GenAI and Assessment Checklist
The GenAI and Assessment Checklist helps you find out whether your course assessment is vulnerable to misuse of AI. it critically evaluates and (re)designs assessments with AI 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.
Last updated: June 2026.
Answer each question with ✓ or ✗
A ✗ indicates a potential risk that students could complete the assessment or pass the course without engaging in the intended learning process or achieving the learning objectives due to misuse of AI. The greatest risks occur in unsupervised assignments prepared outside a controlled exam setting: written work, presentations, posters, podcasts and videos.
Also include assignments that do not directly count towards the final grade but do contribute to passing the course, for example AVV/NAV, foundational work, or compensation for insufficient grades in other parts of the course.
 |
No, no credits (EC) are awarded based on assignments that students complete without supervision, so the risk that students pass the course through unauthorised use of GenAI is very low. You do not need to answer the remaining questions.
|
 |
Yes, the final grade is determined by one or more assignments that students complete without supervision. In these contexts, assume students may use GenAI: either convert the assignment into a supervised on-site assessment or adapt it so that students still achieve the intended learning (potentially making GenAI use itself a learning objective). Continue with the remaining questions. |
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.
|
No, 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.
|
|
Yes, the GenAI output could lead to a passing grade with little or no modification. Do not administer this assignment without supervision: either convert it to an on-site assessment (without aids) or increase its complexity by using unique, highly specific or recent cases and requiring subject-specific knowledge, skills and personal analysis, so that students still go through the intended learning process even when they use GenAI. Keep in mind that advanced use of GenAI may achieve more than you expect. |
|
No, the final grade is primarily determined by supervised, on‑site assessment (e.g. exam, in‑class assignment, practical test, oral exam). In this case, using GenAI for the unsupervised assignment is an acceptable risk, provided that the main learning objectives and skills are assessed in these supervised components or later in the curriculum.
|
|
Yes, the final grade is based (almost) exclusively on unsupervised assignments. Convert (part of) this assessment to supervised, on‑site forms and check whether you still assess the same learning objectives and skills (constructive alignment). You can also keep the unsupervised assignment as AVV/NAV or a small percentage of the final grade and, in a supervised exam, require students to do something new with this work (for example, recast it in a different form or for a different audience). |
Does the assignment provide sufficient insight into how the student arrived at the final product?
|
Yes, the lecturer can observe the learning process. Student progress is monitored during the course (e.g. drafts for (peer) feedback, discussions with the lecturer, parts of the work completed on campus, and a logbook, oral explanation or account of GenAI use with the final product). In group work, individual contributions are made visible. These elements can form part of the assessment to encourage responsible use of GenAI (e.g. as AVV/NAV or a small percentage of the grade).
|
|
No, much or all of the work takes place outside the lecturer’s supervision, so the final product alone does not show reliably whether the learning objectives have been achieved. Build in scaffolded steps such as intermediate drafts, reflection on GenAI use, oral explanations or discussions, and justification of methodological choices, so that the learning process becomes visible and can be assessed. Making the learning process visible helps ensure that assessment reflects how students arrive at their work, not just the final output |
- Student progress is monitored during the course through:
- Draft submissions and feedback
- Discussions of research design or argument structure
- Parts of the assignment completed in class
- Reflective accounts of how AI tools were used
- Logbooks documenting the development of the work
- Oral explanations or defences of the final product
These elements may also form part of the assessment.
5. Are assessment criteria focused on reasoning rather than polish?
Assessment criteria should primarily evaluate students’ reasoning, interpretation, disciplinary judgement, and methodological choices, rather than surface-level features that can easily be generated or improved by GenAI tools. One major risk of GenAI tools is that they can quickly generate highly-polished content without substance.
|
Yes, the assessment criteria primarily evaluate students’ reasoning and academic judgement (e.g. quality of argumentation, interpretation of evidence or sources, disciplinary and methodological choices, originality of analysis or synthesis). These criteria require students to engage with the underlying learning objectives, even when they use GenAI tools in their workflow.
|
|
No, the assessment criteria place substantial emphasis on surface-level features that GenAI can easily generate or improve (e.g. grammar, spelling, language polish, formatting, layout, structure, stylistic refinement). Shift the focus of the grading criteria towards reasoning, analysis and disciplinary decision-making, and treat surface features as AVV/NAV or submission requirements rather than a substantial part of the final grade. If these features are key learning objectives (e.g. language proficiency), assess them under supervised conditions.
|
6. Do students know how to use GenAI responsibly in this course?
Is the role of GenAI explicitly addressed? Clear communication about GenAI helps students use these tools in an informed and responsible way.
|
Yes, students know how to use GenAI responsibly in this course. The lecturer explicitly discusses the ethical and academic implications of GenAI, explains when independent mastery is required, when GenAI use is permitted and how it should be documented, and emphasises that students remain responsible for all submitted work. For unsupervised assignments, students are expected to account for GenAI use (e.g. in a reflection, logbook or oral explanation), which supports transparent and informed use.
|
|
No, it is not clearly described how students may use GenAI, or its use is simply prohibited (even though this cannot be enforced). A complete ban is difficult to monitor and may discourage students from discussing their GenAI use, even when they have legitimate questions. Clearly explain how students may use GenAI in an ethical, informed and responsible way, including when independent mastery is required, when GenAI is allowed, how use should be documented and that students remain responsible for their work. Encourage them to reflect on ethical and academic implications, and to account for their GenAI use (e.g. via a logbook or reflection). |
Interpreting checklist results
If completing the checklist resulted in multiple ✗ answers, it may indicate that parts of the assessment are vulnerable to AI replacing the intended learning process. This does not necessarily mean that the assessment is flawed. However, it may be useful to reconsider certain elements of the assessment design.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution. You may need to combine several strategies depending on the course context. Rules and practices surrounding assessment vary between programmes and faculties, which means that some adjustments may not be feasible in your situation.
Advice on adjusting your assessment, get in touch!
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.