Use the checklist below to assess whether your course assessment is vulnerable to misuse of GenAI. This checklist helps lecturers critically evaluate and (re)design assessments with GenAI in mind. The checklist is not intended as an evaluation tool for exam boards, but as an aid for reflecting on and discussing assessment quality.

Each question can be answered with a tick or an X. Each X indicates a potential risk that students will miss out on important learning processes or even pass the course without achieving the learning objectives due to misuse of GenAI. The greatest risks lie in assignments that students prepare independently outside a controlled exam setting: these include written assignments, of course, but also all other assignments that are prepared without supervision, such as presentations, posters, podcasts and videos, both individually and in groups.

Last updated: January 2026.

Click here for the checklist

Is the final grade (partly) determined by assignments that students complete without supervision? Note: also take into account unsupervised assignments that do not directly count towards the final grade, but do contribute in other ways to passing the course, for example in the form of AVV/NAV, because they form a basis for later work, or because they enable students to compensate for insufficient grades in other parts of the course.

No, no credits (EC) are awarded based on (grades for) assignments that students complete without supervision.

Advice: there is a very low risk that students will pass the course through unauthorised use of GenAI; the other questions do not need to be answered.

Yes, the final grade is determined by one or more assignments that students complete without supervision.

Advice: accept that students will use GenAI to a greater or lesser extent in these situations, even if you prohibit it. To ensure that their learning process is not disrupted, you have two options: convert the assignment into a supervised assessment (on location), or adapt the assignment in such a way that students will still learn enough despite using GenAI – this could even be a learning objective. Continue with the other questions.

Run the assignments through GenAI and refine the prompts as a student might do (for example, by uploading the assignment description, assessment criteria, rubric, and required reading). Assess the output: could it lead to a passing grade, with or without minor changes?

Note that this will only give you a rough idea: some students make highly advanced, iterative use of multiple (paid) tools, which means that a tick for this question may give you a false sense of security.

The output is of little to no use, or would not lead to a passing grade in its current form. The student would need to refine the prompts considerably and use additional subject-specific knowledge and/or skills in order to produce a final product of passing quality.

The output could lead to a passing grade without any changes, or with minimal changes or refined prompting.

Advice: this assignment should not be administered without supervision. Make it an on-site assignment (without the use of aids).

If that is not possible, you can try to increase the complexity of the assignment by using unique, highly specific or recent cases and asking for subject-specific knowledge, skills or personal analysis, whereby students also go through the desired learning process if they do use GenAI. Please note: with advanced use of GenAI, more is often possible than you might think.

Do the unsupervised assignments have a significant impact on the final mark for this course? In other words, could a student pass this course by only scoring well on this component?

The final grade is primarily determined by other forms of assessment, supervised and on location. For example: an exam or assignment, a practical test or an oral exam.

Advice: if the final grade is primarily determined by other forms of assessment, it may be an acceptable risk if students use GenAI for the unsupervised assignment. Check whether the (most important) learning objectives and/or skills are covered by the current assessment or, for example, return later in the curriculum and are assessed in a supervised setting.

The final grade is based (almost) exclusively on unsupervised assignments.

Advice: convert (part of) the unsupervised assessment to a supervised assessment form as mentioned above. Remember to consider the constructive alignment of the course: can you still assess the same learning objectives/skills this way?

One possible adjustment is to have students complete an unsupervised assignment (for AVV/NAV or a small percentage of the final grade) and then, during a supervised exam, have them do something new with this material, for example by converting it into a different form (such as a policy document) or for a different audience (e.g. popular science).

Do the assignments give the lecturer sufficient insight into the student’s learning process, so that assessing whether or not the learning objectives have been achieved does not depend solely on the final product?

Student progress is monitored during the course. For example: students submit drafts for (peer) feedback, they discuss their approach with the lecturer, they complete part of the work on campus (in class) or, when submitting the final product, they are asked to provide a logbook, oral explanation or defence of the learning process and/or an account of how GenAI was used in the assignment. In the case of group work, steps are taken to distinguish individual contributions. These components may also form part of the assessment to encourage responsible use of GenAI (e.g. as a small percentage of the grade or as AVV/NAV).

Much or all of the work process takes place outside the lecturer’s supervision.

Advice: ensure that there is more emphasis on the student’s learning process within your teaching by incorporating scaffolded steps as described above. It is not possible to establish with certainty whether the student has achieved the learning objectives based on the final product alone.

Do students know how to use GenAI responsibly in this course?

Students know how to use GenAI responsibly in the course. The lecturer explicitly discusses the ethical and academic implications of using GenAI in assignments and encourages students to reflect on the advantages and disadvantages of doing so. For assignments that are (partly) completed without supervision, students are expected to account for any use of GenAI (e.g. through reflection, a logbook or an oral explanation).

It is not clearly described how students may use GenAI, or its use is explicitly prohibited (even though this cannot be enforced).

Advice: a ban on the use of GenAI is impossible to monitor or enforce and may discourage students from discussing their use of GenAI with their lecturer, even in the case of legitimate questions. Openly discussing how students can use GenAI in an ethical, informed and responsible manner can help.

Are the assessment criteria focused on aspects that cannot be fully outsourced to GenAI? Please note that with advanced use of GenAI, more is often possible than you might think.

The criteria in the grading scheme are based on the student’s own choices, reasoning, or justifications (usually concerning learning objectives at the level of analysing, evaluating, or creating), where the student, with or without the use of GenAI, is responsible for the quality of the final product.

The grading scheme includes criteria where students can easily and fully outsource tasks to GenAI, such as formatting, layout, spelling, and use of language.

Advice: these types of criteria can be converted into AVV/NAV or prerequisites for a grade instead of a percentage of the final grade. If these criteria relate to learning objectives such as language skills that are essential for passing the course, then the assessment should take place under supervision (on location, without the use of aids).

Learning with and about GenAI

Some teams have already started modifying their study programmes to incorporate GenAI literacy into the curriculum, to ensure that students learn to use GenAI in an ethical and responsible manner. In addition, in some fields of study, students will need to learn how to use GenAI for their future careers. These types of learning objectives must also be assessed using valid and reliable methods, but the risk of GenAI misuse during assessment is lower because responsible use is explicitly discussed and taught in education and is integrated into the assignment (permitted, encouraged or even required).

Questions & actions based on the checklist results

Did completing the checklist for your course result in multiple Xs? If so, it is wise to take action and adjust your assessment. There is no one-size-fits-all solution, so we advise you to combine the strategies that work best for you. Rules and practices surrounding assessment vary greatly between programmes and faculties. This means that some strategies may not be applicable in your situation.

Do you have any questions about the results of the checklist? If so, we encourage you to contact TLC advisers, assessment specialists or programme directors for advice and further guidance.

GenAI and academic misconduct

If you suspect that a student has used GenAI inappropriately in an assignment or exam, please inform the exam board. They can then investigate the matter and take appropriate action, which helps to ensure equal treatment.

Do not rely on detection tools: in their current form, they are not reliable. They cannot accurately predict whether a text has been written (in part) by GenAI or by a human being and are often biased against students not writing in their native language. It is therefore better not to use them.

Advice on adjusting your assessment

Via TLC Contact, you can contact your faculty’s assessment specialists. You can discuss potential changes to your assessment with them. You can also seek advice from the assessment specialists at TLC Central (tlc@uva.nl). Make sure to inform your programme director, so that they can make an overview of the situation and risks at programme level.