assessment-redesign
Filtering by topic assessment-redesign(2)Clear all filters
- PaperAssessment & Evaluation in Higher Education10 Jun 2026
Replacing written assessment with an oral ISBAR assessment in a 700‑student cohort: cohort‑level outcomes for performance, integrity, and staff experience
Theodora Ogle, Paul Jarrett
A second-year undergraduate nursing unit with 740 students replaced a written case study with an oral ISBAR assessment to address generative AI integrity concerns. The oral format maintained comparable cohort-level performance, eliminated academic integrity breaches, and improved staff confidence in authorship while reducing marking time and cost.
Original abstract
Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has intensified concerns about the authenticity and integrity of written assessment in higher education. These challenges are particularly relevant in nursing, where safe practice requires clinical reasoning and real‑time decision‑making. This practice‑based evaluation examined the redesign of a written case study into an authentic, oral ISBAR (Identify, Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendation) assessment in a second‑year undergraduate nursing unit (n = 740). Drawing on routine institutional data including cohort‑level performance outcomes, implementation records, and student and educator feedback, the evaluation assessed whether the oral assessment maintained academic standards while strengthening academic integrity and improving staff experience. Findings demonstrated comparable cohort‑level performance across written (2024) and oral (2025) formats, with stable overall unit means and improved end‑of‑semester examination results. No breaches of academic integrity were identified under the oral format, which incorporated verified identity conditions, invigilated perusal, multiple case variants, and real‑time performance. Educators reported greater confidence in authorship, stronger alignment between assessment evidence and clinical judgement, and a more engaging marking experience; the redesign reduced marking time and cost per student. These results indicate that oral, performance‑based assessment offers a feasible, scalable, and pedagogically aligned response to integrity challenges in GenAI‑mediated learning environments while preserving academic standards.
- PaperAssessment & Evaluation in Higher Education6 Jun 2026
Assessment validity in the age of generative artificial intelligence: a critical review
Ramiz Ali, Jerry Maroulis
A critical review of 2023-2025 higher education journal articles identifies three dominant discourses on assessment validity in the age of generative AI: risk-oriented framings emphasizing academic integrity, rule-based approaches focused on detection and policy enforcement, and design-focused strategies advocating assessment redesign. The study finds current risk-mitigation efforts insufficient and offers conceptual and practical implications for maintaining assessment validity amid rapid GenAI developments.
Original abstract
Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) presents significant challenges to assessment validity in higher education. In response, universities worldwide have invested heavily in risk-mitigation strategies. However, such efforts often prove insufficient given the rapid and on-going development of GenAI capabilities, prompting sustained debate about how assessment in higher education can remain valid in this evolving landscape. At the same time, inconsistencies in assessment design and implementation have raised concerns regarding the assurance of learning. This study presents a critical review of the literature on assessment validity in the context of GenAI through a discourse-analytic examination of articles published in 10 leading higher education journals between 2023 and June 2025. Articles were selected using predefined inclusion criteria, and discourse analysis was employed to synthesise dominant narratives within the literature. Three main discourses were identified: (1) risk-oriented framings that emphasise academic integrity breaches, (2) rule-based approaches centred on detection and policy enforcement, and (3) design-focused approaches that advocate resilient assessment redesign. The findings offer conceptual and practical implications for assessment practice and institutional policy in higher education in the age of GenAI.