Seitse soovitust tehisintellektikindla hindamise kujundamiseks kõrghariduses
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12697/eha.2026.14.2.02bMärksõnad:
hindamine, tehisintellekt, kõrgharidus, hindamise kujundamine, tehisintellektikindel hindamineKokkuvõte
The widespread adoption of AI by students in higher education has created urgent challenges for assessment design. As 89% of students use AI in their studies and nearly 80% use it for assessments, institutions are struggling to balance preventing misconduct with preparing students for responsible AI use. Existing reviews address parts of this challenge, but none comprehensively synthesize practical lessons for assessment design. This narrative review synthesized findings from recent empirical articles, previous reviews, and other recent studies into lessons that offer practical guidance to higher education professionals. Seven lessons are identified for AI-robust assessment design: (1) preventing cheating must not come at unacceptable costs to validity; (2) discursive solutions (e.g., AI use policies) must be combined with structural redesign; (3) a two-lane approach distinguishing independent from AI-augmented performance is advisable; (4) assessment design should protect the intrinsic cognitive load while allowing offloading of the extraneous load; (5) evaluative judgment has become a more central skill that requires extensive domain knowledge; (6) a diverse portfolio of assessment methods (the Swiss-cheese model) reduces vulnerability to both cheating and validity bias; and (7) AI-robust assessment requires sustained, integrated teacher professional development. Assessment design in times of AI is a wicked problem without quick fixes. The seven lessons offer a practical framework for institutions seeking to maintain validity, support learning, and uphold academic integrity in an AI-rich environment.
Allalaadimised
Viited
Abbas, M., Jam, F. A., & Khan, T. I. (2024). Is it harmful or helpful? Examining the causes and consequences of generative AI usage among university students. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00444-7
Akgun, S., & Greenhow, C. (2022). Artificial intelligence in education: Addressing ethical challenges in K-12 settings. AI and Ethics, 2(3), 431–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-021-00096-7
An, Y., Yu, J. H., & James, S. (2025). Investigating the higher education institutions’ guidelines and policies regarding the use of generative AI in teaching, learning, research, and administration. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 22(10), https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-025-00507-3
Ardito, C. G. (2025). Generative AI detection in higher education assessments. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 182, 11–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20624
Aru, J., & Laak, K. J. (2025). Developing an AI-based general personal tutor for education, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 29(11), 957–960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2025.09.010
Bastani, H., Bastani, O., Sungu, A., Ge, H., Kabakcı, Ö., & Mariman, R. (2025). Generative AI without guardrails can harm learning: Evidence from high school mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(26), e2422633122. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2422633122
Bearman, M., Fawns, T., Corbin, T., Henderson, M., Liang, Y., Oberg, G., Walton, J., & Matthews, K. E. (2025). Time, emotions and moral judgements: How university students position GenAI within their study. Higher Education Research & Development, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2025.2580616
Bearman, M., Tai, J., Dawson, P., Boud, D., & Ajjawi, R. (2024). Developing evaluative judgement for a time of generative artificial intelligence. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 49(6), 893–905. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.2335321
Bower, M., Torrington, J., Lai, J.W.M., Petocz, P., & Alfano, M. (2024). How should we change teaching and assessment in response to increasingly powerful generative Artificial Intelligence? Outcomes of the ChatGPT teacher survey. Education and Information Technology, 29, 15403–15439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12405-0
Chung, J., Henderson, M., Pepperell, N., Slade, C., & Liang, Y. (2024). Student perspectives on AI in higher education: Student survey. Student Perspectives on AI in Higher Education Project. https://doi.org/10.26180/27915930
Corbin, T., Bearman, M., Boud, D., & Dawson, P. (2025a). The wicked problem of AI and assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2025.2553340
Corbin, T., Dawson, P., & Liu, D. (2025b). Talk is cheap: why structural assessment changes are needed for a time of GenAI. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2025.2503964
Corbin, T., Dawson, P., Nicola-Richmond, K., & Partridge, H. (2025c). "Where’s the line? It’s an absurd line": Towards a framework for acceptable uses of AI in assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2025.2456207
Corbin, T., Walton, J., Bannister, P., & Deranty, J. P. (2025d). On the essay in a time of GenAI. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2025.2572802
Corbin, T. A., & Walton, J. (2025). The missing story of GenAI summarisers: A critical research agenda. Higher Education Research & Development, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2025.2486185
Cui, Y., Meng, Y., & Tang, L. (2025). Reconsidering teacher assessment literacy in GenAI-enhanced environments: A scoping review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 165, 105163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2025.105163
Curtis, G. J. (2025). The two-lane road to hell is paved with good intentions: Why an all-or-none approach to generative AI, integrity, and assessment is insupportable. Higher Education Research & Development, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2025.2476516
Dawson, P., Bearman, M., Dollinger, M., & Boud, D. (2024). Validity matters more than cheating. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 49(7), 1005–1016. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.2386662
de Bruin, A. B., Biwer, F., Hui, L., Onan, E., David, L., & Wiradhany, W. (2023). Worth the effort: The start and stick to desirable difficulties (S2D2) framework. Educational Psychology Review, 35(2), 41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09766-w
Dekker. I., Agarwal, B., Bredeweg, B., van de Poel (2026). Usable procedures for responsible experiments with artificial intelligence in education. AI and Ethics, https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-026-01035-0
Dekker, I., Bredeweg, B., te Winkel, W., & van de Poel, I. (2025). Ethical procedures for responsible experimental evaluation of AI-based education interventions. AI and Ethics, 5(3), 2977–2986. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-024-00621-4
Dekker, I., & Hermans, F. (2026). Why the user-friendliness of AI undermines education. Commentary on Wieczorek 2025. Philosophy & Technology. 39, 82, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-026-01093-6
Dekker, I. ,& Theelen, H. (2025). The vanishing classroom: Attendance trends in higher education. OSF. https://doi.org/10.35542/osf.io/bmnhp_v2
DeLuca, C., Volante, L., & Holden, M. (2025). The AI3 model: Future directions for artificial intelligence, assessment innovation, and academic integrity. Educational Researcher, 0013189X251385537. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X251385537
Eaton, S. E., Moya Figueroa, B. A., McDermott, B., Kumar, R., Brennan, R., & Wiens, J. (2025). What should we be assessing exactly? Higher education staff narratives on gen AI integration of assessment in a postplagiarism era. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2025.2587246
Ellis, C., & Murdoch, K. (2024). The educational integrity enforcement pyramid: A new framework for challenging and responding to student cheating. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 49(7), 924–934. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.2329167
Fan, Y., Tang, L., Le, H., Shen, K., Tan, S., Zhao, Y., Shen, Y., Li, X., & Gašević, D. (2025). Beware of metacognitive laziness: Effects of generative artificial intelligence on learning motivation, processes, and performance. British Journal of Educational Technology, 56(2), 489–530. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13544
Fleckenstein, J., Meyer, J., Jansen, T., Keller, S. D., Köller, O., & Möller, J. (2024). Do teachers spot AI? Evaluating the detectability of AI-generated texts among student essays. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6, 100209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100209
Fleckenstein, J., Liebenow, L. W., & Meyer, J. (2023). Automated feedback and writing: A multi-level meta-analysis of effects on students’ performance. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 6, 1162454. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2023.1162454
Furze, L., Perkins, M., Roe, J., & MacVaugh, J. (2024). The AI Assessment Scale (AIAS) in action: A pilot implementation of GenAI-supported assessment. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 40(4), 38–55. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.9434
Gonsalves, C. (2025). Addressing student non-compliance in AI use declarations: Implications for academic integrity and assessment in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 50(4), 592–606. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.2415654
Granström, M., & Oppi, P. (2025). Assessing teachers’ readiness and perceived usefulness of AI in education: An Estonian perspective. Frontiers in Education, 10, 1622240. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1622240
Gruenhagen, J., P.M. Sinclair, J. Carroll, P. Baker, A. Wilson, & D. Demant. (2024). The rapid rise of generative AI and its implications for academic integrity: Students’ perceptions and use of chatbots for assistance with assessments. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 7, 100273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100273
Guo, Y., & Wang, Y. (2025). Exploring the effects of artificial intelligence application on EFL students’ academic engagement and emotional experiences: A Mixed-Methods study. European Journal of Education, 60(1), e12812. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12812
Kahneman, D., Sibony, O., & Sunstein, C. R. (2021). Noise: A flaw in human judgment. Hachette UK.
Kalmus, J. E., & Nikiforova, A. (2024). Generative AI adoption in higher education: Exploring educator resistance in Estonian universities. Proceedings of the 2024 Pre-ICIS SIGDSA Symposium. 13. https://aisel.aisnet.org/sigdsa2024/13
Kangwa, D., Msafiri, M. M., & Fute, A. (2025). Exploring the factors that promote a balance between academic integrity and the effective use of GenAI tools in higher education: A systematic review. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 41(5), e70109. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.70109
Kofinas, A. K., Tsay, C.-H., & Pike, D. (2025). The impact of generative AI on academic integrity of authentic assessments within a higher education context. British Journal of Educational Technology, 56, 2522–2549. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13585
Laak, K. J., & Aru, J. (2025). AI and personalized learning, Educational Technology & Society, 28(4), 133–150, https://doi.org/10.30191/ETS.202510_28(4).RP08
Liu, D., & Bridgeman, A. (2023). What to do about assessments if we can’t out-design or out-run AI? https://educational-innovation.sydney.edu.au/teaching@sydney/what-to-do-about-assessments-if-we-cant-out-design-or-out-run-ai/
Lodge, J., Howard, S., Bearman, M., & Dawson, P. (2023). Assessment reform for the age of artificial intelligence. https://www.teqsa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-09/assessment-reform-age-artificial-intelligence-discussion-paper.pdf
Luo, J. (2024). A critical review of GenAI policies in higher education assessment: A call to reconsider the "originality" of students’ work. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 49(5), 651–664. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.2309963
Luo, J., & Dawson, P. (2025). Exploring value judgements in grading: Will teachers mark down student work assisted by GenAI, and should they?. Studies in Higher Education, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2025.2552825
Luo, J., Keung, C. P. C., & Tang, H. Hang H. (2025). Assessment as a dilemmatic space in the GenAI age: Mapping and unpacking university teachers’ conflicting priorities in assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 50(4), 607–621. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.2444890
Meyer, J., Köller, O., Jansen, T., Fleckenstein, J., Asher, M. W., Bichler, S., ... & Winstone, N. (2026). The future of feedback: How can AI help transform feedback to be more engaging, effective, and scalable?. arXiv, 2603.12463. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.12463
Miranda, F. J. (2025). Accreditation and quality assurance in higher education institutions: A systematic literature review and a research agenda. Quality in Higher Education, 31(3), 304–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2025.2553983
Molenaar, I. (2022). Towards hybrid human-AI learning technologies. European Journal of Education, 57(4), 632–645. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12527
Moorhouse, B. L., Yeo, M. A., & Wan, Y. (2023). Generative AI tools and assessment: Guidelines of the world’s top-ranking universities. Computers and Education Open, 5, 100151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2023.100151
Newton, P. M. (2025). How vulnerable are UK universities to cheating with new GenAI tools? A pragmatic risk assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 50(8), 1332–1343. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2025.2511794
Newton, P. M., & Jones, S. (2025). Education and training assessment and artificial intelligence. A pragmatic guide for educators. British Journal of Biomedical Science, 81, 14049. https://doi.org/10.3389/bjbs.2024.14049
Nicola-Richmond, K., Dawson, P., Partridge, H., & Macfarlane, S. (2025). It takes a village... Program-wide approaches to redesigning assessment in a time of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI). Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 22(7). https://doi.org/10.53761/zpp2ja61
Parson, V. (2025). Beyond penalties: A proactive approach to developing student understanding of academic integrity. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2025.2580621
Perkins, M. (2023). Academic Integrity considerations of AI Large Language Models in the post-pandemic era: ChatGPT and beyond. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 20(2), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.20.02.07
Perkins, M., L. Furze, J. Roe, & J. MacVaugh. (2024a). The Artificial Intelligence Assessment Scale (AIAS): A framework for ethical integration of generative AI in educational assessment. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 21(06), 49–66. https://doi.org/10.53761/q3azde36
Perkins, M., Roe, J., Postma, D., McGaughran, J., & Hickerson, D. (2024b). Detection of GPT-4 generated text in higher education: Combining academic judgement and software to identify generative AI tool misuse. Journal of Academic Ethics, 22(1), 89–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-023-09492-6
Rundle, K., Curtis, G., & Clare, J. (2020). Why students choose not to cheat. In A research agenda for academic integrity (pp. 100–111). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Sims, S., Fletcher-Wood, H., O’Mara-Eves, A., Cottingham, S., Stansfield, C., Goodrich, J., ... & Anders, J. (2025). Effective teacher professional development: New theory and a meta-analytic test. Review of Educational Research, 95(2), 213–254. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543231217480
Sporrong, E., C. McGrath, & T. Cerratto Pargman. (2025). Situating AI in assessment – An exploration of university teachers’ valuing practices. AI and Ethics, 5(3), 2381–2394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-024-00558-8
St-Onge, C., Young, M., Eva, K. W., & Hodges, B. (2017). Validity: One word with a plurality of meanings. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 22(4), 853–867. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-016-9716-3
Zhan, Y., & Yan, Z. (2026). Students’ engagement with ChatGPT feedback: implications for student feedback literacy in the context of generative artificial intelligence. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 51(5), 821–834. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2025.2471821
Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., Boud, D., Dawson, P., & Panadero, E. (2018). Developing evaluative judgement: Enabling students to make decisions about the quality of work. Higher Education, 76(3), 467–481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0220-3
Tight, M. (2024). Challenging cheating in higher education: A review of research and practice. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 49(7), 911–923. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2023.2300104
Tsao, J. (2025). Trajectories of AI policy in higher education: Interpretations, discourses, and enactments of students and teachers. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 100496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100496
Visscher, A. J., Dmoshinskaia, N., Pellegrini, M., & Rey-Naizaque, A. (2025). (When) do teacher professional development interventions improve student Achievement? A meta-analysis of 128 high-quality studies. Educational Research Review, 49, 100742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2025.100742
Walton, J., Bearman, M., Crawford, N., Tai, J., & Boud, D. (2025). How university students work on assessment tasks with generative artificial intelligence: Matters of judgement. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 50, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2025.2570328
Waltzer, T., Pilegard, C., & Heyman, G. D. (2024). Can you spot the bot? Identifying AI-generated writing in college essays. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 20(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-024-00158-3
Wieczorek, M. (2025). Why AI will not democratize education: a critical pragmatist perspective. Philosophy & Technology, 38(2), 53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-025-00883-8
Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning?. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.03.001
Xia, Q., Weng, X., Ouyang, F., Lin, T. J., & Chiu, T. K. (2024). A scoping review on how generative artificial intelligence transforms assessment in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21(1), 40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00468-z
##submission.downloads##
Avaldatud
Kuis viidata
Väljaanne
Rubriik
Litsents
Eesti Haridusteaduste Ajakirja autorid nõustuvad allpool esitatud tingimustega.
- Ajakirjas avaldatud artiklitele on tagatud vaba juurdepääs Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 litsentsiga määratud õiguste mahus.
- Autor loovutab ajakirjale tasuta tema poolt loodud artikli varalised õigused, sh õiguse artikli (1) avaldamisele ja levitamisele, (2) üldsusele kättesaadavaks tegemisele ja eksponeerimisele, (3) avalikule esitamisele.
- Autoril on õigus Eesti Haridusteaduste Ajakirja eelneval nõusolekul sõlmida lepinguid kolmandate isikutega publitseeritud artikli säilitamiseks raamatukogu repositooriumis või avaldamiseks raamatu peatükina. Nõudeks on teiseses töös viitamine esmasele allikale, st artiklile Eesti Haridusteaduste Ajakirjas.
- Pärast artikli ilmumist ajakirjas on autoritel lubatud avaldada Internetis (nt oma veebilehel) motiveeritud mahus tsitaate ning levitada linke koos korrektse viitega ajakirjas ilmunud artiklile (vt Open Access).
