[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”4.27.5″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” locked=”off” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.5″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n
Recommended by April Tallant, Director <\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.27.5″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.27.5″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.5″ _module_preset=”default” hover_enabled=”0″ global_colors_info=”{}” sticky_enabled=”0″]<\/p>\n Generative AI is reshaping higher education, and our assessment practices must evolve to keep pace. Many institutions have introduced frameworks like traffic light systems, AI use scales, and mandatory declarations. These are helpful first steps because they give us language and structure while we find our bearings. But as Corbin, Dawson, and\u00a0Liu\u00a0(2025) argue in\u00a0<\/span>Talk is Cheap: Why Structural Assessment Changes Are Needed for a Time of GenAI<\/span><\/i><\/a>, these approaches\u00a0are\u00a0limited;\u00a0they rely on student compliance with unenforceable rules.\u00a0The\u00a0authors\u00a0call\u00a0these approaches\u00a0discursive changes,\u00a0or\u00a0modifications that work through instructions without altering the tasks. Discursive changes alter the communication about the\u00a0assignment, not the assessment itself. A simple example of discursive change is adding \u2018GenAI use is not permitted in this assessment\u2019 to existing assessment instructions.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The authors argue that discursive changes\u00a0to assessments\u00a0are\u00a0well-intentioned\u00a0but\u00a0flawed\u00a0because they assume students understand ambiguous rules\u00a0and\u00a0will comply even when non-compliance is\u00a0advantageous. Discursive changes also\u00a0work on the assumption that\u00a0compliance can be\u00a0verified, but current\u00a0AI-detection tools are\u00a0limited.\u00a0<\/span>The authors state, \u201ccurrent detection tools are fraught with false positives and negatives, creating uncertainty and mistrust rather than clarity and accountability\u201d (p. 1092).<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n By contrast, Corbin, Dawson, and\u00a0Liu argue that structural changes, \u201ccreate\u00a0assessment environments where the desired\u00a0behavior\u00a0emerges naturally from the assessment design\u201d (p. 1093). In other words, structural changes\u00a0modify\u00a0the tasks, not the instructions. An example of a structural change provided by the authors\u00a0include\u00a0adding\u00a0a \u201ccheckpoint in\u00a0live assessment requiring tutor signoff on lab work.\u201d Structural changes focus on the process, not the outcome. One example the authors offer: Rather than a final essay, students\u00a0might\u00a0participate\u00a0in live discussions about their idea development and how their thinking\u00a0developed\u00a0based on\u00a0feedback. Another structural change example includes designing assessments that connect throughout the term. Students build on their earlier work,\u00a0demonstrating\u00a0their learning across touchpoints, not from\u00a0one\u00a0task\u00a0alone.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The authors conclude that long-term solutions require rethinking assessment design so that validity is built into the structure, not just explained in instructions. The challenge of assessment design continues as\u00a0GenAI advances. Our time as educators is better spent on structural redesign of assessment to ensure assessment\u00a0validity that\u00a0demonstrates\u00a0student capabilities.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Have you\u00a0modified\u00a0your assessments with a structural approach?\u00a0We\u2019d\u00a0love to hear from you!\u00a0Join us for the\u00a0AI Forum on Tuesday, Jan 27, 3:30\u00a0–\u00a05:00\u00a0pm\u00a0<\/a>either in person or on\u00a0Zoom\u00a0to share your\u00a0experience.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n After reading the article, consider the following questions:\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nAction item\u00a01:<\/h3>\n
Action item 2:<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
Action item 3:<\/h3>\n