AI-era assessment needs program-level validation
Claim
In an AI-rich environment, schools and universities should place trustworthy validation at selected program-level progression points instead of trying to secure every individual assignment.
Stance
Supported by the source article as an assessment-design claim.
Evidence
- Program level assessment design and the two-lane approach argues that generative AI makes many traditional assessment products easier to mimic, so institutions should decide where in a program to place secured validation rather than trying to secure all assessment.
- The article separates Lane 1 assessment of learning from Lane 2 assessment for and as learning, with Lane 1 mainly validating learning outcomes at selected program-level points and Lane 2 supporting learning and responsible AI use.
- The article argues that without program-level design, institutions may rely on highly weighted but insecure take-home assignments even when they need trustworthy evidence that graduates have met program learning outcomes.
Practical implication
Assessment reform should identify the key points in a course, program, major, or specialization where learning must be validated, then protect those moments carefully instead of turning every classroom task into a high-security assessment.