## THE EAP-AIAS: ADAPTING THE AI ASSESSMENT SCALE FOR ENGLISH FOR ACADEMIC PURPOSES

## A PREPRINT

Jasper Roe  1* , Mike Perkins  2 , Yulia Tregubova  2

- 1 James Cook University Singapore, Singapore
- 2 British University Vietnam, Vietnam.
- * Corresponding Author: jasper.roe@jcu.edu.au

August 2024

## Abstract

The  rapid  advancement  of  Generative Artificial  Intelligence  (GenAI)  presents  both opportunities and challenges for English for Academic Purposes (EAP) instruction. This paper proposes an adaptation of the AI Assessment Scale (AIAS) specifically tailored for EAP contexts, termed the EAP-AIAS.

This framework aims to provide a structured approach for integrating GenAI tools into EAP assessment practices while maintaining academic integrity and supporting language development. The EAP-AIAS consists of five levels, ranging from 'No AI' to 'Full AI', each delineating appropriate GenAI usage in EAP tasks. We discuss the rationale behind this adaptation, considering the unique needs of language learners and the dual focus of EAP on language proficiency and academic acculturation.

This  paper  explores  potential  applications  of  the  EAP-AIAS  across  various  EAP assessment  types,  including  writing  tasks,  presentations,  and  research  projects.  By offering  a  flexible  framework,  the  EAP-AIAS  seeks  to  empower  EAP  practitioners seeking to deal with the complexities of GenAI integration in education and  prepare students for an  AI-enhanced  academic  and  professional  future.  This adaptation represents  a  step  towards  addressing  the  pressing  need  for  ethical  and  pedagogically sound AI integration in language education.

Keywords: English for Academic Purposes (EAP), AI Assessment Scale (AIAS), Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI), language assessment, language learning technology

## Introduction

Advancements in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Generative AI (GenAI) have sparked intense debate across educational disciplines, with the release of sophisticated AI models such as OpenAI's ChatGPT and Anthropic's Claude representing a shift in the capabilities of language technologies, which shows no sign  of  slowing  down. At  the  time  of  writing,  such  tools  now  encompass  multimodal  elements,  voice generation, and the ability to produce instant and increasingly sophisticated responses that can closely mimic human-like communication. These technologies are poised to become smaller, more cost-efficient, localised, and easily downloadable, meaning that they may soon become an available tool to everyone who owns a smartphone or other communication device, regardless of whether the device has access to the internet.

In  educational  research,  on  one  end  of the  spectrum  are those  who  believe that AI  and  GenAI  represent vague, problematic terms for a set of technologies which are fundamentally about commercial gain, rather than improving the educational process, and bring more harm to the practice of English language teaching than good (Caplan, 2024). Indeed, it has been asked whether these technologies are just 'bullshit spewers' (Rudolph et al., 2023) or merely produce 'botshit' (coherent sounding, counterfactual content) (Hannigan et al., 2024). On the other hand, surveys among students and faculty generally reveal positive attitudes towards these technologies, with some caution and scepticism  (Chan &amp; Hu, 2023; Roe et al., 2024). Among the general population, surveys demonstrate that many feel that GenAI represents a 'world-shifting, permanent, step-change in technology and media', evidenced by the app ChatGPT's ability to garner over 100 million users in as little as two months, shattering previous records (Archer, 2024).

Despite this attention on both ends of the spectrum, GenAI's role in English for Academic Purposes (EAP) remains a relatively unexplored area (Kostka &amp; Toncelli, 2023); however, EAP faces unique and specific challenges in this area due to its dual focus on language proficiency and academic acculturation. EAP is at risk as there is the potential for students to use GenAI tools to disguise authorship, complete tasks without genuine  engagement,  or  rely  on  them  for  automated  machine  translation  of  texts  and  even  classroom discussion,  thereby  potentially  circumventing  the  learning  processes  that  EAP  aims  to  facilitate.  In  the context of EAP assessment specifically, these concerns are acute because of the prevalence of take-home assessments in EAP practice, coupled with the broad focus of EAP assessments assessing not only content but also vocabulary diversity and choice, grammatical range and accuracy, coherence, structure, and other aspects of language proficiency and written expression.

Regarding  take-home  assessments,  although  proctored  examinations  are  common,  EAP  courses  often encompass take-home written assignments, portfolios, and presentations as core components of assessments, as they are authentic and mimic tasks required in later academic studies. These formats, while valuable for developing  academic  skills,  are  particularly  vulnerable  to  GenAI-assisted  completion  or  outright  AI generation, as tools such as ChatGPT can be used to both fix errors in writing and compose essays (GodwinJones,  2022;  Perkins,  2023). As  mentioned  above,  EAP  assessments  also  evaluate  not  only  the  content presented but also the linguistic elements, including grammatical and lexical accuracy, structure, and genrespecific stylistic expressions. Therefore, the ability of GenAI tools to produce grammatically flawless, wellstructured, and sophisticated writing poses a significant challenge to this assessment model. Additionally, EAP assessments often target a range of skills that go beyond a student's linguistic ability, such as critical thinking, academic, and research skills. In a pre-GenAI era, a response essay, for example, would require a student to take several steps involving a certain degree of critical engagement before the actual writing  selecting credible sources, reading and critically engaging with their content, identifying similarities and differences in the views or approaches, synthesising, paraphrasing, and summarising, and then creating their own work. With the assistance of GenAI, however, it is possible to proceed from step one directly to the final step, which potentially not only deprives students of valuable critical involvement in the writing process but  also  intensifies  the  challenges  of  measuring  skills  acquisition  and  enabling  'complex  plagiarism' (Perkins et al., 2019).

At the same time, outside of typical assessment tasks such as exams, essays, or written assignments, other tasks that are given as either formative or summative assessment in EAP may be vulnerable to overreliance on  or  exploitation  of  GenAI,  such  as  writing  annotated  bibliographies,  or  even  producing  posts  in  a

discussion forum or wiki. Even in low-stakes classroom activities, the use of AI translation or transcription software may lead to learners relying on such technologies to understand the meaning of texts, audiovisual material, peers, or instructors, meaning that less focus is given to engaging in unassisted skill development and communication in the target language.

Moreover, in cases where students have been able to use GenAI counter to the guidance of an instructor or institutional  guideline,  it  may  be  impossible  to  prove that such  usage  has taken  place. Although AI  text detection  software  exists,  research  indicates  that  these  tools  are  often  inaccurate,  easily  circumvented (Chaka, 2023, 2024; Perkins et al., 2023; Perkins, Roe, et al., 2024; Weber-Wulff et al., 2023), and potentially biased against speakers of English as an Additional Language (EAL) (Liang et al., 2023). Furthermore, the line between a simple AI-powered writing assistant and an illegitimate overuse that obfuscates authorship is not always clear (Roe et al., 2023). This makes it difficult for educators to reliably identify AI-generated or AI-assisted  work,  further  complicating  the  assessment  process. Although  there  may  be  cases  which  are obvious, for example, a low-proficiency English learner submitting a piece of extremely sophisticated, wellwritten, and grammatically perfect research, with tell-tale 'tortured phrases' characteristic of GenAI writing (Cabanac  et  al.,  2021),  this  in  our  estimation  is  likely  to  represent  a  relatively  uncommon  occurrence. Emerging  GenAI  technologies,  such  as  deepfakes,  pose  additional  ethical  challenges  for  educational institutions, potentially impacting academic integrity, institutional trust, and student privacy (Roe &amp; Perkins, 2024). These concerns highlight the need for a comprehensive ethical framework to guide the integration of AI and GenAI in educational settings.

Another element that draws attention to the need for shared, coherent frameworks for AI use is an evolving discourse in GenAI usage's acceptability, which has shifted from attempts to outright ban the use of such tools in education to a more nuanced acceptance of their value and potential benefits to teaching and learning. In some cases, bans in schools in the U.S. have been hastily repealed as more about GenAI's capabilities and use cases have come to light (Singer, 2023). In higher education, as GenAI tools have become increasingly ubiquitous and sophisticated, many universities and academic publishers are adapting their policies to permit their use, provided it aligns with principles of transparency and accountability (Perkins &amp; Roe, 2023, 2024). The  European  Commission  and  United  Nations  Educational,  Scientific,  and  Cultural  Organization (UNESCO) have also provided guidance documents and policies which emphasise the potential benefits of GenAI  in  research  and  education  (European  Commission,  2024;  Miao  &amp;  Holmes,  2023).  This  shift acknowledges the fact that GenAI is unlikely to be a passing fad and instead represents a new and important technology that will be increasingly deployed in society at large.

Given these conflicting pressures and considerations, and a rapidly developing discourse, there is a need for ethically oriented, easily communicable frameworks for integrating AI tools into EAP, for both teaching and learning and assessment purposes. Such a framework must strike a balance between harnessing the potential benefits of these new technologies and teaching the critical evaluation of their uses and limitations. At the same time, it is of vital importance that assessment strategies accurately reflect learners' true abilities and skill development to maintain the integrity and quality of EAP instruction and outcomes.

With this in mind, this paper proposes an adaptation of the AI Assessment Scale (AIAS) (Furze et al., 2024; Perkins, Furze, et al., 2024) tailored specifically for EAP contexts. Our adapted scale, the EAP-AIAS, aims to provide a flexible tool that acknowledges both the opportunities and challenges presented by AI in EAP as  well  as  a  starting  point  for  further  study, investigation, and  discussion  on the  role  GenAI can  play  in pedagogy  and  assessment  strategy.  By  offering  a  structured  framework  for AI  integration,  we  hope  to empower  EAP  practitioners  to  deal  with  this  complex  set  of  external  pressures  while  maintaining  the integrity and core objectives of EAP instruction. Within this framework, we refer to the scale as being most suited for assessment tasks, but at the same time, the flexibility of the framework would be suitable for all forms of EAP activity, including unassessed and formative assessment tasks given in class or for homework.

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: First, we engage with the current literature on EAP, assessment, technology, and AI to provide a comprehensive background. We then present the adapted AI Assessment Scale (EAP-AIAS), explaining its levels and their applicability to common forms of assessment in EAP. Following this, we discuss the implementation of the EAP-AIAS through a series of potential use

cases.  Finally,  we  conclude  with  a  discussion  of  the  implications  of  our  findings,  acknowledgment  of limitations, and proposals for future research directions.

## The Evolving Landscape of EAP and the Development of GenAI

English for Academic Purposes (EAP) has undergone significant evolution since its emergence as a distinct field in the 1960s. Originating in English for Specific Purposes (ESP), EAP has grown to represent a complex set of social practices within both institutional and global contexts (Charles, 2012). This evolution reflects the changing nature of higher education, the internationalisation of academia, and the growing recognition of the specific language needs of students engaging in English-medium instruction.

Today, the complexity and diversity of EAP contexts encompass a broad spectrum of learners and settings (Hyland  &amp;  Jiang,  2021).  EAP  now  caters  to  English  as  an  Additional  Language  (EAL)  students, undergraduate  and  postgraduate  students,  and  first-language  English  speakers  seeking  to  develop  their academic  language  skills.  It  is  practiced  in  various  settings,  including  pre-sessional  courses,  embedded provision within academic programs, and standalone academic English programs.

Unlike  general  language  acquisition  courses,  EAP's  focus  extends  beyond  solely  developing  linguistic macro-skills (reading, listening, writing, and speaking). Contemporary EAP focuses on the acquisition of the target language for use in specific contexts, for example, in lectures, presentations, and discussions, as well as (although to a lesser extent) study skills, such as techniques and strategies for note-taking or using Virtual Learning Environment discussion boards, and may involve English for General Academic Purposes (EGAP) or English for Specific Academic Purposes (ESAP) (Gillett, 2022). It may also involve teaching elements of culture (Gillett. 2022), and navigating culture-specific differences in learning approaches (Roe &amp; Perkins, 2020). Additionally, EAP may focus on academic literacies, which involve understanding and producing texts within specific academic discourse communities (Lea &amp; Street, 2006), and digital literacies, which are skills for navigating and utilising digital resources and technologies in academic contexts (Hafner, 2019).

The development of GenAI marks a pivotal moment in the teaching, learning, and research of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) (Pack &amp; Maloney, 2023) and, by extension, EAP. Areas of practice that require attention  include  curriculum  design,  integrating AI  literacy  alongside  traditional  language  and  academic skills; assessment methods, developing new approaches to evaluate genuine student work in an AI-assisted environment; pedagogical approaches, adapting teaching methods to leverage AI tools while maintaining a focus on core EAP objectives; and ethical considerations, addressing issues of academic integrity, equity, and the appropriate use of AI in academic contexts.

As EAP is primarily a practical field that focuses on addressing real-life classroom challenges faced by teachers  and  students  (Hyland  &amp;  Jiang,  2021),  GenAI  represents  a  challenge  that  requires  actionable, flexible, and practical solutions. There is increasing recognition of the need to enable students to engage in AI-mediated academic communication (Ou et al., 2024) while simultaneously ensuring that the fundamental goals of language acquisition and academic skill development are not compromised. At the same time, while there are many theoretical affordances for learners using GenAI in EAP, there are many potential limitations.

## Affordances and Limitations of GenAI in EAP

The integration of Generative AI (GenAI) into English for Academic Purposes (EAP) contexts offers a range of potential benefits but also presents significant challenges and limitations. Understanding these affordances and  constraints  is  crucial  for  developing  an  effective  framework  for AI  use  in  EAP  and  identifying  the potential affordances for students and educators.

GenAI tools, particularly advanced chatbots such as ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude, can provide learners with  opportunities  for  meaningful  practice  of  the  target  language,  potentially  enhancing  their  overall proficiency  (Sha,  2009).  Research  has  indicated  that  interactions  with AI  chatbots  can  positively  affect language proficiency by drawing attention to form and improving accuracy (Bibauw et al., 2019). Through sophisticated prompting, GenAI chatbots can play various roles in the learning process, acting as teaching, peer, or teachable agents, offering a flexible learning experience (Kuhail et al., 2023). Research has explored

the  use  of  prompt  engineering  with  EFL  learners  to  craft  human-AI  narratives,  suggesting  a  potential innovation in teaching pedagogy (Woo et al., 2024).

Continuing with AI-powered chatbots, these GenAI applications can provide rich, varied inputs essential for second language acquisition (SLA). The ability to generate diverse examples and explanations can stimulate interest  and contribute  to  overall language  growth  (Kohnke  et al.,  2023), and  GenAI  tools can  generate personalised practice materials and facilitate real-time explanations, supporting diverse learning needs and allowing  for  the  creation  of  tailored  exercises  that  align  with  individual  learner  proficiency  levels  and learning styles.

In  the  context  of  academic  writing,  GenAI  can  assist  with  idea  generation,  vocabulary  enhancement, structural  guidance,  feedback, and  revision. These  features  can  be  particularly  beneficial  for  developing writing skills by offering personalised support throughout the writing process (Xiao &amp; Zhi, 2023). GenAI tools have also shown potential in promoting grit and resilience among L2 students, potentially helping them overcome learning challenges and thrive in their studies (Ghafouri, 2024).

However, the integration of GenAI into EAP presents considerable challenges. There is a risk that students will  accept  erroneous  information  produced  by  GenAI,  which  is  particularly  problematic  in  academic contexts where accuracy and reliability are paramount (Pack &amp; Maloney, 2024). Indeed, GenAI tools mislead humans into  believing  they are  intelligent,  despite  producing  inaccurate,  made-up,  or  unreliable  content (Zhgenti &amp; Holmes, 2023), and at the same time, the information produced by many AI tools is by nature culturally biased and representative of a Eurocentric worldview (Roe, 2024)

AI-generated text or audio content may also be above the proficiency level of many learners, potentially leading to overreliance on AI tools instead of developing their own language skills, which could lead to knowledge loss and a 'monoculture' of academic knowledge (Messeri &amp; Crockett, 2024). As a result of the quality of outputs from GenAI tools, some have called for the teaching of evaluative judgment regarding AI output (Bearman et al., 2024). This also extends to the idea of using GenAI outputs for feedback, and the results of empirical studies suggest that automated writing evaluation from GenAI tools may have a place in English as a New Language (ENL) instruction (Escalante et al., 2023), and that GPT tools can be used for automated essay scoring with L2 writers (Mizumoto &amp; Eguchi, 2023). Dai et al. (2023) was found to provide feedback that was more detailed than that of an instructor, yet showed high levels of agreement  with the marking of the instructor. On the other hand, these systems are at an early stage in language assessment (Chiu et al., 2023), and questions remain over automated markings' ethics, legality, cost, and privacy (Kumar, 2023).

Equity and access issues arise, as not all students have equal access to the necessary technology or premium AI tools, potentially exacerbating existing educational disparities (Kohnke, 2023). Exploitation of workers and monopolistic domination of the GenAI market by companies in the Global North also raises broader questions about the ethics of GenAI in education and society (Zhgenti &amp; Holmes, 2023).

Another question related to embedding GenAI in education is the additional work required by teachers, who must manage and integrate these tools into their teaching practices and stay updated with rapidly evolving AI technologies. In this space, not only does the integration of GenAI into EAP contexts necessitate a careful reconsideration of assessment practices, but also reconsideration of classroom approaches to equip students with the required skills set. While many of the affordances of GenAI in EAP relate to classroom activities and  unassessed  exploration,  the  role  these  tools  should  play  in  formal  assessment  is  a  subject  of  much discussion.

## Addressing GenAI in EAP Assessment

Assessment  has  become  an  increasingly important  topic in  EAP,  with  bibliometric  analysis  showing  an increasing trend in EAP assessment topics in scholarly publications from 1975 to 2019 (Charles, 2022). This growing focus reflects the recognition that assessment is a critical component of EAP pedagogy and program effectiveness.  EAP  assessment  is  inherently  complex  because  of  the  intricate  nature  of  language  and academic  skill  evaluation  (Bruce,  2015).  This  complexity  arises  from  several  factors,  including  the

multidimensional  nature  of  language  proficiency,  integration  of  language  and  content,  genre-specific requirements, and cultural and linguistic diversity of EAP students. EAP assessments must evaluate not only linguistic competence but also the ability to use language appropriately in academic contexts, while also requiring students to demonstrate knowledge of academic subjects or research methodologies.

Several trends have emerged in EAP assessment in recent years. There is a growing shift from an exam culture to a learning culture, with an increasing emphasis on learner-oriented assessment and more formative and continuous assessment methods (Fazel &amp; Ali, 2022). Authentic assessment has gained popularity, with a focus on tasks that reflect real-world academic activities (Uludag &amp; McDonough, 2022). Portfolio-based assessments have also seen growing adoption, including a range of tasks such as summarising texts, creating research proposals, and giving oral presentations (Storch &amp; Tapper, 2009). In addition, technology-enhanced assessment has become more prevalent, incorporating digital tools and platforms to allow for more diverse and interactive assessment tasks.

In this context, GenAI can help create more authentic assessment scenarios, but also raises concerns about academic integrity and the ability to accurately assess individual student capabilities. Traditional assessment methods need to be revised to effectively evaluate language and academic skills using a range of formats and modes of assessment, including those that allow for the critical use and evaluation of AI-generated content. Similarly, the potential for AI tools to provide instant, personalised feedback on assessments could assist  the  feedback  process  but  raises  questions  about  the  quality  and  appropriateness  of AI-generated commentary on student work.

Given these diverse challenges, any framework designed with the integration of GenAI into EAP must make assessment one of the main focal points. We argue that a specific EAP-AIAS framework is necessary to maintain assessment validity, communicate the appropriate use of GenAI to students and teachers, adapt to new  technologies,  and  provide  a  balanced  assessment  profile.  Furthermore,  the  implementation  of  the proposed  EAP-AIAS  should  ensure  that  assessments  remain  valid  measures  of  students'  language  and academic skills in an AI-enhanced environment, support the development of critical thinking and academic skills, and address  issues  of  equity  to  prevent  disadvantaging  certain  groups  of  students  or exacerbating existing educational inequalities. We propose that the AIAS can be adapted for EAP to meet these goals and provide a suitable, flexible framework.

## The AI Assessment Scale (AIAS) and Its Adaptation for EAP

## Overview of the Original AIAS

The AI Assessment Scale (AIAS) was originally conceived by Perkins, Furze, et al. (2024) to help educators in a wide range of disciplines adapt their assessments to the GenAI era. The original scale consists of five levels, ranging from 'No AI' to 'Full AI', designed to guide students on the appropriate use of GenAI tools while adhering to academic integrity principles. Results from a pilot study of the AIAS suggest that the use of  the  scale  at  an  institutional  level  led  to  reduced  cases  of  academic  misconduct,  improved  student outcomes, and improved ethical integration of GenAI tools into assessment strategies (Furze et al., 2024). Various adaptations or translations of this scale have also been developed globally  (Furze, 2024; Kılınç, 2024), demonstrating the potential value of similar tools.

While the original AIAS provides a valuable starting point, the unique needs of EAP necessitate a more tailored approach. EAP's dual focus on language proficiency and academic acculturation  (Hyland, 2018) requires a framework that prioritises language and skill acquisition and ensures that the fundamental goal of developing genuine language skills is not compromised by AI use. Furthermore, an adapted AIAS framework needs to support academic skill development, foster criticality, promote AI literacy, and provide guidelines on the ethical use of AI tools.

## The EAP-Specific AI Assessment Scale (EAP-AIAS)

Our proposed EAP-AIAS builds on the original five-point scale, redefining each level to align it with typical EAP tasks.  By  explicitly  mapping  each  level  to  these  established  EAP  approaches,  the  EAP-AIAS  can provide a more robust and theoretically grounded framework for AI integration in EAP instruction.

| Level                                                         | Description                                                                                                           | Focus                                                                                               | Example Tasks                                                                                                                                                                                       |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Level 1: No AI Use                                            | All language and skills tasks completed without AI assistance.                                                        | Developing core language skills and academic competencies independently.                            | Traditional examinations, in-class presentations, in-class comprehension and critical thinking tasks.                                                                                               |
| Level 2: AI-Assisted Language Input                           | AI used to generate or augment input materials.                                                                       | Enhancing comprehension and analysis skills.                                                        | Inviting learners to engage with or create AI-generated texts for reading or listening comprehension and micro skills development. Instructor-created AI materials for assessment or practical use. |
| Level 3: AI for Limited Language or skills Practice           | AI used for targeted practice of specific language and discourse features or academic skills development.             | Reinforcing particular aspects of language, discourse, academic or discipline-specific conventions. | AI-generated content for controlled or semi-controlled practice of discipline-specific vocabulary and/or discourse features; simulated academic discussions with AI.                                |
| Level 4: AI-Assisted Task Completion with Critical Evaluation | Students use AI to assist in complex academic tasks but must critically evaluate and substantially revise AI outputs. | Developing critical thinking and digital literacy alongside language and academic skills.           | Using AI for initial research or drafting, followed by substantial human revision, reflection, evaluation and critique.                                                                             |
| Level 5: Selective AI Integration for Advanced Skills         | More extensive AI use allowed but emphasizing its role in enhancing, not replacing, student work.                     | Preparing students for real-world academic and discipline-specific scenarios involving AI.          | Using AI for data analysis in research projects, developing AI- enhanced academic presentations and discipline-specific outcome tasks                                                               |

Table 1: The EAP-AIAS

We recognise that the broad range of tasks present in EAP assessments means that these identified scale levels might be used at different times and for different purposes throughout EAP education, and that no level of the scale is inherently 'better' or more suitable than another. We have therefore adjusted the original colour scheme presented in the AIAS from a Red-Green scale to a more neutral palette of colours. This is to avoid any potential implicit suggestions to educators working with this scale that tasks or assessments with no AI usage are incorrect and that Full AI usage is the most appropriate or target level.

To illustrate the practical application of the EAP-AIAS, we present a series of possible use cases across different EAP contexts. These examples demonstrate how varying levels of the scale can be implemented at different levels of study and for different language learning objectives.

## Level 1: No AI Use

In an intensive pre-sessional EAP program for international students, a Level 1 'No AI Use' approach could be applied for the final examination. This traditional assessment may be conducted in a secure, invigilated physical  environment  encompassing listening,  reading,  speaking,  and  writing  components.  By  requiring students to demonstrate their EAP skills without the aid of AI or assistive technologies, this approach could provide a clear indication of their ability to independently apply language skills in  their future academic studies. Such examinations might offer a baseline measure of language competency unaffected by AI or other technological interventions, aligning with the core principles of Level 1 in the EAP-AIAS.

## Level 2: AI-Assisted Language Input

For first-year  undergraduate  students in  an  in-sessional English  for  Specific Academic  Purposes  (ESAP) program  focusing  on  business  subjects,  a  Level  2  'AI-Assisted  Language  Input'  approach  could  be implemented. GenAI chatbots may be utilised to produce discipline-specific graded readings, aligning with the EAP-AIAS guidelines for AI-assisted idea generation and structuring. Instructors could guide students to generate texts at appropriate difficulty levels, potentially encouraging them to experiment with the chatbot to explain key terms or interpret meanings outside class time. This Level 2 approach may stimulate learner interest by offering opportunities to acquire new discipline-specific vocabulary in context and familiarise students with genre conventions while ensuring that the final work remains AI-free.

## Level 3: AI for Limited Language Practice

In a postgraduate EAP module focusing on academic writing, a Level 3 'AI for Limited Language Practice' approach could be adopted.  Students might be encouraged to use GenAI applications such as ChatGPT, Claude,  or  Gemini to  develop their  sentence  and  paragraph  structure  skills  in  line  with  the  EAP-AIAS guidelines  for  AI-assisted  editing.  The  process  could  involve  creating  discipline-specific  word  lists, collocations, or clichés based on genre requirements, which could then be incorporated into writing tasks. Students  could  input  their  written  work  into  the  GenAI  application  for  initial  feedback  on  lexical, grammatical, and structural elements. They might then be tasked with analysing and justifying any changes made  based  on AI  suggestions,  potentially  promoting  critical  engagement  with  the  tool.  This  Level  3 approach  could  improve  students'  use  of  discipline-specific  languages,  with  the  critical  analysis  of AI grammar suggestions possibly leading to a deeper understanding of linguistic structures.

## Level 4: AI-Assisted Task Completion with Critical Evaluation

In a postgraduate EAP course on research writing, a Level 4 'AI-Assisted Task Completion with Critical Evaluation' approach could be implemented to develop research proposals. This would align with the EAPAIAS framework for AI task completion with human evaluation. The process may begin with an introduction to  the  UNESCO  (Miao  &amp;  Holmes,  2023)  and  COPE  (2023)  guidelines  on the ethical  use  of  GenAI  in research.  Students  could then  use AI  tools  to  generate  initial ideas  and create  outlines  for  their research proposals. A critical component of this Level 4 task might be the evaluation of AI-generated content, which students would need to revise substantially and justify their changes. Peer review sessions could focus on discussing  how  effectively  students  have  adapted  and  improved  upon  AI-generated  content.  Final submissions may include a reflection on the process of working with and critiquing AI-generated material, fulfilling the critical evaluation aspect of Level 4.

## Level 5: Selective AI Integration for Advanced Skills

In an EAP workshop for doctoral students, a Level 5 'Selective AI Integration for Advanced Skills' approach could be employed, representing the highest level of AI integration in the EAP-AIAS framework. GenAI tools  can  be  used  extensively  to  assist  in  synthesising  large  volumes  of  research  for  literature  review. Students could be guided to use these tools in accordance with COPE best practices (2023) and UNESCO guidelines (Miao &amp; Holmes, 2023). The process might involve prompting AI to summarise key points from multiple papers, followed by a critical evaluation of these summaries. In line with Level 5 of the EAP-AIAS, students could be required to identify gaps in AI-generated syntheses and develop their own arguments based on a more comprehensive understanding of the field. Final presentations may include a critical reflection on the role of AI in the research process and its limitations, potentially demonstrating the advanced skills and critical thinking fostered by the highest level of AI integration.

## Discussion

The advantage of the AIAS in EAP is that it provides a structured yet flexible approach to GenAI integration, providing  clear  guidelines  for  usage  in  specific  tasks.  The  EAP-AIAS  can  help  empower  educators  to effectively incorporate AI tools into their teaching and assessment practices while ensuring that students develop the necessary language skills which can be evaluated through a range of tasks. The EAP-AIAS may be  used  to  help  maintain  academic  integrity  by  educating  students  about  acceptable  use  where  it  is appropriate  and  providing  a  system  for  communication.  If  students  are  given  a  clear  framework  which clarifies the acceptable use cases of GenAI and receive encouragement on adhering to values of transparency and ethics, then the EAP-AIAS can help to guide the successful integration of GenAI.

However, successful implementation of the EAP-AIAS requires careful consideration of several factors. First, instructors should become comfortable with each level before moving to the next. Clear guidelines with  explicit  instructions  and  examples  should  be  provided  for  each  level  to  clarify  what  constitutes appropriate GenAI use. As part of their effective use, instructors need to have comprehensive training on both the technical aspects of AI tools and their pedagogical applications.

The EAP-AIAS represents a potential framework that may benefit EAP pedagogy by explicitly addressing AI use while reaffirming the importance of foundational language and academic skills. This scale aligns with calls for enhanced digital literacy in EAP, providing a structured approach to develop these skills alongside traditional language competencies. EAP programmes with an explicit focus on digital literacy contribute to better academic integrity and assist with better accessing the course content (Roche, 2017).

The emphasis on critical evaluation of AI-generated content, particularly in types of tasks relating to levels 4 and 5, resonates with critical EAP approaches, encouraging students to develop evaluative judgement with both content and tools, thus fostering criticality.

It also contributes to the development of metacognitive skills, going beyond high-order thinking skills and allowing space for developing reflective thinking. In this way, the EAP-AIAS serves as a bridge between traditional EAP instruction and the demands of an increasingly AI-influenced academic environment.

Questions remain regarding the long-term impact of AI integration on language and skill acquisition. The principle of maintaining a majority of instruction and classroom interaction at Level 1 (No AI Use) appears crucial, but longitudinal studies are needed to confirm its effectiveness. With the influence of AI, academic skills development is likely to  go through significant changes - certain subskills might become obsolete, which will require adaptation of core methodologies and full GenAI integration in the EAP curriculum with design of a relevant set of assessment tools, possibly AI -powered assessment tools such as EAP Talk - an AI software for assessing academic speaking skills (Wang &amp; Zou, 2023).

The issue of academic integrity in AI-enhanced environments remains complex. Our experience suggests that  fostering a  culture  of  ethical  GenAI  use  through explicit instruction  and  reflection  is essential. The potential  of  AI  tools  to  exacerbate  existing  educational  inequalities  must  be  carefully  monitored  and addressed. The aim is to create a constructive learning environment in an EAP classroom where students benefit  from  using AI  tools  in  developing their academic  skills  while learning  to  use  them  ethically  and maintaining academic integrity. The scale may need further refinement to address discipline-specific needs within EAP, as the appropriate level of AI integration may vary across academic fields and discourses. The current  scale  may  not  fully  capture the  nuances  of AI  use in  collaborative  tasks,  an important aspect  of academic work that requires further exploration. The fast-paced evolution of GenAI technologies indicates that the scale requires regular updates to remain relevant.

Several avenues  for  future  research  emerge  from  our  implementation  of  the  EAP-AIAS.  These  include conducting  longitudinal studies tracking students' language  and  skills development  and  academic performance as they progress through the EAP-AIAS levels over extended periods; comparative studies examining  learning  outcomes  between  EAP-AIAS-guided  instruction  and  traditional  EAP  approaches; investigating  the  role  of AI in  developing  specific  EAP  skills,  such as  academic  listening  and  speaking;

exploring how the EAP-AIAS might be adapted for discipline-specific EAP courses; and examining the most effective methods for developing critical AI literacy within EAP contexts.

Based  on  our  findings,  we  offer  several  recommendations  to  EAP  practitioners  and  institutions.  These include  beginning  with  a  phased  implementation,  focusing  on  one  or  two  levels  of  the  scale  initially, investing  in  comprehensive  professional  development  programs  for  EAP  instructors,  developing  clear institutional policies on AI use in academic work aligned with the principles of the EAP-AIAS, establishing support structures for students, including workshops on ethical AI use and access to necessary tools, and regularly reviewing and adapting the implementation of the EAP-AIAS based on feedback from instructors and students.

## Conclusion

The EAP-AIAS represents a significant step towards addressing the challenges and opportunities presented by GenAI in EAP instruction. Although further research and refinement are necessary, the scale provides a valuable framework for integrating GenAI tools in a manner that enhances, rather than undermines, the core objectives  of  EAP.  As  we  move  forward,  maintaining  a  balance  between  embracing  technological advancements  and  preserving  the  fundamental  principles  of  language  acquisition  and  academic  skill development is crucial for shaping the future of EAP pedagogy.

This scale offers a structured yet flexible approach to EAP assessment in the GenAI era, empowering both educators and learners to engage critically and ethically with GenAI technologies in academic contexts. The journey  of  integrating  GenAI  into  EAP  is  ongoing,  and  the  EAP-AIAS  should  be  viewed  as  a  living framework, open to adaptation and refinement as our understanding of GenAI's role in language education evolves. By continuing to engage critically with these technologies, conduct rigorous research, and prioritise the core goals of EAP, we can ensure that  GenAI becomes a valuable tool in our pedagogical arsenal rather than a disruptive force that undermines the essence of language and academic skills development.

## AI Usage Disclaimer

This  study  used  Generative AI  tools  (Claude  3.5  Sonnet)  for  revision  and  editorial  purposes  throughout  the production of the manuscript. The authors reviewed, edited, and take responsibility for all outputs of the tools used in this study

## References

Archer. (2024). What do people think of Generative AI? https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/2024/what-dopeople-think-of-generative-ai/

Bearman, M., Tai, J., Dawson, P., Boud, D., &amp; Ajjawi, R. (2024). Developing evaluative judgement for a time of generative artificial intelligence. Assessment &amp; Evaluation in Higher Education , 0 (0), 113. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.2335321

Bibauw, S., François, T., &amp; Desmet, P. (2019). Discussing with a computer to practice a foreign language: Research synthesis and conceptual framework of dialogue-based CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning , 32 (8), 827-877. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1535508

Bruce, I. (2015). EAP and Assessment. In I. Bruce (Ed.), Theory and Concepts of English for Academic Purposes (pp. 196-209). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-59077-3\_12 Cabanac, G., Labbé, C., &amp; Magazinov, A. (2021). Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science. Evidence of critical issues affecting established journals (arXiv:2107.06751). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2107.06751

Chaka, C. (2023). Detecting AI content in responses generated by ChatGPT, YouChat, and Chatsonic: The case of five AI content detection tools. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching , 6 (2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.2.12

Chaka, C. (2024). Accuracy pecking order - How 30 AI detectors stack up in detecting generative artificial intelligence content in university English L1 and English L2 student essays. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching , 7 (1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2024.7.1.33

Chan, C. K. Y., &amp; Hu, W. (2023). Students' Voices on Generative AI: Perceptions, Benefits, and Challenges in Higher Education (arXiv:2305.00290). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.00290

Charles, M. (2012). English for Academic Purposes. In The Handbook of English for Specific Purposes (pp. 137-153). John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118339855.ch7

Charles, M. (2022). EAP research in BALEAP 1975-2019: Past issues and future directions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes , 55 , 101060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.101060

Chiu, T. K. F., Xia, Q., Zhou, X., Chai, C. S., &amp; Cheng, M. (2023). Systematic literature review on opportunities, challenges, and future research recommendations of artificial intelligence in education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence , 4 , 100118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100118

COPE. (2023, February 13). Authorship and AI tools . COPE: Committee on Publication Ethics. https://publicationethics.org/cope-position-statements/ai-author

Can Large Language Models

Dai, W., Lin, J., Jin, F., Li, T., Tsai, Y .-S., Gasevic, D., &amp; Chen, G. (2023). Provide Feedback to Students? A Case Study on ChatGPT . EdArXiv. https://doi.org/10.35542/osf.io/hcgzj

Escalante, J., Pack, A., &amp; Barrett, A. (2023). AI-generated feedback on writing: Insights into efficacy and ENL student preference. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education , 20 (1), 57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00425-2

European Commission. (2024). Guidelines on the responsible use of generative AI in research developed by the European Research Area Forum-European Commission . https://research-andinnovation.ec.europa.eu/news/all-research-and-innovation-news/guidelines-responsible-usegenerative-ai-research-developed-european-research-area-forum-2024-03-20\_en

Fazel, I., &amp; Ali, A. M. (2022). EAP teachers' knowledge and use of learning-oriented assessment: A crosscontextual study. System , 104 , 102685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102685

Furze, L. (2024, May 19). The AI Assessment Scale in Action: Examples from K-12 and Higher Education Across the World [Blog]. Leon Furze. https://leonfurze.com/2024/05/20/the-ai-assessment-scalein-action-examples-from-k-12-and-higher-education-across-the-world/

- Furze, L., Perkins, M., Roe, J., &amp; MacVaugh, J. (2024). The AI Assessment Scale (AIAS) in action: A pilot implementation of GenAI supported assessment (arXiv:2403.14692). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2403.14692

Ghafouri, M. (2024). ChatGPT: The catalyst for teacher-student rapport and grit development in L2 class. System , 120 , 103209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2023.103209

Gillett. (2022).

What is EAP?

https://www.uefap.com/bgnd/eap.htm

Godwin-Jones, R. (2022). Partnering with AI: Intelligent writing assistance and instructed language learning. Language Learning &amp; Technology , 26 (2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10125/73474 Second Handbook

Hafner, C. A. (2019). Digital Literacies for English Language Learners. In X. Gao (Ed.), of English Language Teaching (pp. 899-918). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02899-2\_46

Hannigan, T. R., McCarthy, I. P., &amp; Spicer, A. (2024). Beware of botshit: How to manage the epistemic risks of generative chatbots. Business Horizons . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2024.03.001 Hyland, K. (2018). Sympathy for the devil? A defence of EAP. Language Teaching , 51 (3), 383-399. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000101

Hyland, K., &amp; Jiang, F. (Kevin). (2021). A bibliometric study of EAP research: Who is doing what, where and when? Journal of English for Academic Purposes , 49 , 100929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100929

Kılınç, S. (2024). Comprehensive AI Assessment Framework: Enhancing Educational Evaluation with Ethical AI Integration (arXiv:2407.16887). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.16887 Kohnke, L. (2023). A Pedagogical Chatbot: A Supplemental Language Learning Tool. RELC Journal , 54 (3), 828-838. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882211067054

Kohnke, L., Moorhouse, B. L., &amp; Zou, D. (2023). Exploring generative artificial intelligence preparedness among university language instructors: A case study. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence , 5 , 100156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100156

Kostka, I., &amp; Toncelli, R. (2023). Exploring applications of ChatGPT to English language teaching: Opportunities, challenges, and recommendations. TESL-EJ 27 , (3), n3.

Kuhail, M. A., Alturki, N., Alramlawi, S., &amp; Alhejori, K. (2023). Interacting with educational chatbots: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies , 28 (1), 973-1018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11177-3

Kumar, R. (2023). Faculty members' use of artificial intelligence to grade student papers: A case of implications. International Journal for Educational Integrity , 19 (1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-023-00130-7

Lea, M. R., &amp; Street, B. V. (2006). The 'Academic Literacies' Model: Theory and Applications. Theory Into Practice , 45 (4), 368-377. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4504\_11

Liang, W., Yuksekgonul, M., Mao, Y., Wu, E., &amp; Zou, J. (2023). GPT detectors are biased against nonnative English writers. arXiv Preprint arXiv:2304.02819 .

Messeri, L., &amp; Crockett, M. J. (2024). Artificial intelligence and illusions of understanding in scientific research. Nature , 627 (8002), 49-58. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07146-0

Miao, F., &amp; Holmes, W. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research . UNESCO: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000386693

Mizumoto, A., &amp; Eguchi, M. (2023). Exploring the potential of using an AI language model for automated essay scoring. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics , 2 (2), 100050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2023.100050

Ou, A. W., Stöhr, C., &amp; Malmström, H. (2024). Academic communication with AI-powered language tools in higher education: From a post-humanist perspective. System , 121 , 103225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103225

| Pack, A., &Maloney, J. (2023). Using Generative Artificial Intelligence for Language Education Research: Insights from Using OpenAI's ChatGPT. TESOL Quarterly , 57 (4), 1571-1582. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3253                                                                                                                                                    |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Pack, A., &Maloney, J. (2024). Using Artificial Intelligence in TESOL: Some Ethical and Pedagogical Considerations. TESOL Quarterly , 58 (2), 1007-1018. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3320                                                                                                                                                                               |
| Perkins, M. (2023). Academic Integrity considerations of AI Large Language Models in the post-pandemic era: ChatGPT and beyond. Journal of University Teaching &Learning Practice , 20 (2). https://doi.org/10.53761/1.20.02.07                                                                                                                                          |
| Perkins, M., Basar Gezgin, U., &Gordon, R. (2019). Plagiarism in higher education: Classification, causes and controls. Pan-Pacific Management Science , 2 , 3-21. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.20694.11841                                                                                                                                                           |
| Perkins, M., Furze, L., Roe, J., &MacVaugh, J. (2024). The Artificial Intelligence Assessment Scale (AIAS): AFramework for Ethical Integration of Generative AI in Educational Assessment. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice , 21 (06), Article 06. https://doi.org/10.53761/q3azde36                                                                 |
| Perkins, M., &Roe, J. (2023). Decoding Academic Integrity Policies: ACorpus Linguistics Investigation of AI and Other Technological Threats. Higher Education Policy . https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307- 023-00323-2                                                                                                                                                       |
| Perkins, M., &Roe, J. (2024). Academic publisher guidelines on AI usage: AChatGPT supported thematic analysis [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. In F1000Research (Vol. 12, Issue 1398). https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.142411.2                                                                                                |
| Perkins, M., Roe, J., Postma, D., McGaughran, J., &Hickerson, D. (2023). Detection of GPT-4 Generated Text in Higher Education: Combining Academic Judgement and Software to Identify Generative AI Tool Misuse. Journal of Academic Ethics . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-023-09492-6                                                                                 |
| Perkins, M., Roe, J., Vu, B. H., Postma, D., Hickerson, D., McGaughran, J., & Khuat, H. Q. (2024). GenAI Detection Tools, Adversarial Techniques and Implications for Inclusivity in Higher Education (arXiv:2403.19148). arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.19148 Roche, T. B. (2017). Assessing the role of digital literacy in English for Academic Purposes university |
| pathway programs. Journal of Academic Language and Learning , 11 (1), A71-A87. https://journal.aall.org.au/index.php/jall/article/view/439 Roe, J. (2024). AI and the Anthropological Imagination: Rethinking Education in the Digital Age . Open                                                                                                                        |
| Anthropology Research Repository. https://openanthroresearch.org/index.php/oarr/preprint/view/399                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |
| University Education , 16 (1), 13-21. Roe, J., & Perkins, M. (2024). Deepfakes and Higher Education: A Research Agenda and Scoping Review of Synthetic Media (arXiv:2404.15601). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2404.15601                                                                                                                                        |
| Roe, J., Perkins, M., & Ruelle, D. (2024). Understanding Student and Academic Staff Perceptions of AI Use in Assessment and Feedback (arXiv:2406.15808). arXiv.                                                                                                                                                                                                          |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.15808 Roe, J., Renandya, W. A., &Jacobs, G. M. (2023). AReview of AI-Powered Writing Tools and Their Implications for Academic Integrity in the Language Classroom. Journal of English and Applied                                                                                                                                   |
| Linguistics , 2 (1), 3. 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), Article 1.                                                                                                                                                          |
| https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.9 Sha, G. (2009). AI-based chatterbots and spoken English teaching: Acritical analysis. Computer Assisted                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
| Language Learning , 22 (3), 269-281. Singer, N. (2023, August 24). Despite Cheating Fears, Schools Repeal ChatGPT Bans. The New York Times . https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/24/business/schools-chatgpt-chatbot-bans.html                                                                                                                                               |

- Storch, N., &amp; Tapper, J. (2009). The impact of an EAP course on postgraduate writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes , 8 (3), 207-223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2009.03.001

Uludag, P., &amp; McDonough, K. (2022). Exploring EAP instructors' evaluation of classroom-based integrated essays.

TESOL Journal

,

13

(3), e670. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.670

Wang, C., &amp; Zou, B. (2023). Review of EAP Talk. Journal of China Computer-Assisted Language Learning . https://doi.org/10.1515/jccall-2023-0019

Weber-Wulff, D., Anohina-Naumeca, A., Bjelobaba, S., Foltýnek, T., Guerrero-Dib, J., Popoola, O., Šigut, P., &amp; Waddington, L. (2023). Testing of detection tools for AI-generated text. International Journal for Educational Integrity , 19 (1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-023-00146-z Woo, D. J., Guo, K., &amp; Susanto, H. (2024). Exploring EFL students' prompt engineering in human-AI story writing: An activity theory perspective. Interactive Learning Environments , 0 (0), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2024.2361381

Xiao, Y., &amp; Zhi, Y. (2023). An Exploratory Study of EFL Learners' Use of ChatGPT for Language Learning Tasks: Experience and Perceptions. Languages , 8 (3), 212. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages8030212

Zhgenti, S., &amp; Holmes, W. (2032). Generative AI and Education: Adopting a Critical Approach . https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10177781/1/Zhgenti%20and%20Holmes%20-%202023%20%20Generative%20AI%20and%20Education%20Adopting%20a%20Critical%20A.pdf
Jasper Roe Mike Perkins Yulia Tregubova
The EAP-AIAS: Adapting the AI Assessment Scale for English for Academic Purposes
The rapid advancement of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) presents
both opportunities and challenges for English for Academic Purposes (EAP)
instruction. This paper proposes an adaptation of the AI Assessment Scale
(AIAS) specifically tailored for EAP contexts, termed the EAP-AIAS.
  This framework aims to provide a structured approach for integrating GenAI
tools into EAP assessment practices while maintaining academic integrity and
supporting language development. The EAP-AIAS consists of five levels, ranging
from "No AI" to "Full AI", each delineating appropriate GenAI usage in EAP
tasks. We discuss the rationale behind this adaptation, considering the unique
needs of language learners and the dual focus of EAP on language proficiency
and academic acculturation.
  This paper explores potential applications of the EAP-AIAS across various EAP
assessment types, including writing tasks, presentations, and research
projects. By offering a flexible framework, the EAP-AIAS seeks to empower EAP
practitioners seeking to deal with the complexities of GenAI integration in
education and prepare students for an AI-enhanced academic and professional
future. This adaptation represents a step towards addressing the pressing need
for ethical and pedagogically sound AI integration in language education.