Adapt non-invigilated written assessments and their marking criteria in response to Gen-AI susceptibility¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · no claims cited

Description¶

The article recommends that assessment design respond to demonstrated AI vulnerability rather than relying on detection alone. Educators should "require version control" via auditable evidence trails, require reproducible analysis documents, ask creative assessments for "more than incremental creativity", treat contextually irrelevant content as an integrity-review trigger, include referencing quality in marking, and "ensure that assessment passes are awarded for evidenced attainment of the intended learning outcomes, rather than on writing fluency alone".

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Markers and institutions need protected time and updated marking guidance to implement integrity reviews and revised criteria

Constraints¶

• The article notes its findings assume a naive student making minimal effort, so susceptibility may be underestimated for sophisticated AI users

Target Learners¶

• undergraduate psychology students in higher education

Target Learning Goals¶

• academic integrity
• authentic demonstration of attained learning outcomes
• critical evaluation and referencing skill

Related Strategies¶

• Redesign assessment toward supervised, oral, process-based and authentic formats to verify students' own reasoning under GenAI
• Address generative AI in higher education through assessment redesign and proportional reflective practices rather than surveillance or punitive controls
• Redesign assessment reflectively for possible AI use, using supervised tasks for lower-order skills and intentional AI use with reflection for higher-order work
• Renew writing assessment and integrity practice through AI-literacy instruction, process-focused assessment design, and contextual detector training
• Redesign assessment toward progressive, authentic, and reflective methods rather than intensive paperwork

Examples¶

-

Key Sources¶

• Ivory, M., Finnerty, S., Dunn, K., Philpot, R., & Warmelink, L. (2026). The Integrity of Psychology Assessments in the AI Age: A Critical Examination. Journal of Academic Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-026-09729-0