Academic staff experienced the AIAS as a shared language that legitimised GenAI use in teaching and assessment¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitative r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Faculty across both institutions described the AIAS as lending legitimacy to bringing GenAI into teaching and assessment, providing bounded permission and reassurance to experiment. → Perkins 2026

Evidence¶

Perkins 2026¶

Perkins, M., Postma, D., Roe, J., Sisay, S., & Holdcroft, C. (2026). 'A bit of chaos and madness': The AI Assessment Scale and the work of assessment reform. Preprint. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.26729 doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.26729

q2 · i? · qualitative · r3

Qualitative focus-group study with 30 academic staff at two universities (Vietnam and UK), analysed by hybrid thematic analysis. Staff reported the scale gave reassurance, with one noting it was "a framework that legitimised these emerging practices"; some staff, however, credited changing practice to GenAI generally rather than the scale.

"Across both institutions, faculty engagement with GenAI was characterised by curiosity and experimentation, with faculty describing the AIAS as a framework that legitimised these emerging practices in higher education."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Unclear policy, workload pressure, and lack of mechanisms to monitor student AI use undermined staff confidence and perceived fairness during AIAS implementation — related
• Existing GenAI assessment frameworks (traffic light, two-lane, AIAS) remain broad, lack discipline-specific applicability, and are unvalidated in authentic settings — a broader claim this one bears on
• Governance model shaped AIAS adoption: rapid central rollout generated momentum but curtailed reflection, while department-led adoption built ownership but fragmented strategy — related
• Retrofitting an AIAS level to an unchanged assessment task creates a validity risk in which the assessment measures use of the scale rather than intended learning outcomes — related