffee Chats.

His talk, titled Assessment in the Academy in the Age of AI – A Burning Platform, was practical yet deeply reflective. He called on universities to move beyond fear and confusion toward clarity and shared responsibility.

Mathurine opened with a simple but sharp point: digital tools have made learning more flexible and accessible, but they have also blurred the line between human effort and machine assistance.

“Several universities are already experimenting with frameworks that define varying levels of technological assistance in coursework. Some tasks allow no assistance, others limited support, and a few full integrations,” said Mathurine.

He explained that this approach helps students reflect on their own habits while building awareness around accountability.

However, he noted that implementing such systems requires more effort, not less – and balancing learning, integrity, efficiency and fairness, particularly since AI detection software cannot entirely be trusted. Redesigning assessments, training lecturers, and rebuilding tutorial culture take time and commitment.

Tutorials, he argued, are now more important than ever, they are where learning becomes visible; where students speak, reason, and demonstrate how their thinking takes shape.

Mbongisi Dyantyi,  Philosophy

He further proposed that assessments should not only measure what students know but also trace how they arrive at their conclusions.

“Drafts, notes, and oral reflections can serve as proof of authorship, helping restore trust in student work,” said Mathurine.

In his view, education should shift from producing “technology-proof” assignments to fostering learning-focused assessment.

Mathurine also addressed a challenge many institutions overlook: inconsistency within departments.

Lungelo Manona, Media & Communication

“Are lecturers even in the same department talking to each other?” he asked, noting that when expectations differ from one classroom to another, confusion grows, and integrity weakens.

“Lecturers need proper training to make sure they understand AI better than their students do — not just to use it, but to see where it helps and where it causes problems.”

“This kind of know-how will also help them design ‘AI-resilient’ courses that protect the quality of learning. At the same time, universities need to put together clear, practical and practicable guidelines on how to set fair assignments in the age of AI, and how to deal with the rise in cheating or misuse.”

He cautioned that if these challenges aren’t managed properly, they could affect the value of degrees when checked by watchdogs like the Council on Higher Education.

Beyond the classroom, he called attention to academic culture itself.

“Learning happens everywhere, not only in formal spaces. Residences, peer groups, and online communities all shape how students think about honesty and responsibility,” he said. Urging universities to recognise this if they want to strengthen integrity beyond compliance.

He concluded by acknowledging the ongoing development of literacy modules for both staff and students. While these efforts won’t solve every problem, they represent an important step toward creating realistic, inclusive systems.

“Education provides literacy, but it doesn’t provide ethics” he said.

The discussion closed on that note, a reminder that the task ahead is not to avoid technology, but to humanise it. Institutions must build environments where values guide learning, not fear. The goal is not to control how students use new tools, but to teach them why integrity still matters even when no one is watching.