Preparing University Assessment for a World With AI: Tasks for Human Intelligence
Open accessAbstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is changing how people work and live. There is an urgent need for higher education to recognise this change and respond. Assessments are key to this response. Old models of assessment draw on pattern recognition and recall, which will be of considerably less use to newer forms of employment. This chapter defines artificial and human intelligences, then distinguishes between them, outlining the things that humans can do that machines cannot and vice versa. In particular, we suggest personal epistemology (“meta-knowing”) and evaluative judgement (making judgements about quality of work) are peculiarly human. Consequently, higher education assessments should focus on these capabilities. We offer the example of a critical appraisal assessment as an illustration. By deliberately focussing assessments on areas where humans think better than machines, we can enhance graduates’ abilities to navigate through an AI-enabled world.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
If evaluative judgement is to remain a uniquely human capability, then the development of evaluative judgement is to remain a responsibility held by humans-both educators and learners.
“If evaluative judgement is to remain a uniquely human capability (Bearman and Luckin Citation2020), it follows that the development of evaluative judgement is to remain a responsibility held by humans—both educators and learners.”
From Developing evaluative judgement for a time of generative artificial intelligence (2024) · cites this paper as Bearman and Luckin 2020
GenAI can enhance the efficiency and reliability of assessments.
“Research by Bearman and Luckin [1] and Hooda, Rana [2] demonstrates how GenAI can enhance the efficiency and reliability of assessments.”
From Generative AI in Higher Education: Balancing Innovation and Integrity (2025) · cites this paper as [1]
GenAI is rapidly transforming higher education, influencing assessment practices and pedagogical approaches, and offering capabilities for personalised learning and streamlined assessment.
“Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) has rapidly become a transformative factor in higher education, influencing assessment practices and pedagogical approaches to learning and teaching, offer unprecedented capabilities for personalised learning journeys and streamline assessment processes [1, 2].”
From Generative AI in Higher Education: Balancing Innovation and Integrity (2025) · cites this paper as [1]
Cites
I.—COMPUTING MACHINERY AND INTELLIGENCE
TURING, A. M. (1950) · Mind · doi:10.1093/mind/lix.236.433 · Cited by 10,290 · see citing works
Computing Machinery and Intelligence (1950)
Turing, A. M. (2004) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198250791.003.0017 · Cited by 6,120 · see citing works
Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years; A Scheme
Perry, W. G. (1970) · Cited by 4,179 · see citing works
Wicked Problems in Design Thinking
Buchanan, R. (1992) · Design Issues · doi:10.2307/1511637 · Cited by 3,539 · see citing works
Lawson, B. (2006) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780080454979 · Cited by 1,601 · see citing works
Developing evaluative judgement: enabling students to make decisions about the quality of work
Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., Boud, D., Dawson, P., & Panadero, E. (2018) · Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s10734-017-0220-3 · Cited by 810 · see citing works
Personal Epistemology Research: Implications for Learning and Teaching
Hofer, B. K. (2001) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1023/a:1011965830686 · Cited by 797 · see citing works
Machine Learning: The Art and Science of Algorithms that Make Sense of Data
Flach, P. (2012) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511973000 · Cited by 753 · see citing works
Machine Learning: The art and science of algorithms that make sense of data
Flach, P. A. (2012) · Cited by 694 · see citing works
Regulating Artificial Intelligence Systems: Risks, Challenges, Competencies, and Strategies
Scherer, M. U. (2015) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2609777 · Cited by 563 · see citing works
Authentic assessment: creating a blueprint for course design
Villarroel, V., Bloxham, S., Bruna, D., Bruna, C., & Herrera-Seda, C. (2018) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2017.1412396 · Cited by 560 · see citing works
The concept of intelligence and its role in lifelong learning and success.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.52.10.1030 · Cited by 433 · see citing works
Assessment 2020. Seven propositions for assessment reform in higher education
Boud, D. J., Dochy, F. J. R. C., & al., E. (2010) · Lirias · Cited by 395 · see citing works
Performance-Based Assessment: Lessons From the Health Professions
Swanson, D. B., Norman, G. R., & Linn, R. L. (1995) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x024005005 · Cited by 287 · see citing works
Landauer, T. K. (2003) · Assessment in Education Principles Policy and Practice · doi:10.1080/0969594032000148154 · Cited by 198 · see citing works
Machine Learning and Human Intelligence: The Future of Education for the 21st Century
Luckin, R. (2018) · CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) · Cited by 161 · see citing works
The Handbook of Learning Analytics
Gašević, D., & Merceron, A. (2022) · Solar eBooks · doi:10.18608/hla22 · Cited by 114 · see citing works
Content Analytics: The Definition, Scope, and an Overview of Published Research
Kovanović, V., Joksimovíc, S., Gašević, D., Hatala, M., & Siemens, G. (2017) · Society for Learning Analytics Research (SoLAR) eBooks · doi:10.18608/hla17.007 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Wind, S. A., Wolfe, E. W., Engelhard, G., Foltz, P. W., & Rosenstein, M. (2017) · International Journal of Testing · doi:10.1080/15305058.2017.1361426 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Analysis of a Large-Scale Formative Writing Assessment System with Automated Feedback
Foltz, P. W., & Rosenstein, M. (2015) · ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (L@S) · doi:10.1145/2724660.2728688 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Quality and literature reviews: beyond reporting standards
Bearman, M. (2016) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/medu.12984 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Prefigurement, identities and agency
Bearman, M. (2018) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315109251-16 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
1 of the 24 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2016). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach, global edition. Harlow: Pearson.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Discourses of artificial intelligence in higher education: a critical literature review
Bearman, M., Ryan, J., & Ajjawi, R. (2023) · Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s10734-022-00937-2 · Cited by 545 · see citing works
“While there are some publications outside of the journals listed in Table 1, particularly in the field of feedback and assessment (e.g. Bearman & Luckin, 2020; González-Calatayud et al., 2021), there is scope for further inquiry, particularly empirical work (Bates et al., 2020).”
BackgroundLearning to work with the black box: Pedagogy for a world with artificial intelligence
Bearman, M., & Ajjawi, R. (2023) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13337 · Cited by 346 · see citing works
Self-citationMarkauskaite, L., Marrone, R., Poquet, O., Knight, S., Martinez-Maldonado, R., Howard, S., Tondeur, J., De Laat, M., Buckingham Shum, S., Gašević, D., et al. (2022) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100056 · Cited by 353 · see citing works
“However, how to assess human capabilities to function productively in a world with AI has been barely touched (Bearman & Luckin, 2020).”
Generative AI in Higher Education: Balancing Innovation and Integrity
Francis, N. J., Jones, S., & Smith, D. P. (2025) · British Journal of Biomedical Science · doi:10.3389/bjbs.2024.14048 · Cited by 295 · see citing works
“Technologies such as GTP4 exemplify this form of AI and can produce coherent and contextually relevant text [1, 2].”
InfluentialDeveloping evaluative judgement for a time of generative artificial intelligence
Bearman, M., Tai, J., Dawson, P., Boud, D., & Ajjawi, R. (2024) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2024.2335321 · Cited by 312 · see citing works
“Therefore, assessment designs should promote the development of students’ evaluative judgement capabilities with respect to such outputs (Bearman and Luckin 2020).”
InfluentialEaton, S. E. (2023) · International Journal for Educational Integrity · doi:10.1007/s40979-023-00144-1 · Cited by 190 · see citing works
“Bearman and Luckin (2020) point out that assessment tasks that focus on human learning can focus on personal epistemology (meta-knowing) and evaluative judgement.”
BackgroundAssessment for Inclusion: rethinking inclusive assessment in higher education
Nieminen, J. H. (2024) · Teaching in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/13562517.2021.2021395 · Cited by 164 · see citing works
“This is where the study by Bearman and Luckin (2020) about assessment and Arti fi cial Intelligence (AI) comes in useful.”
BackgroundMethodDesigning assessment in a digital world: an organising framework
Bearman, M., Nieminen, J. H., & Ajjawi, R. (2022) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2022.2069674 · Cited by 116 · see citing works
“We developed the three purposes and underlying themes iteratively, drawing from existing assessment and digital technology frameworks to help understand the complexities underpinning assessment within a digital world, including ethical concerns (Bearman, Dawson, et al. 2020).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialKizilcec, R. F., Huber, E., Papanastasiou, E. C., Cram, A., Makridis, C. A., Smolansky, A., Zeivots, S., & Raduescu, C. (2024) · Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100269 · Cited by 150 · see citing works
Grinschgl, S., & Neubauer, A. C. (2022) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2022.908261 · Cited by 107 · see citing works
“Additionally, modern (AI-)technologies can benefit education by providing students with automated feedback to improve learning (Bearman and Luckin, 2020).”
BackgroundNeubauer, A. C. (2021) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.intell.2021.101563 · Cited by 97 · see citing works
Student Perceptions of AI-Generated Avatars in Teaching Business Ethics: We Might not be Impressed
Vallis, C., Wilson, S., Gozman, D., & Buchanan, J. (2023) · Postdigital Science and Education · doi:10.1007/s42438-023-00407-7 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
“AI technology now pervades personal, workplace, and educational environments, even if this is not always apparent to users (Bearman and Luckin 2020; Siemens et al. 2022).”
The assessment challenge of social and collaborative learning in higher education
Boud, D. J., & Bearman, M. (2022) · Educational Philosophy and Theory · doi:10.1080/00131857.2022.2114346 · Cited by 87 · see citing works
“At heart, the assessment involves a series of tasks which promote students’ understandings of both how to critically appraise the research literature and how standards in research evidence are constituted (see Bearman and Luckin ( 2020 ) for a more individually focussed version of the task).”
BackgroundHodgson, D., Goldingay, S., Boddy, J., Nipperess, S., & Watts, L. (2022) · The British Journal of Social Work · doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcab168 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
Buckingham Shum, S., Lim, L.-A., Boud, D., Bearman, M., & Dawson, P. (2023) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-023-00410-9 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
“Computers can complete tasks at scale, rapidly and reliably (Bearman & Luckin, 2020).”
BackgroundMoya, B., Eaton, S., Pethrick, H., Hayden, A., Brennan, R., Wiens, J., & McDermott, B. (2024) · Canadian Perspectives on Academic Integrity · doi:10.55016/ojs/cpai.v7i3.78123 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Negotiating Meaning with Machines: AI’s Role in Doctoral Writing Pedagogy
Parker, J. L., Richard, V. M., Acabá, A., Escoffier, S., Flaherty, S., Jablonka, S., & Becker, K. P. (2024) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.1007/s40593-024-00425-x · Cited by 46 · see citing works
“Traditional assessment meth-ods, often focusing solely on content originality, must evolve to account for AI assistance in human compositions (Bearman & Luckin, 2020).”
A Systematic Literature Review on AI Safety: Identifying Trends, Challenges, and Future Directions
Salhab, W., Ameyed, D., Jaafar, F., & Mcheick, H. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3440647 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Beyond open book versus closed book: a taxonomy of restrictions in online examinations
Dawson, P., Nicola‐Richmond, K., & Partridge, H. (2023) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2023.2209298 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
“Bearman and luckin (2020) argue that, in this new context, the capability to make decisions about the quality of work, or ‘evaluative judgement’ (Tai et al. 2018), becomes a crucial learning outcome as it is likely to remain a human responsibility.”
BackgroundRethinking assessment in response to generative artificial intelligence
Pearce, J., & Chiavaroli, N. (2023) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/medu.15092 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
“The other side of such strategic inclusion of AI in assisted assessment is the opportunity to place greater emphasis on the assessment quintessential human skills, such as judgment, evaluation, and critical reasoning through unassisted assessments.(11)”
BackgroundAssessment and epistemic (in)justice: how assessment produces knowledge and knowers
Nieminen, J. H., & Lahdenperä, J. (2021) · Teaching in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/13562517.2021.1973413 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
“Furthermore, we call for diverse summative and formative assessment practices for positivistic fi elds of knowledge, such as the STEM fi eld, to enable students to demonstrate their knowledge in deeply personal ways as future professionals (Bearman and Luckin 2020).”
BackgroundFigueroa, B. A. M., & Eaton, S. E. (2023) · RELIEVE - Revista Electrónica de Investigación y Evaluación Educativa · doi:10.30827/relieve.v29i2.29295 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Authentic assessment in higher education: the spectre of lost futures
Vallis, C. (2024) · Teaching in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/13562517.2024.2362217 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
“Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly generative AI, is also shifting how we learn and teach (Bearman and Luckin 2020).”
The Education Leadership Challenges for Universities in a Postdigital Age
Ellis, R. A. (2024) · Postdigital Science and Education · doi:10.1007/s42438-024-00461-9 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
“…being able to detect what is truth and what is not, what is real and what is fake, will become an explicit aspect of graduate attributes (Bearman and Luckin 2020), a requirement for effective professional practice on graduation, and an essential skill for participation in civic…”
Artificial intelligence and gender equity: An integrated approach for health professional education
Bearman, M., & Ajjawi, R. (2025) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/medu.15657 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
“In a time of AI, humans must increasingly be arbiters of quality in practice 54 and make evaluative judgements about the quality of AI processes and outputs.”
Authentic assessment as relational pedagogy
Gravett, K. (2024) · Teaching in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/13562517.2024.2380997 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
“…example, Margaret Bearman and Rosemary Luckin argue that in a time where AI is able to work at scale and speed, it is human connections, our physicalities, experiences and relationships, as well as our individual capacity for reason, that may begin to significantly matter (Bearman and Luckin 2020).”
Academic Integrity in the Face of Generative Language Models
Meça, A., & Shkëlzeni, N. (2023) · Lecture notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-50215-6_5 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Graves, B. C. (2023) · Assessing Writing · doi:10.1016/j.asw.2023.100754 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Self-assessment design in a digital world: centring student agency
Nieminen, J. H., Yan, Z., & Boud, D. J. (2025) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2025.2467647 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
“…to live in an AI-mediated world as ‘it shifts the focus from being successful (yes or no), to coming to understand how success is constituted’ (Bearman and luckin 2020, 57). one timely example of this is the design of tasks that develop students’ evaluative judgement through AI…”
Peters, M., & Angelov, D. (2025) · International Journal for Educational Integrity · doi:10.1007/s40979-025-00201-x · Cited by 27 · see citing works
“Bearman and Luckin (2020) specify that assessment in general in the age of GenAI be modified (1) to maximise human endeavors; (2) to encourage students to reflect and be critical; and, finally, (3) to require of students to recognize and distinguish between their own Fig.”
A conceptual model for program-level assessment
Charlton, N., & Newsham‐West, R. (2024) · Higher Education Research & Development · doi:10.1080/07294360.2024.2364094 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
“Assessment also needs to include the moral and ethical employment of rapidly changing technologies, such as generative AI (Aoun, 2017; Bearman & Luckin, 2020).”
Trikoili, A., Georgiou, D., Pappa, C. I., & Pittich, D. (2025) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2025.2499164 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
“This shift also emphasizes human-centric skills like critical thinking and evaluative judgment to better prepare students for an AI-driven world (Bearman & Luckin, 2020).”
Using AI to generate formative feedback in doctoral education
Tensen, D., Grainger, P., & Graham, W. (2025) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2025.2536558 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
“Parker et al. (2024) referencing Bearman and Luckin (2020) state that traditional assessment methods in doctoral education ‘must evolve to account for AI assistance in human compositions’ (2), suggesting current supervisor-driven approaches to providing formative feedback undermine educational…”
Fostering Academic Integrity in the Age of Artificial Intelligence
Mahmud, S. (2024) · Advances in educational marketing, administration, and leadership book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-0240-8.ch001 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
(2025) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2025.8.1.20 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Digital Assessment in Higher Education: Sustainable Trends and Emerging Frontiers in the AI Era
Lelescu, A., & Kabiraj, S. (2024) · Lecture notes in educational technology · doi:10.1007/978-981-97-6136-4_2 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Ibarra-Sáiz, M. S., Gómez-Ruiz, M., Balderas, A., & Rodríguez-Gómez, G. (2025) · Technology, Knowledge and Learning · doi:10.1007/s10758-025-09858-2 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
“…self-knowledge and the perception of their own efficacy, are fundamental elements that contribute to human intelligence and make it stand out from work performed by machines, in a world evermore influenced by the development of artificial intelligence (Bearman & Luckin, 2020; Bearman et al., 2024).”
Educational Technologies and Assessment Practices
Lim, T., Gottipati, S., & Cheong, M. L. F. (2024) · Advances in educational technologies and instructional design book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-1310-7.ch009 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Tuck, J. (2023) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2023.2181942 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
“It raises questions about the nature of human marking at a time when marking by non-humans is very much on the agenda (Bearman et al. 2020).”
BackgroundStudent experience of online exams in professional programs: current issues and future trends
Nguyen, N. T., Clark, C., Joyce, C., Parsons, C. H., & Juriansz, J. (2023) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-95500-3.00009-2 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Conformity towards humans versus AI in different task domains: the type of task matters
Thorp, S. O., Slupphaug, K. S., Rimol, L. M., Lervik, S., Hoel, S. K. B., & Grassini, S. (2025) · Journal of Psychology and AI · doi:10.1080/29974100.2025.2540762 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Jackson, T., Jackson, L. M., & Day, M. (2023) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-34045-1_22 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Rethinking assessment: the potential of ‘innovative’ or ‘creative’ assessments in history
Holland, S. (2024) · History Education Research Journal · doi:10.14324/herj.21.1.09 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Train the Trainer: Using an AI Teacher to Upskill Teachers in India
Otermans, P. C. J., & Aditya, D. (2025) · SciComm Report · doi:10.32457/scr.v4i1.2826 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Laidlaw, P. (2026) · Teaching in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/13562517.2026.2670362 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
“Bearman and Luckin (2020) propose assessment augmentation where AI enhances rather than replaces human judgment, handling routine tasks, while educators focus on professional judgment, empathy, and ethical reasoning.”
Patent landscape analysis of human intelligence
Fatkul, A., Purnomo, A., & Afia, N. (2025) · Human Technology · doi:10.14254/1795-6889.2025.21-1.9 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“Assessment must concentrate on human intelligence, particularly on skills that are difficult for robots to replicate (Bearman and Luckin 2020).”
Welsen, S. (2024) · World Engineering Education Forum - Global Engineering Deans Council (WEEF-GEDC) · doi:10.1109/weef-gedc63419.2024.11151832 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“Therefore, there is a need to recognize the impact of AI on higher education assessments and to explore ways to leverage AI and relevant features designed to promote higher-order learning [6].”
Revising Australian Academic Integrity Policy for the Age of Artificial Intelligence
Morgan, D. (2024) · Advances in educational marketing, administration, and leadership book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-0240-8.ch003 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
McDermott, B., & Eaton, S. E. (2025) · Advances in business ethics research · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-77665-6_6 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
AI as an Evaluator in Education Assessment
Prestoza, M. J. R., Batang, B. L., & Batang, R. S. (2025) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-6330-1.ch007 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
AI-Assisted Storytelling for Young Learners
Pujiani, T. (2025) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-6330-1.ch008 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Lakey, E., & Pearce, J. (2026) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2026.2668482 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“A Co-Pilot for Learning Design?”
Ryall, A., & Abblitt, S. (2023) · ASCILITE Publications · doi:10.14742/apubs.2023.513 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Lim, T., Gottipati, S., & Cheong, M. L. F. (2023) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2696352/v1 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Embedding Generative AI as a digital capability into a year-long MSc skills programPreprint
Smith, D. P., Sokoya, D., Moore, S., Okonkwo, C., Boyd, C., Lacey, M. M., & Francis, N. (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-5204546/v1 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Provocation 2: The Impact of Digital Upon Assessment: Innovation is Necessary but Not Easy
Bearman, M. (2021) · Teacher education, learning innovation and accountability · doi:10.1007/978-981-16-3705-6_11
Andrade, C. F. O., Arango-Espinal, E., & Arango-Pastrana, C. A. (2024) · Palabra Clave · doi:10.5294/pacla.2024.27.3.8 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Roy, K. K., & Sharma, A. (2025) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-02669-9_12
Panahi, P., & Chen, J. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5493308
ChatGPT is in classrooms. How should educators now assess student learning?
Eaton, S. E., Kumar, R., Brennan, R., et al. (2026) · doi:10.64628/aam.j6nm95t5x
University Students’ Writing Dilemmas in the Age of AI : Perceptions and Realities of AI Use
Cho, J. Y., & Han, H. J. (2026) · The Korean Association of General Education · doi:10.46392/kjge.2026.20.1.41
genAI and Professional Learning
Ulbrick, R., & Pechenkina, E. (2026) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-3638-1.ch010
Elkington, S. (2026) · Teaching in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/13562517.2026.2680077
Garcia, P. S., & Wandercil, M. (2026) · EccoS – Revista Científica · doi:10.5585/2026.29428
Automating Multi-Modal Formative Assessment with Generative-AI Workflows and xAPI Analytics
Anaroua, F. I., Iyengar, A., Li, Q., et al. (2026) · International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training (ITHET) · doi:10.1109/ithet69978.2026.11584995
Salamonson, Y., Irwin, P., Kornhaber, R. A., Walker, D., McGough, S., Vakavosaki, K., Ramjan, L. M., Bloomfield, J. G., Matheson, A., & Greenwood, M. D. (2026) · Journal of Clinical Nursing · doi:10.1111/jocn.70484
Susoy, Z. (2026) · Pamukkale University Journal of Education · doi:10.9779/pauefd.1847553
Personalisierung von Prüfungen durch ChatGPT-4o?
Reinhold, L., & Buntins, K. (2026) · MedienPädagogik Zeitschrift für Theorie und Praxis der Medienbildung · doi:10.21240/mpaed/71/2026.08.16.x
Teaching What the Machine Told Us
Genç, L. G., & Uygun, E. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-2600-1232-1.ch014
Understanding discrepancy in AI-human assessment systems due to hidden calibration inconsistency
Gold, N. O. (2026) · Discover Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1007/s44163-026-02226-8
“…may perform more consistently in some aspect while it became less consistent in others especially in situations where candidate’s responses are lacking in sufficient details or where candidate demonstrate highly nuanced reasoning that extends the actual pattern-based grading structures [35, 36].”
Artificial Intelligence Literacy as a Strategic Challenge for STEAM Higher Education
Lérias, E., Guerra, C., & Ferreira, P. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-8735-2.ch004
Feldman-Maggor, Y., Pargman, T. C., & Viberg, O. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-37979-5_14
Tyagi, V. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-8332-3.ch013
Abdulhamid, L., Julius, A. E., Tshesane, H., Makonye, J. P., Nyamupangedengu, E., Kazeni, M., Mabenge, P., Mandikonza, C., & Stephen, M. M. (2026) · African Journal of Research in Mathematics Science and Technology Education · doi:10.1080/18117295.2026.2716386
- Authors
- Bearman, M., & Luckin, R.
- Affiliations
- Deakin University (AU)
- University College London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Bearman, Margaret
- Venue
- The enabling power of assessment
- Publisher
- Springer International Publishing
- Published
- 2020
- Pages
- 49-63
- ISSN
- 2198-2643 (ISSN-L)
- 2198-2651
- OpenAlex
- W3042568011
- Semantic Scholar
- f62c158505bbdb82b3253f58b8338ce5c2a6bb0f
- Cited by
- 74
- References
- 24
- Citations by year
- 2026: 17 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4
- FWCI
- 35.20
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- figshare.com
- Locations
- The enabling power of assessment (publishedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Keywords
- artificial intelligence, higher education assessment, human intelligence, personal epistemology, evaluative judgments, critical appraisal, graduate employability
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
