Designing assessments

Who is this for?

Audience: staff designing or updating assessments in UK HE

Goal: make assignments that are fair, transparent, and workable, even when students can use GenAI

Three assessment strategies

Pick one of these for each task. Don't mix all three in one assessment brief.

A) AI-resilient task

Use when: you want to limit AI’s advantage (high-stakes, competency checks, PSRB constraints).

Make it in-class / supervised / oral / practical
Personalise it (placement, lab, local data, your scenario)
Ask for judgment or performance, not just prose
Collect planning notes

Copy/paste for brief (edit to taste):

GenAI / AI tools must not be used to generate assessable content for this task. You may use them for planning or proofreading only. Any use must be acknowledged in your notes. Work that relies on AI-generated content may be penalised.

See also: Core guidance → Data, privacy, copyright & accessibility.

B) AI-enabled task

Use when: you expect students to use AI (because it’s realistic, inclusive, or it speeds drafting) and you want to see that they used it well.

Tell students AI is allowed
Require them to show their working
Mark their judgment and improvement, not the raw AI output
Ideal for writing-heavy coursework, portfolios, reports

Copy/paste for brief:

You may use Generative AI tools to support idea generation, outlining, language development and feedback on drafts. You must submit: (1) the main prompts you used, (2) one AI output before you edited it, and (3) a 150–200 word reflection on what you changed and why. Your mark will prioritise your decision-making, alignment to the brief and academic integrity, not the AI’s wording.

See also: Process-Driven Assessment (this is basically the same pattern).

C) AI-critical task

Use when: you want students to evaluate, compare, or improve AI outputs.

Give them an AI answer (or tell them to generate one)
Ask them to critique it against scholarship / rubric / professional standards
Ask them to improve it
Mark the critique + improvement, not the AI text

Copy/paste for brief:

Obtain or generate an AI response to the task. Critically evaluate it using the assessment criteria and relevant academic/professional sources. Improve the response and justify your changes. Your grade is based on the quality of your evaluation and improvements.

This is especially good for modules that already teach evaluative skills.

2. What to collect from students (Evidence)

To make any of the strategies above work with GenAI, collect at least:

Task / prompt history (screenshots or exported text)
AI output before editing
Student’s edited/improved version
Short reflection (“What was wrong with the AI output? What did I change? Why?”)

3. Rubric Add-ons

Add one of these to your existing marking rubric.

Use & disclosure of GenAI

Student follows task rules on GenAI use and clearly discloses any AI support used (tool/capability, purpose, verification).

Judgment & improvement

Student identifies weaknesses/omissions in the AI output and makes discipline-appropriate improvements.

Process evidence

Student provides sufficient artefacts (prompts, draft, reflection) to show how the work was produced.

4. VLE / Module Handbook Snippets

Paste one of these into Blackboard/Moodle/Canvas for the task.

Option 1 – AI not permitted for this task

For this assessment, you must not submit content generated by GenAI/AI tools. You may use AI to help you understand the brief only. Do not paste placement/confidential data into AI tools. See “How to acknowledge GenAI (students)” if you used AI for study support.

Option 2 – AI permitted with acknowledgement

You may use GenAI/AI tools to plan, outline or improve the clarity of your work. You must tell us what you used and what you kept. Attach your prompts/output if asked. Misrepresenting AI-generated work as your own may be treated as academic misconduct.

Option 3 – AI-enabled / process-assessed

This is an AI-enabled task. You must submit a process pack (prompts, AI output, your edited version, reflection). We will mark your academic judgment and improvement, not the unedited AI text.

5. Workload & Moberation Tips

Mark the process pack first; it’s faster to spot academic judgment.
Sample for consistency across markers (especially on the “judgment & improvement” row).
If students submit the wrong thing, point them to For students → Using AI in your assignments.

6. Remember the bondaries

Local policy beats this page. If your School says “no AI for reflective work,” that wins.
Sensitive data stays out of public tools; tell students what to redact.
Equity: if you require AI, offer an on-campus / no-login route or let students work in pairs for the AI step.

Page updated

Report abuse