"The authors - Thomas Corbin, David Boud, Margaret Bearman, and Phillip Dawson of Deakin University - interviewed 20 unit chairs at an unnamed "large" Australian university in the second half of 2024 via one-hour, semi-structured Zoom interviews, and found widespread confusion, heavy workloads, and no clear path to AI-proof exams. While some saw AI as a professional tool students must master, others viewed it as a form of fraud that undermines learning."
"Many admitted they were simply "at a loss," unsure how to balance the pressure to make assessments more AI-proof and keep them creative, authentic, and manageable. Many described impossible trade-offs. One tried to offer both AI-permitted and AI-free assignments - but found it "a nightmare" that doubled their workload. Another teacher worried that stricter assessments might simply "test compliance rather than creativity." Others noted that oral exams, while more resistant to AI, are logistically impossible to scale for large cohorts."
Twenty unit chairs at a large Australian university were interviewed via one-hour semi-structured Zoom sessions in late 2024. Generative AI tools have disrupted exam design and policing, producing widespread confusion, heavy workloads, and faculty burnout. Views diverge between treating AI as a professional skill students must learn and regarding AI use as fraud that undermines learning. Faculty face impossible trade-offs: mixed AI-permitted and AI-free assignments increase workload; stricter assessments risk prioritizing compliance over creativity; oral exams resist AI but do not scale for large cohorts. Schools are urged to stop chasing silver bullets and adopt compromise and iterative changes.
Read at Business Insider
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]