Generative AI · Education leadership

Actionable companion · Assessment and evidence of learning

From evidence to district action: Redefining assessment tasks to promote students’ creativity and integrity in the age of generative artificial intelligence

AI-assisted editorial implementation guide. The district actions are proposed applications, not findings or recommendations attributed to the original authors. No additional peer review is asserted.

Read original paperSearch paper agentCC BY 4.0

Evidence and context

Health-professions education context: test transfer to K–12 rather than assuming it.

Original authors’ abstract, reproduced under the linked source license:

The arrival of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has forced lecturers to adjust their assessment practices to ensure that students’ work is their own from a creative point of view, and free of plagiarism. This chapter proposes the Academic Integrity and Creativity in the Age of Artificial Intelligence (AICAI) model for the use of authentic assessment as a possible strategy to promote students’ creativity and integrity and thereby ensure the ownership of their written work. Lecturers are encouraged to rethink the assignments they design and examine each of the following components with an eye to integrity: their professional characteristics, the objectives for the assignment, the type of assessment that is appropriate for the needs of the student. Others include the cognitive offloading that will be done or not with GenAI, the type of authentic task they wish to propose and its characteristics, and the instructions and criteria that will be given to students. The choices made should engage students, thereby diminishing the temptation to plagiarize. By combining different strands of pedagogical theory and research, the AICAI assessment design model proposed in this paper has brought into focus the challenges as well as the opportunities that have emerged with the inclusion of GenAI in higher education. On a more practical level, it offers a systemic approach and advice as to how the challenges can be mitigated and benefits maximized for all parties involved in assessment. Clinical trial number Not applicable.

A 90-day district pilot

  1. Days 1–15 · Appraise. Have the curriculum lead and a teacher read the methods and limitations. Record the study design, sample, comparator, outcomes and evidence gaps. Define a local question that the study can help inform.
  2. Days 16–30 · Design. Redesign one low-stakes assessment: require a first attempt, an AI-assisted revision, a source-check log and a short oral explanation. Use the same rubric for the comparison task. Name an accountable owner and set the baseline, success threshold and budget before implementation.
  3. Days 31–60 · Test. Start with a small voluntary cohort, preserve an accessible non-AI route and require teacher review. Use synthetic or de-identified examples; approve data handling and tool terms through district processes.
  4. Days 61–90 · Decide. Blind-score reasoning, factual accuracy and unaided transfer on a fresh task. Record suspected misconduct separately from demonstrated evidence. Compare with baseline, document uncertainty and stop or revise if learning worsens, access is unequal or critical errors persist.

The board decision brief

Report the learning problem, evidence quality, participating population, total cost including review time, measured benefit, errors, access differences and remaining uncertainties. Make a dated recommendation to stop, revise or expand. A positive perception survey alone does not establish learning improvement.

Attribution and reuse

Martine Peters; Dimitar Angelov. Redefining assessment tasks to promote students’ creativity and integrity in the age of generative artificial intelligence. International Journal for Educational Integrity (2025-09-23). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-025-00201-x

Companion prepared 2026-10-30. Original authorship and DOI are preserved. The abstract is an attributed source extract; the implementation plan is new AI-assisted editorial material, offered under the same CC BY 4.0 license. This guide has not undergone independent peer review.