Business, Economics and Law AI Debate

This assessment provides an authentic learning experience by simulating the informed, evidence-based discussions professionals undertake when evaluating emerging technologies. It also promotes active and collaborative learning through questioning, responding, listening and building on the contributions of others. The RiPPLE activity extends this dialogue by requiring students to identify strengths, suggest improvements and contribute additional perspectives to their peers’ reflections.

The task develops critical literacy by positioning AI as both the subject of debate and a tool for challenging students’ thinking. In the reflection, students assess an AI-generated counterargument, explain where they agree or disagree, and justify their conclusions using disciplinary knowledge and evidence.

The task also supports inclusive participation by providing debate questions in advance, opportunities to practise, a consistent structure for developing arguments and clear expectations for participation. Students are assessed on their preparation, quality of ideas, use of evidence and engagement with the discussion, rather than grammatical accuracy, accent or polished delivery.

Careful facilitation is required to ensure students have equitable opportunities to ask questions, respond and contribute to the discussion. The teaching team also needs clear processes for allocating debate propositions, recording individual contributions and supporting students who complete the assessment at an alternative time.

Students may initially find it challenging to respond spontaneously without reading from prepared notes. Practice activities, clear timeframes and modelling of concise argument structures can help students develop confidence with the format.

The reflective component requires clear guidance about the role of AI. Students need to understand that AI is used to challenge their thinking rather than write the reflection, and that the quality of their evaluation and independent judgement is more important than whether the AI-generated response is correct.

• Provide the debate propositions in advance so students can prepare relevant evidence, questions, examples and possible responses.
• Provide opportunities to practise and rehearse before the in-class debate so students become familiar with the format and participation expectations. Teach a simple argument structure, such as Point, Evidence, Explanation and Link (PEEL), to support concise and evidence-based contributions.
• Ask students to anticipate opposing arguments and practise responding through agreement, disagreement or nuanced critique.
• Clearly explain how AI may be used during preparation and reflection, including the expectation that students independently evaluate AI-generated claims.
• Use a facilitator (tutor) to introduce each debate proposition, manage participation and summarise the key ideas arising from the discussion.
• Structure the RiPPLE activity so students complete their reflection and self-evaluation before reviewing at least two peer submissions.

• LO4. Apply current Information Systems issues and effectively communicate strategic recommendations for leveraging business data for competitive advantage.

The live, recorded debate provides direct evidence of each student’s ability to formulate questions, respond to peers and contribute meaningfully to an unfolding discussion. Although students may prepare collaboratively, they are assessed individually on their observable contributions.

AI use is incorporated transparently into the reflective component. Students use an AI-generated counterargument as material for evaluation but must explain their own position, assess the quality of the response and justify their conclusions using course concepts and evidence. This makes each student’s reasoning and independent judgement central to the task.

The RiPPLE activity provides further evidence of engagement through individual reflection, self-evaluation and peer feedback. The teaching team assesses the reflection separately and reviews students’ wider participation, including the quality of the feedback they provide.