The AI Assessment Scale Revisited: A Framework for Educational Assessment A PREPRINT

THE AI ASSESSMENT SCALE REVISITED: A

FRAMEWORK FOR EDUCATIONAL
ASSESSMENT

A PREPRINT

Mike Perkins 1*, Jasper Roe 2, Leon Furze 3

1 British
University Vietnam, Vietnam
2James Cook University Singapore, Singapore
3 Deakin University, Australia

* Corresponding Author: [email protected]

December 2024

1
The AI Assessment Scale Revisited: A Framework for Educational Assessment A PREPRINT

Abstract
Recent developments in Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) have created
significant uncertainty in education, particularly in terms of assessment practices.
Against this backdrop, we present an updated version of the AI Assessment Scale
(AIAS), a framework with two fundamental purposes: to facilitate open dialogue
between educators and students about appropriate GenAI use and to support
educators in redesigning assessments in an era of expanding AI capabilities.
Grounded in social constructivist principles and designed with assessment validity
in mind, the AIAS provides a structured yet flexible approach that can be adapted
across different educational contexts. Building on implementation feedback from
global adoption across both the K-12 and higher education contexts, this revision
represents a significant change from the original AIAS. Among these changes is a
new visual guide that moves beyond the original traffic light system and utilises a
neutral colour palette that avoids implied hierarchies between the levels. The scale
maintains five distinct levels of GenAI integration in assessment, from "No AI" to
"AI Exploration", but has been refined to better reflect rapidly advancing
technological capabilities and emerging pedagogical needs.
This paper presents the theoretical foundations of the revised framework, provides
detailed implementation guidance through practical vignettes, and discusses its
limitations and future directions. As GenAI capabilities continue to expand,
particularly in multimodal content generation, the AIAS offers a starting point for
reimagining assessment design in an era of disruptive technologies.

Introduction
When we began working on the original AI Assessment Scale (AIAS) (Perkins, Furze, et al.,
2024), the education sector faced a high degree of uncertainty. At that time, a new breed of
chatbot powered by Large Language Models (LLMs) had emerged, with capabilities that
exceeded those of the prior generation of technological support tools in academic work, such
as Automated Paraphrasing Tools (APTs) (Prentice & Kinden, 2018; Roe & Perkins, 2022) or
Digital Writing Assistants (DWA) (Roe et al., 2023). The initial response to these technologies
included attempts to ban and detect their use in educational environments. However, as the
technology grew in ubiquity, the discourse shifted from prohibition to cautious integration,
based on the idea that educators and students must learn to work with what we now call
Generative AI (GenAI) tools rather than against them. In 2023, calls for guidelines on how
students should use GenAI ethically began to emerge (Cotton et al., 2023; Crawford et al.,
2023; Perkins, 2023). Therefore, we decided to develop a framework to structure the cautious
integration of AI tools into educational assessment, which we labelled the AI Assessment Scale
(AIAS). Our goal at that time was to offer a way for educators, including ourselves, to have
open dialogue with students about the values of educational integrity, and to prioritise a
transparent approach to how GenAI could be used in assessment.
The AIAS has filled an urgent need for a flexible, transparent, and practical tool to help
educators and students deal with GenAI. To date, the AIAS has been used in over a dozen
countries and has been translated into at least 12 languages that the authors are aware of (Furze,
2024). We presented the AIAS during the UNESCO Digital Learning Week and introduced it
to educators globally through numerous invited talks, workshops, and conferences. This
collective experience has been incredibly valuable, and we have been able to have many rich
and enlightening discussions about how the AIAS has been adapted, remixed, and developed

2
The AI Assessment Scale Revisited: A Framework for Educational Assessment A PREPRINT

in multiple contexts. At the same time, the creative applications of the AIAS, along with well-
founded criticisms of our initial work, have helped to guide our thinking in refining and future-
oriented frameworks.
In the remainder of this article, we discuss the current context of GenAI and education, and the
staggering changes that have occurred in the last two years. We then reflect on the different
applications of the AIAS thus far, and in doing so, address the feedback and critiques that the
framework has received since its inception. This forms the basis of the third section, in which
we introduce our second iteration of the AIAS, explain how and why the decisions were made
to change and augment the original scale, and introduce a further level. Finally, we consider
the future of assessment and attempt to justify why the AIAS may continue to be a useful tool
in guiding assessment strategies and reform in the coming years.

GenAI, Education and Assessment: The Story So Far

In 2022, the release of ChatGPT (with GPT-3.5) was met with concerns of academic integrity,
with a focus on written assessments, such as essays (Cotton et al., 2023; Perkins, 2023; Roe et
al., 2023). Since the initial release of ChatGPT, this technology has become much more capable
across an ever-broadening range of mathematical and scientific reasoning tasks. The
integration of GPT-4v vision capabilities (OpenAI, 2023), along with developments in image
generation through open-source models such as Flux, the multimodal o1 model, and OpenAI's
Sora video generation system, demonstrates that GenAI now impacts almost all disciplines and
fields. Research has shown that GPT-4 can perform on par with human performance in a wide
variety of multiple-choice question (MCQ) assessments, including high-stakes professional
examinations in the fields of medicine, law, and science (Head & Willis, 2024; Newton et al.,
2024). The newest iteration, ChatGPT-4o, scored 94% on the United Kingdom Medical
Licencing Examination Applied Knowledge Test (Newton et al., 2024). GenAI models can
now handle multimodal content effectively (Shahriar et al., 2024) and spend more time
‘thinking’ or ‘reasoning’, enabling them to achieve top-percentile scores in mathematical and
coding competitions and challenges (OpenAI, 2024).
The challenges of AI text detectors
In response to the advent of GenAI tools and their ability to destabilise many forms of
educational assessment, bans on the use of GenAI were quickly followed by AI detection tools
brought to the market by several private corporations. Although we recognise that AI detectors
may have a place in educational assessment, these should be primarily for providing feedback
to students or having a conversation with students – not as an adversarial tool for catching
students in the act of so-called cheating; an approach which Moro (2020) bluntly refers to as
“cop shit”. Another rationale for this stance is that AI detectors are unreliable (Elkhatat et al.,
2023; Liang et al., 2023; Perkins et al., 2023; Perkins, Roe, et al., 2024; Sadasivan et al., 2023;
Weber-Wulff et al., 2023), leading to unjustified and potentially harrowing consequences for
students that significantly impact their academic and personal lives (Gorichanaz, 2023; Roe,
Perkins, & Ruelle, 2024).
The development of adversarial discourse is also common in university policies, which frame
the use of AI as misconduct (Luo (Jess), 2024a), and among instructors, who may now view
students’ produced texts more critically and with suspicion (Farazouli et al., 2023), leading to
students using GenAI tools in an ethical and allowed way to hide their usage (Gonsalves, 2024).
As such, the AIAS is intended to mitigate the impact of these adversarial relationships and their
impact on student-teacher trust. A lack of transparency in how educators use or evaluate GenAI
in the grading process impacts students’ trust in the educational process (Luo (Jess), 2024b).
However, there seems to be an expanding awareness of the fruitlessness of this approach, as it

3
The AI Assessment Scale Revisited: A Framework for Educational Assessment A PREPRINT

seems likely that hybrid writing or co-creation may soon become a new norm, and trying to
distinguish between AI and non-AI enhanced writing could become a meaningless task (Eaton,
2023). Ultimately, AI detection is impossible and inefficient (Mao et al., 2024).
A growing consensus
There is now a consensus that for better or worse, we must learn to live with the reality that
GenAI will be used by many members of our society, including students, teachers, and
researchers. Although we are aware of the sizeable environmental costs of AI development
(Driessens & Pischetola, 2024) and the known existential risks of unregulated AI (OECD,
2024), pragmatically speaking, we do not believe that resisting the development of AI is a
tenable solution. Burying our heads in the sand reduces our ability to realise the potential
benefits of AI in learning and to prepare students for the critique of AI systems.

This new awareness in scholarship, policy, and practice reflects the idea that GenAI is not by
design a threat to assessment (Pearce & Chiavaroli, 2023), and not all use of AI tools is
automatically misconduct (Eaton, 2024). Although there are gaps in the publicly available
university policies on the use of GenAI in writing (Moorhouse et al., 2023), there is evidence
of moving to an approach that allows for the use of GenAI in writing (Perkins & Roe, 2023),
scholarly publishing (Perkins & Roe, 2024a), and research (Perkins & Roe, 2024b).
Similarly, assessment redesign has become a major focus in preparing for a future AI-enabled
world, as several authors have suggested (Mao et al., 2024; Thanh et al., 2023; Thompson et
al., 2023; Xia et al., 2024). Single examinations or essays are increasingly being recognised as
untenable for assessing learning (Gorichanaz, 2023). Among the topics raised in the literature
on assessment redesign, common themes include focusing on student-centred (Hsiao et al.,
2023), authentic (Rasul et al., 2024), learning instead of the end product, higher-order thinking
skills (Smolansky et al., 2023), and evaluative judgement (Bearman et al., 2024). This
recognition has helped advance frameworks for integrating AI into assessments such as the
AIAS. However, the AIAS is not the only framework available for integrating AI into
education, and multiple approaches have been proposed. In medical education for example,
Pearce & Chiavaroli (2023) suggest that medical education rely on an ‘assisted’ and
‘unassisted’ dichotomy, one which allows external resources including GenAI and one which
does not, with a refocusing on neglected assessment types such as oral examinations. Other
useful frameworks include the two-lane approach (Liu & Bridgeman, 2023), six-lane approach
(Steel, 2024), and traffic light approach (Cotterell, 2024).

The Original AI Assessment Scale

Before discussing our updates, we will present the original AI Assessment Scale (Perkins et
al., 2024). A core understanding of the original AIAS is that banning AI is not a productive or
tenable approach. Lodge’s (2023) assertion that the future of assessment requires students to
be able to participate an in AI-reliant society sums up this position well: whether we personally
use or refuse GenAI in our classrooms, students will encounter the technology in many aspects
of their lives. At the same time, there is a very practical problem that causes significant distress
for practitioners and colleagues around the world. In other words, how are we to support
academic integrity and ensure that students’ submitted work reflects their true abilities? Our
answer was that the only way we could know for sure was through open dialogue with students
and supporting clarity and transparency in the use of GenAI in assessment.
Our second challenge was that the AIAS had to be fit for purpose, flexible, and easy to
understand and explain. Assessment varies significantly across disciplines, levels, and
institutional norms, and we had to devise something that would not only suit our own subject

4
The AI Assessment Scale Revisited: A Framework for Educational Assessment A PREPRINT

areas (broadly social sciences), but also be adaptable to many assessment contexts. Third, we
wanted to address the education sector as a whole, and given our backgrounds as both higher
education and K-12 educators, we did not want to limit the AIAS to higher education but also
make it applicable to K-12 education.
The primary purpose of the original AIAS was to facilitate meaningful dialogue between
educators and students about the appropriate use of GenAI in assessments. Rather than
adopting a simplistic binary approach of either allowing or prohibiting AI use, we recognised
that a more nuanced framework was needed to help both educators and students understand the
technology's potential strengths and limitations. Given that GenAI was an emerging
technology, we structured the framework into five distinct levels of use, allowing educators
and students to map these levels onto their existing understanding of assessment types, while
providing clear guidance for implementation.
Theoretical underpinning of the AIAS
At the time of conceiving the framework, we discussed the theoretical underpinnings of our
approach to using it in learning and assessment, but we did not fully expound this in our original
paper. Broadly, our view of the AI Assessment Scale is grounded in social constructivist
principles, particularly Vygotsky’s (1978) understanding of learning as being mediated through
social interaction. From this perspective, GenAI tools can be viewed as mediating technologies
that might support students’ knowledge construction, similar to how Vygotsky conceptualised
language and cultural tools as mediators of higher mental functions. The different levels of the
AIAS reflect varying degrees of mediated learning, from independent demonstrations of
knowledge to full integration of AI as a collaborative partner in the learning process.
Importantly, this perspective of AI use centres on the social experiences of the learner and the
educator and avoids what we consider to be problematic understandings of AI chatbots as tutors
for personalised learning where students learn in isolation from their peers (Bewersdorff et al.,
2023).
Central to this theoretical framing is Vygotsky’s (1978) concept of the Zone of Proximal
Development (ZPD), the gap between what learners can achieve independently and what they
can achieve with support. GenAI tools can function within this zone by providing scaffolding
that helps bridge the gap between their current and potential performance. However, unlike
traditional scaffolding, which is gradually removed over time, AI tools remain available as part
of the learner's toolkit, requiring careful consideration of how they can support rather than
replace learning. This aligns with the AIAS’s emphasis on transparency and appropriate
technology use, rather than restriction and control.
The social constructivist framework also helps explain why the AIAS emphasises supporting
rather than restricting AI use. From this perspective, learning occurs through multiple
interactions with educators and peers, technologies, and broader environments. Knowledge is
actively constructed through these interactions rather than being passively received. The AIAS
acknowledges this by creating spaces for students to engage critically with AI tools while
developing their understanding rather than attempting to enforce arbitrary boundaries between
AI-assisted and independent work.
The AIAS, as originally conceived, is presented in Table 1.

5
The AI Assessment Scale Revisited: A Framework for Educational Assessment A PREPRINT

The assessment is completed entirely without AI assistance. This level

ensures that students rely solely on their knowledge, understanding,
1 NO AI and skills.
AI must not be used at any point during the assessment.

AI can be used in the assessment for brainstorming, creating structures,

AI-ASSISTED IDEA
2 GENERATION AND and generating ideas for improving work.
STRUCTURING No AI content is allowed in the final submission.

AI can be used to make improvements to the clarity or quality of student

created work to improve the final output, but no new content can be
AI-ASSISTED
3 created using AI.
EDITING
AI can be used, but your original work with no AI content must be
provided in an appendix.

AI is used to complete certain elements of the task, with

students providing discussion or commentary on the AI-generated
AI TASK
COMPLETION, content. This level requires critical engagement with AI generated
4 content and evaluating its output.
HUMAN
EVALUATION You will use AI to complete specified tasks in your assessment.
Any AI created content must be cited.

AI should be used as a ‘co-pilot’ in order to meet the requirements of

the assessment, allowing for a collaborative approach with
5 FULL AI AI and enhancing creativity.
You may use AI throughout your assessment to support your own
work and do not have to specify which content is AI generated.

Table 1 The Original AI Assessment Scale

Critique of the AIAS

The first iteration of the AIAS, as a flexible and useful tool to challenge an urgent threat, has
been demonstrated to be effective in empirical studies for improving student outcomes,
supporting thoughtful assessment redesign, and reducing misconduct through reframing of
GenAI use (Furze et al., 2024). However, through practical use among multiple contexts, from
K-12 to Higher Education, and across five continents, we have been able to develop a deep
understanding of the areas in which the AIAS can be further developed considering the
changing nature of GenAI.
One of the areas identified for development of the AIAS is the separation of the framework to
differentiate between K-12 and higher education (Kılınç, 2024). While we recognise that the
AIAS is broad in scope, the intention was to provide a tool that could form a basis for adaptation
in multiple contexts at different educational levels. To this end, while it would be unlikely at a
younger level to encourage the unscaffolded use of GenAI tools to meet assessment tasks, it is
dependent on the educator to make such decisions and use the framework in line with their
context and goals. Furthermore, adaptations of the AIAS can be developed freely in different
contexts, such as in our own adaptation to the English for Academic Purposes (EAP) classroom

6
The AI Assessment Scale Revisited: A Framework for Educational Assessment A PREPRINT

(Roe, Perkins, & Tregubova, 2024). To clarify this point, we contend that the AIAS is a starting
point for educators to consider how to reform their assessments, and is not a prescriptive tool.
A further criticism of the original AIAS was the use of traffic light colours, ranging from red
through three shades of yellow/amber to green. It has been noted that this use of colours is
problematic, with red potentially implying a ‘stop’ or ban approach, and green having a positive
implication such as success (Kılınç, 2024). There are also potential connotations of red as “bad”
and green as “good” which were unintended: we do not believe that any type of assessment is
inherently better or worse than any other, only that they should vary dependent on context. In
the updated AIAS, we decided to move away from this system and provide a more neutral
palette of colours, first to avoid such implications, and second to ensure legibility and
accessibility. We also note that there are legitimate defences for the use of a red-amber-green
‘traffic light’ system, such as for ease of clarity with younger students (Cotterell, 2024) and in
situations where supervised and more prescriptive assessments may be possible, such as in the
comparatively smaller class sizes and more often face to face settings of K-12 education versus
the large and more commonly online or hybrid higher education cohort. As with all AIAS
resources, we encourage educators to adapt and make their own decisions based on the context,
expertise, and needs of the learners.
A further issue we have noted in the practical implementation of the AIAS is when it has been
used for superficial changes to assessment – something discussed in detail towards the end of
this article. Pratschke (2024) identified that the AIAS is beneficial for discussing GenAI use,
but that eventually, full transformation of assessment will be required to cope with the changes
posed by these technologies. At the time of development, the original AIAS was intended to
be used to restructure assessment in depth; however, because of the urgent need to
accommodate new technologies, it also gained traction as a way to augment existing practices.
In refining the AIAS further, we have attempted to orient it toward a framework that provides
a structured basis for a bottom-up transformational process.
A critique of scale-based approaches to AI integration comes from Liu and Bridgeman’s (2023)
two-lane approach to AI assessment developed at the University of Sydney. They proposed
that assessments should be divided between secured ‘lane 1’ assessments that assure learning
outcomes, and ‘lane 2’ assessments that embrace human-AI collaboration. They argue there is
no “viable middle ground” between these lanes - any unsecured assessment must assume AI
use will occur and cannot be controlled. While we acknowledge this reality in unsupervised
environments, we contend that the AIAS serves a different purpose. Rather than attempting to
control AI use, the AIAS supports transparent conversations between educators and students
about appropriate AI use while simultaneously encouraging assessment redesign to account for
the specific level of the scale selected. We argue that in these relatively early days of the
technology, both educators and students could benefit from the clarity of different levels of the
AIAS rather than the broad and potentially ambiguous dichotomy of the two lanes.

Evolution of the AIAS:

Key revisions and rationale
Drawing from critiques, implementation experiences, and considerations of assessment
validity and transparency, we made several significant refinements to the second iteration of
the AIAS. Most visibly, we replaced the traffic light colour scheme and introduced an
additional circular representation of the framework (shown in Figure 2). This circular design
emphasises that no level is inherently better than others, aligning with our focus on appropriate
rather than restrictive AI use based on specific learning outcomes and contexts. The framework
was also updated to reflect the rapid evolution of GenAI technologies, particularly

7
The AI Assessment Scale Revisited: A Framework for Educational Assessment A PREPRINT

acknowledging the increasing prevalence of multimodal content generation across text, images,
audio, and video.
The revisions reflect a deeper understanding of assessment validity and transparency in the
GenAI era. Dawson et al. (2024) argue that validity in assessment must represent a student’s
true level of knowledge and skills, serving as a social imperative that integrates fairness and
inclusivity. Following this principle, we removed the previous Level 3 requirement for students
to include an appendix showing their original work, acknowledging that the current detection
methods cannot reliably verify such submissions. This aligns with Bearman et al.’s (2024)
emphasis on evaluative judgment, focusing on students’ ability to assess and identify quality
work, rather than attempting to control technology use. The original version of the AIAS was
recognised by the Australian Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA)
(Lodge, 2024) as a potential tool to help delineate the appropriate uses of AI in assessment
tasks, and was commended in the Prof Tracey Bretag Prize for Academic Integrity (Studiosity,
2024) This early validation of the framework’s value in promoting transparency informed our
continued emphasis on clear communication in this revised version.
Text-generation capabilities are now recognised at lower levels of the scale, reflecting the
reality that co-writing with AI has become a common practice and may support learning when
appropriately scaffolded (Dhillon et al., 2024; Nguyen et al., 2024; Wiboolyasarin et al., 2024).
At the highest level of the scale, we have strengthened the emphasis on co-design between
educators and students, recognising that, as these technologies evolve, the most innovative
applications often emerge from the collaborative exploration of AI tools in educational
contexts. These modifications maintain the AIAS's core purpose as a framework for transparent
dialogue between students and educators, while adapting to technological developments and
emerging educational practices. The revised AIAS is shown in figure 1. Figure 2 shows the
circular representation of the scale.

8
 The AI Assessment Scale Revisited: A Framework for Educational Assessment A PREPRINT

Figure 1: The Revised AI Assessment Scale

9
The AI Assessment Scale Revisited: A Framework for Educational Assessment A PREPRINT

Figure 2: Circular Representation of the Revised AI Assessment Scale

To support the understanding of the various levels of AIAS, we provide examples of

assessments which may be suitable at each level through a series of “vignettes” which are
composites of the authors’ experiences and feedback from educators around the world who
have used the AIAS. Vignettes can provide real-life examples rather than mere suggestions and
can help educators contextualise and frame others’ experiences through their own expertise
(Sampson & Johannessen, 2020).
Level 1: No AI
This level represents a traditional and controlled assessment environment in which AI tools are
strictly prohibited and prohibition is enforced by removing access to digital technologies. To
complete a task, students must rely entirely on their existing knowledge, skills, and
understanding. This approach ensures that the assessment directly measures the students’
unaided capabilities and core competencies. It is particularly suitable for evaluating
foundational knowledge, critical thinking skills, and the ability to articulate ideas, without
technological assistance.
The revision of Level 1 represents a significant shift from our original conceptualisation,
moving beyond the simple prohibition of AI to a more nuanced understanding of when and
why an AI-free assessment is appropriate. This refinement emerged from practical
implementation experiences and feedback from educators implementing the AIAS, which
revealed that merely declaring an AI-free assessment without environmental controls was
increasingly untenable in contemporary educational settings. Therefore, a key modification in
the revised framework is the explicit emphasis on controlled environments, reflecting Dawson
et al.’s (2024) argument that assessment validity must take precedence over traditional notions
of academic integrity. In practice, this means that Level 1 assessments should occur in
supervised settings where the absence of AI can be assured, rather than relying on honour
systems or detection tools for take-home work. This presents challenges for online and
distance-learning environments, where truly AI-free conditions are difficult to guarantee

10
The AI Assessment Scale Revisited: A Framework for Educational Assessment A PREPRINT

without physical supervision. Some learning outcomes may be better served by allowing
strategic AI use, thereby making other levels of the framework more appropriate.
A critical consideration in the Level 1 implementation is the balance between security and
accessibility. While these assessments preclude AI use, they must accommodate students who
require assistive technology. This requires a careful distinction between AI tools that can
compromise assessment validity, and assistive technologies that enable equitable participation.
The framework acknowledges that blanket bans of technology can create unnecessary barriers
for students with disabilities and that assessment design should consider accessibility from the
outset rather than as an afterthought. As we progress into an increasingly ‘postplagiarism’
world, (Eaton, 2023), the ability of educational institutions to truly create an entirely controlled
assessment environment may soon disappear entirely. This requires major reconsideration of
the relationship between assessment security and validity.
Example of Level 1 Assessment
In a writing course, a faculty member determines that a particular rhetorical skill cannot be
validly assessed if students have access to GenAI. The students’ demonstration of these skills,
such as control of sentence structure, grammar, and rhetorical devices, would be obfuscated by
software such as Grammarly, ChatGPT, or Microsoft Word with Copilot. As such, the faculty
determines that a “No AI” assessment is required. The students complete a written exercise by
hand, under supervision. For students requiring assistive technologies, word processor
technologies (such as an e-ink tablet with a keyboard) or a scribe are provided.
Level 2: AI-Assisted Planning
The revision of Level 2 represents a shift in the recognition of how GenAI can support the
planning and ideation phases of assessments. While the original framework emphasised basic
brainstorming capabilities, the revised Level 2 acknowledges AI’s broader role in supporting
preliminary work while focusing on students' active development of ideas. Simply declaring
that AI can be used ‘only for planning’ in traditional assessments is insufficient, and tasks must
be explicitly designed to evaluate students' ability to develop and refine ideas generated through
AI assistance. This will likely involve process-focused tasks, as opposed to output-focused
tasks.
A key consideration in Level 2 implementation is how AI can support rather than restrict
learning processes. Rather than attempting to control AI use through unreliable detection
methods as we discuss earlier, Level 2 emphasises supporting students in developing their
planning and ideation skills with AI as a collaborative tool. This requires carefully structured
assessment components that distinguish between AI-supported planning phases and
independent development while acknowledging that strict delineation between these phases
may not be technically feasible. Assessment design should acknowledge that while we cannot
technically restrict AI use to planning stages, we can create tasks that meaningfully engage
students in demonstrating their development of ideas.
Example of Level 2 Assessment
In a Media or Film course, an interim assessment is developed in which students create a
comprehensive storyboard and plan for a documentary to be produced as a final project. The
assessment task is focused on the storyboard and contributes 25% of the total final grade for
the unit, with the remaining 75% coming from the documentary production. For the storyboard,
the course leader decides that AI use at Level 2 is acceptable because it is possible to make a
valid judgement of the students’ abilities to plan and design a shot sequence, whether they use
AI or not. Furthermore, this task can be supported by a variety of multimodal GenAI tools,
including research (e.g., Perplexity, ChatGPT), sketch-to-image generation (e.g., Firefly,

11
The AI Assessment Scale Revisited: A Framework for Educational Assessment A PREPRINT

ControlNet) and image-to-video generation to create moving storyboards (e.g., Runway, Kling,
Sora). Students are explicitly taught how to use these tools, and are assessed on their
understanding of storyboarding conventions, shot sequencing, pace, and other elements.
Faculty members may also decide to assess the use of AI in this process.
Level 3: AI-Assisted Task Completion
The revision of Level 3 represents a significant shift from our original conception, moving
beyond simple editing, to acknowledge the reality of AI-assisted drafting and composition.
While the original framework attempted to restrict AI use to surface-level improvements of the
original work of students, the revised Level 3 recognises that attempting to enforce such
limitations is neither practical nor pedagogically sound. Instead of focusing on authorship
verification, Level 3 emphasises the development of critical evaluation skills and the
maintenance of student voice in AI-assisted writing. Although technological solutions exist
that purport to show how students develop their work, such as document tracking or version
control systems, they are fallible and can be circumvented by determined students. More
importantly, the emphasis on ‘proving’ original authorship can create inequitable conditions,
particularly disadvantaging students without access to more advanced (and paid for) GenAI
models, or technical knowledge of how to effectively integrate AI assistance while maintaining
apparent independence.
Supporting students at this level must consider how to overcome the illusion of finality - the
tendency to accept AI-generated text as complete and authoritative. Students must be supported
in understanding the limitations of AI systems and recognising that their own knowledge,
critical thinking skills, and subject expertise are essential for producing high-quality academic
work. This involves developing critical AI literacy (CAIL) skills (Roe, Furze, & Perkins,
2024), identifying potential errors or biases, and effectively integrating AI-generated content
with their own insights and understanding to ensure that their own voice is retained. The
formative use of AI detection tools might also support this process, not as a means of catching
misconduct but as a way of helping students understand how their writing style may be
influenced by AI and how to retain their distinctive voice.
Example of Level 3 Assessment
In science faculty, educators determine that students could effectively use GenAI as part of the
write-up of an earlier practical experiment. Prior to the assessment task, students collected data
and conducted practical work. GenAI may be used in the write-up of these data in numerous
ways. These include: the use of AI-assisted editing tools (e.g., Grammarly and Microsoft
Copilot in MS Word); the use of GenAI for data analytics and assistance with understanding
data (e.g., Microsoft Copilot in MS Excel, Claude or ChatGPT's data interpretation functions);
and the synthesis of existing writing in the required style to produce a "guide" for students to
follow in their own writing. The faculty member explicitly teaches students how to use these
GenAI technologies in the way that they consider to be appropriate.
Level 4: Full AI
Level 4 represents a significant shift in how AI is integrated into assessments, focusing on the
strategic deployment of AI tools to achieve specified learning outcomes. While this level
previously represented the highest degree of AI integration in our original scale, its refinement
acknowledges that as AI capabilities expand, particularly with multimodal tools, students need
opportunities to develop a sophisticated understanding of when and how to effectively leverage
these technologies. Level 4 supports students’ ability to direct AI tools while demonstrating
critical thinking and subject knowledge. Unlike lower levels, where AI use is more constrained,
Level 4 assessments evaluate how effectively students leverage AI to solve problems and

12
The AI Assessment Scale Revisited: A Framework for Educational Assessment A PREPRINT

demonstrate understanding. This aligns with Dawson et al.’s (2024) emphasis on assessment
validity–the focus shifts from controlling AI use to ensuring that students demonstrate genuine
learning through their strategic deployment of AI tools.
A key consideration at this level is equity of access to AI tools. While providing specific tools
through shared institutional accounts may help address some inequities, educators must
carefully design assessments that remain valid, regardless of students’ access to advanced AI
models. This might involve providing institutional AI tools or designing tasks that can be
completed effectively using freely available resources. Although this may help address equity
concerns, we acknowledge that it remains an imperfect solution. Nevertheless, transparency
about permitted or required tools helps to create clearer expectations while potentially reducing
access barriers. Level 4 opens opportunities for multimodal assessment designs that reflect
expanding GenAI capabilities. Beyond text generation, students might engage with AI-assisted
video creation, synthetic media production, or combinations of multiple modes to achieve
outcomes that would be greater than those realistically created by the student otherwise, given
the time restrictions.
Example of Level 4 Assessment
The teachers of a third-year university computer science course determine that students would
be best served by learning and having access to the most cutting-edge AI-assisted coding tools,
many of which are already deployed in the software design industry (e.g., Github Copilot,
Cursor, or OpenAI’s o1 model). The institution provides students with access to these
technologies during this course. Students may complete this assessment using any AI-assisted
technologies available to them, but they are explicitly taught the use of the software that the
institution provides access to. Students are assessed on both their abilities to design solutions
to the problem in the task, and in their use of AI systems.
Level 5: AI Exploration

Level 5 represents a forward-looking vision of assessment design, centred not simply on

incorporating AI tools, but on using them to reimagine what academic tasks can entail. Unlike
earlier levels, which focus on controlling, channelling, or strategically deploying AI, this level
encourages the co-creation and development of entirely new methods, media, and outputs that
challenge conventional disciplinary boundaries. It builds upon the foundational understanding
of AI use outlined in the lower levels of the framework, particularly the emphasis on
authenticity, critical engagement, and strategic tool selection found in Level 4, but it extends
these principles into future-oriented scenarios that may not yet be fully feasible with current
technology.

At this stage, students are not only using AI tools to enhance their work; they are expected to
conceptualise and implement new AI applications that go beyond existing templates and
straightforward multimodal generation. This might mean creating world models or integrating
advanced synthetic media production into an assessment task, which transcends the more direct
and instrumental uses of AI at Level 4. While Level 4 acknowledges the arrival of advanced
multimodal systems, Level 5 imagines a space where these tools become the raw materials
from which students and educators collaboratively sculpt novel approaches to enquiry, whether
it involves simulating complex social phenomena, generating bespoke datasets that do not
currently exist, or building adaptive systems that respond dynamically to user input and
changing conditions. The role of the educator also changes, moving from an authority that
defines the parameters of the task to a collaborator that shares ownership of the learning
process. This co-creation aspect, suggested in earlier treatments of AI integration but not fully

13
The AI Assessment Scale Revisited: A Framework for Educational Assessment A PREPRINT

realised, aligns with the need for flexibility, adaptability, and openness to new forms of
assessment in a world where digital and human cognition intertwine.

The implementation of Level 5 assessments requires careful consideration of equity issues, as

highlighted earlier in our Level 4 discussion. However, at this level, the focus shifts from
providing equal access to tools to ensuring equal opportunities for innovation and
experimentation. This might involve the institutional provision of advanced AI capabilities
through self-hosted GenAI models or API access or the development of custom tools specific
to disciplines or research areas. As Bearman et al. (2024) suggest, evaluative judgement
becomes crucial here–students must not only use AI effectively, but also critically assess its
contributions to their innovative work.

This level may be most relevant to advanced undergraduate projects, postgraduate coursework,
doctoral research, or cutting-edge independent endeavours at the secondary level, such as the
extended projects of the International Baccalaureate. It challenges the assumption that AI must
be contained or limited. Instead, it posits that the measure of learning lies in how well students
can harness, adapt, and extend AI capabilities for new intellectual, aesthetic, or practical ends.
Such assessments might respond to the evolving state of AI, acknowledging that as brain-
computer interfaces (BCIs) and other technologies develop (Eaton, 2023), traditional
assessment controls or even conventional understanding of “authentic” tasks may rapidly
become obsolete. In this way, Level 5 is deliberately futuristic, anticipating that new toolkits,
disciplinary challenges, and ways of knowing will emerge and that assessment must evolve to
ensure students are equipped to navigate this uncertain terrain.

Example of Level 5 Assessment

In a creative arts specialist institution, educators and students are exploring the limits of
multimodal generative AI, including image recognition and segmentation, to understand how
AI can be used to support contemporary dance. Some students work on a system that can
provide real-time feedback on performers’ movements, posture, and position, whereas others
explore the use of machine learning to create procedurally generated lighting and effects which
map to a dancer’s movement. The educator invites external speakers who work in both dance
and GenAI to help the students refine their ideas.

Conclusion
The revised version of the AIAS represents a significant evolution in our understanding of how
to integrate GenAI into educational assessments. Key changes include moving away from the
traffic light colour scheme to avoid implying hierarchical values, recognising text generation
capabilities at earlier levels of the scale considering evidence regarding both AI detection
limitations and potential learning benefits, and adjusting Level 5 to acknowledge the rapid
advancement of these technologies. The framework now better reflects the complex reality of
assessment in an AI-enabled world while maintaining its core purpose of supporting both
transparent dialogue between educators and students and the effective redesign of assessments.

However, we must acknowledge that frameworks for AI integration in education cannot ignore
the broader ethical and environmental impacts of these technologies. The planetary costs of
training and running large language models are substantial (Driessens & Pischetola, 2024), and
concerns regarding human rights and values in AI development remain pressing (Eaton, 2024;
Rudolph et al., 2024). The challenge of maintaining transparency in AI use is highlighted by
research showing students’ reluctance to declare AI use even when permitted (Gonsalves,

14
The AI Assessment Scale Revisited: A Framework for Educational Assessment A PREPRINT

2024), suggesting that deeper cultural shifts may be needed in how we view and discuss AI
assistance in academic work.

While early evidence suggests that the AIAS can help improve student outcomes, reduce
academic misconduct and support educators in effective assessment design (Furze et al., 2024),
further empirical validation is crucial. Future research should examine both the framework’s
effectiveness across different educational contexts and the broader impact of GenAI integration
in education (Koh & Doroudi, 2023). This research should include qualitative investigations
of student and educator experiences with the framework, as well as quantitative measures of
its impact on learning outcomes and assessment validity. The addition of Level 5 represents
our attempt to future-proof the framework, acknowledging Dawson and Bearman's (2020)
observation that forward-looking assessment requires some prediction of future developments.
While we cannot perfectly anticipate technological advancement, Level 5 provides flexibility
for incorporating emerging AI capabilities while maintaining a focus on human creativity and
critical engagement.

We emphasise that the AIAS is not prescriptive; institutions should adapt it to their specific
contexts and needs. However, the reality that GenAI is now an established part of the
educational landscape cannot be ignored. Rather than attempting to restrict or control AI use
through increasingly ineffective technical measures, educators must engage in open dialogue
with students about appropriate AI integration in assessments. The AIAS provides a structured
way for these conversations to occur, while acknowledging both the opportunities and
challenges of GenAI in education. Ultimately, the success of any framework for AI integration
will depend not only on its technical robustness or theoretical grounding but also on how
effectively it supports meaningful learning in an increasingly AI-enabled world. As we
continue to gather evidence and refine our approaches, maintaining a focus on assessment
validity, the impact of student learning, and ethical considerations are crucial. The AIAS
represents one step toward this goal, but much work remains in understanding how best to
prepare students for a future in which human and artificial intelligence are increasingly
intertwined.

Acknowledgements
We are grateful for the support and guidance provided by Jason MacVaugh during the
redevelopment of the revised version of the AIAS. We thank all educators worldwide who have
provided comments and critiques on the two versions of the scale, both formally and
informally.
AI usage disclaimer
GenAI tools were used for text creation, revision, and editorial purposes throughout the
production of the manuscript. Tools used were ChatGPT (GPT-4o) and Claude 3.5 Sonnet. The
authors reviewed, edited, and take responsibility for all outputs of the tools used.

15
The AI Assessment Scale Revisited: A Framework for Educational Assessment A PREPRINT

Bibliography
Bearman, M., Tai, J., Dawson, P., Boud, D., & Ajjawi, R. (2024). Developing evaluative
judgement for a time of generative artificial intelligence. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, 0(0), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.2335321
Bewersdorff, A., Zhai, X., Roberts, J., & Nerdel, C. (2023). Myths, mis- and preconceptions
of artificial intelligence: A review of the literature. Computers and Education:
Artificial Intelligence, 4, 100143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100143
Cotterell, A. (2024, September 3). A defence of the traffic light metaphor. Adrian Cotterell.
https://adriancotterell.com/2024/09/04/a-defence-of-the-traffic-light-metaphor/
Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2023). Chatting and cheating: Ensuring
academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching
International, 0(0), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148
Crawford, J., Cowling, M., & Allen, K.-A. (2023). Leadership is needed for ethical ChatGPT:
Character, assessment, and learning using artificial intelligence (AI). Journal of
University Teaching & Learning Practice, 20(3), 02.
Dawson, P., & Bearman, M. (2020). Concluding Comments: Reimagining University
Assessment in a Digital World. In M. Bearman, P. Dawson, R. Ajjawi, J. Tai, & D.
Boud (Eds.), Re-imagining University Assessment in a Digital World (pp. 291–296).
Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41956-1_20
Dawson, P., Bearman, M., Dollinger, M., & Boud, D. (2024). Validity matters more than
cheating. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 49(7), 1005–1016.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.2386662
Dhillon, P. S., Molaei, S., Li, J., Golub, M., Zheng, S., & Robert, L. P. (2024). Shaping
Human-AI Collaboration: Varied Scaffolding Levels in Co-writing with Language
Models. Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642134
Driessens, O., & Pischetola, M. (2024). Danish university policies on generative AI:
Problems, assumptions and sustainability blind spots. MedieKultur: Journal of Media
and Communication Research, 40(76), Article 76.
https://doi.org/10.7146/mk.v40i76.143595
Eaton, S. E. (2023). Postplagiarism: Transdisciplinary ethics and integrity in the age of
artificial intelligence and neurotechnology. International Journal for Educational
Integrity, 19(1), 23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-023-00144-1
Eaton, S. E. (2024). Future-proofing integrity in the age of artificial intelligence and
neurotechnology: Prioritizing human rights, dignity, and equity. International Journal
for Educational Integrity, 20(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-024-00175-
2
Elkhatat, A. M., Elsaid, K., & Almeer, S. (2023). Evaluating the efficacy of AI content
detection tools in differentiating between human and AI-generated text. International
Journal for Educational Integrity, 19(1), 17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-023-
00140-5
Farazouli, A., Cerratto-Pargman, T., Bolander-Laksov, K., & McGrath, C. (2023). Hello
GPT! Goodbye home examination? An exploratory study of AI chatbots impact on

16
The AI Assessment Scale Revisited: A Framework for Educational Assessment A PREPRINT

university teachers’ assessment practices. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher

Education, 0(0), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2023.2241676
Furze, L. (2024, December 9). AI Assessment Scale (AIAS) Translations from Around the
World. Leon Furze. https://leonfurze.com/2024/12/09/ai-assessment-scale-aias-
translations-from-around-the-world/
Furze, L., Perkins, M., Roe, J., & MacVaugh, J. (2024). The AI Assessment Scale (AIAS) in
action: A pilot implementation of GenAI-supported assessment. Australasian Journal
of Educational Technology. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.9434
Gonsalves, C. (2024). Addressing student non-compliance in AI use declarations:
Implications for academic integrity and assessment in higher education. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 0(0), 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.2415654
Gorichanaz, T. (2023). Accused: How students respond to allegations of using ChatGPT on
assessments. Learning: Research and Practice, 9(2), 183–196.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2023.2254787
Head, A., & Willis, S. (2024). Assessing law students in a GenAI world to create
knowledgeable future lawyers. International Journal of the Legal Profession, 0(0), 1–
18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695958.2024.2379785
Hsiao, Y.-P., Klijn, N., & Chiu, M.-S. (2023). Developing a framework to re-design writing
assignment assessment for the era of Large Language Models. Learning: Research
and Practice, 9(2), 148–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2023.2257234
Kılınç, S. (2024). Comprehensive AI Assessment Framework: Enhancing Educational
Evaluation with Ethical AI Integration (arXiv:2407.16887). arXiv.
http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.16887
Koh, E., & Doroudi, S. (2023). Learning, teaching, and assessment with generative artificial
intelligence: Towards a plateau of productivity. Learning: Research and Practice,
9(2), 109–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2023.2264086
Liang, W., Yuksekgonul, M., Mao, Y., Wu, E., & Zou, J. (2023). GPT detectors are biased
against non-native English writers. arXiv Preprint arXiv:2304.02819.
Liu, D., & Bridgeman, A. (2023, July 12). What to do about assessments if we can’t out-
design or out-run AI? What to Do about Assessments If We Can’t out-Design or out-
Run AI? https://educational-innovation.sydney.edu.au/teaching@sydney/what-to-do-
about-assessments-if-we-cant-out-design-or-out-run-ai/
Lodge, J., Howard, S., Bearman, M., & Dawson, P. (2023). Assessment reform for the age of
Artificial Intelligence. Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency.
Luo (Jess), J. (2024a). A critical review of GenAI policies in higher education assessment: A
call to reconsider the “originality” of students’ work. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, 0(0), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.2309963
Luo (Jess), J. (2024b). How does GenAI affect trust in teacher-student relationships? Insights
from students’ assessment experiences. Teaching in Higher Education, 0(0), 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2024.2341005
Mao, J., Chen, B., & Liu, J. C. (2024). Generative Artificial Intelligence in Education and Its
Implications for Assessment. TechTrends, 68(1), 58–66.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-023-00911-4

17
The AI Assessment Scale Revisited: A Framework for Educational Assessment A PREPRINT

Moorhouse, B. L., Yeo, M. A., & Wan, Y. (2023). Generative AI tools and assessment:
Guidelines of the world’s top-ranking universities. Computers and Education Open,
5, 100151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2023.100151
Newton, P. M., Summers, C. J., Zaheer, U., Xiromeriti, M., Stokes, J. R., Bhangu, J. S.,
Roome, E. G., Roberts-Phillips, A., Mazaheri-Asadi, D., Jones, C. D., Hughes, S.,
Gilbert, D., Jones, E., Essex, K., Ellis, E. C., Davey, R., Cox, A. A., & Bassett, J. A.
(2024). Can ChatGPT-4o really pass medical science exams? A pragmatic analysis
using novel questions (p. 2024.06.29.24309595). medRxiv.
https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.06.29.24309595
Nguyen, A., Hong, Y., Dang, B., & Huang, X. (2024). Human-AI collaboration patterns in
AI-assisted academic writing. Studies in Higher Education, 49(5), 847–864.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2024.2323593
OECD. (2024). AI risks and incidents. Artificial Intelligence Promises Tremendous Benefits
but Also Carries Real Risks. Some of These Risks Are Already Materialising into
Harms to People and Societies: Bias and Discrimination, Polarisation of Opinions,
Privacy Infringements, and Security and Safety Issues. Trustworthy AI Calls for
Governments Worldwide to Develop Interoperable Risk-Based Approaches to AI
Governance and a Rigorous Understanding of AI Incidents and Hazards.
https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/ai-risks-and-incidents.html
OpenAI. (2023, September 25). GPT-4V(ision) system card. GPT-4V(Ision) System Card.
https://openai.com/index/gpt-4v-system-card/
OpenAI. (2024). Introducing OpenAI o1 | OpenAI. https://openai.com/index/introducing-
openai-o1-preview/
Pearce, J., & Chiavaroli, N. (2023). Rethinking assessment in response to generative artificial
intelligence. Medical Education, 57(10), 889–891.
https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.15092
Perkins, M. (2023). Academic Integrity considerations of AI Large Language Models in the
post-pandemic era: ChatGPT and beyond. Journal of University Teaching & Learning
Practice, 20(2). https://doi.org/10.53761/1.20.02.07
Perkins, M., Furze, L., Roe, J., & MacVaugh, J. (2024). The Artificial Intelligence
Assessment Scale (AIAS): A Framework for Ethical Integration of Generative AI in
Educational Assessment. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice,
21(06), Article 06. https://doi.org/10.53761/q3azde36
Perkins, M., & Roe, J. (2023). Decoding Academic Integrity Policies: A Corpus Linguistics
Investigation of AI and Other Technological Threats. Higher Education Policy.
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-023-00323-2
Perkins, M., & Roe, J. (2024a). Academic publisher guidelines on AI usage: A ChatGPT
supported thematic analysis [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with
reservations]. In F1000Research (Vol. 12, Issue 1398).
https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.142411.2
Perkins, M., & Roe, J. (2024b). Generative AI Tools in Academic Research: Applications and
Implications for Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methodologies
(arXiv:2408.06872). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2408.06872
Perkins, M., Roe, J., Postma, D., McGaughran, J., & Hickerson, D. (2023). Detection of
GPT-4 Generated Text in Higher Education: Combining Academic Judgement and

18
The AI Assessment Scale Revisited: A Framework for Educational Assessment A PREPRINT

Software to Identify Generative AI Tool Misuse. Journal of Academic Ethics.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-023-09492-6
Perkins, M., Roe, J., Vu, B. H., Postma, D., Hickerson, D., McGaughran, J., & Khuat, H. Q.
(2024). Simple techniques to bypass GenAI text detectors: Implications for inclusive
education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education,
21(1), 53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00487-w
Pratschke, B. M. (2024). Assessing Learning. In B. M. Pratschke (Ed.), Generative AI and
Education: Digital Pedagogies, Teaching Innovation and Learning Design (pp. 91–
108). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-67991-9_6
Prentice, F. M., & Kinden, C. E. (2018). Paraphrasing tools, language translation tools and
plagiarism: An exploratory study. International Journal for Educational Integrity,
14(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-018-0036-7
Rasul, T., Nair, S., Kalendra, D., Balaji, M. S., Santini, F. de O., Ladeira, W. J., Rather, R.
A., Yasin, N., Rodriguez, R. V., Kokkalis, P., Murad, M. W., & Hossain, M. U.
(2024). Enhancing academic integrity among students in GenAI Era:A holistic
framework. The International Journal of Management Education, 22(3), 101041.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2024.101041
Roe, J., Furze, L., & Perkins, M. (2024). Funhouse Mirror or Echo Chamber? A
Methodological Approach to Teaching Critical AI Literacy Through Metaphors
(arXiv:2411.14730). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2411.14730
Roe, J., & Perkins, M. (2022). What are Automated Paraphrasing Tools and how do we
address them? A review of a growing threat to academic integrity. International
Journal for Educational Integrity, 18(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-
022-00109-w
Roe, J., Perkins, M., & Ruelle, D. (2024). Is GenAI the Future of Feedback? Understanding
Student and Staff Perspectives on AI in Assessment. Intelligent Technologies in
Education. https://doi.org/10.70770/rzzz6y35
Roe, J., Perkins, M., & Tregubova, Y. (2024). The EAP-AIAS: Adapting the AI Assessment
Scale for English for Academic Purposes (arXiv:2408.01075). arXiv.
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2408.01075
Roe, J., Renandya, W. A., & Jacobs, G. M. (2023). A Review of AI-Powered Writing Tools
and Their Implications for Academic Integrity in the Language Classroom. Journal of
English and Applied Linguistics, 2(1), 3.
Rudolph, J., Ismail, F. M. M., & Popenici, S. (2024). Higher Education’s Generative
Artificial Intelligence Paradox: The Meaning of Chatbot Mania. Journal of University
Teaching and Learning Practice, 21(06), Article 06.
https://doi.org/10.53761/54fs5e77
Sadasivan, V. S., Kumar, A., Balasubramanian, S., Wang, W., & Feizi, S. (2023). Can AI-
Generated Text be Reliably Detected? (arXiv:2303.11156). arXiv.
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.11156
Shahriar, S., Lund, B. D., Mannuru, N. R., Arshad, M. A., Hayawi, K., Bevara, R. V. K.,
Mannuru, A., & Batool, L. (2024). Putting GPT-4o to the Sword: A Comprehensive
Evaluation of Language, Vision, Speech, and Multimodal Proficiency. Applied
Sciences, 14(17), Article 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14177782

19
The AI Assessment Scale Revisited: A Framework for Educational Assessment A PREPRINT

Smolansky, A., Cram, A., Raduescu, C., Zeivots, S., Huber, E., & Kizilcec, R. F. (2023).
Educator and Student Perspectives on the Impact of Generative AI on Assessments in
Higher Education. Proceedings of the Tenth ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale,
378–382. https://doi.org/10.1145/3573051.3596191
Steel, A. (2024). 2 lanes or 6 lanes? It depends on what you are driving: Use of AI in
Assessment. https://www.education.unsw.edu.au/news-events/news/two-six-lanes-ai-
assessment
Studiosity. (2024). The Prof Tracey Bretag Prize for Academic Integrity.
https://www.studiosity.com/traceybretagprize
Thanh, B. N., Vo, D. T. H., Nhat, M. N., Pham, T. T. T., Trung, H. T., & Xuan, S. H. (2023).
Race with the machines: Assessing the capability of generative AI in solving
authentic assessments. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5),
Article 5. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.8902
Thompson, K., Corrin, L., & Lodge, J. M. (2023). AI in tertiary education: Progress on
research and practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), Article
5. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.9251
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes.
Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4
Weber-Wulff, D., Anohina-Naumeca, A., Bjelobaba, S., Foltýnek, T., Guerrero-Dib, J.,
Popoola, O., Šigut, P., & Waddington, L. (2023). Testing of Detection Tools for AI-
Generated Text (arXiv:2306.15666). arXiv.
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2306.15666
Wiboolyasarin, W., Wiboolyasarin, K., Suwanwihok, K., Jinowat, N., & Muenjanchoey, R.
(2024). Synergizing collaborative writing and AI feedback: An investigation into
enhancing L2 writing proficiency in wiki-based environments. Computers and
Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6, 100228.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100228
Xia, Q., Weng, X., Ouyang, F., Lin, T. J., & Chiu, T. K. F. (2024). A scoping review on how
generative artificial intelligence transforms assessment in higher education.
International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21(1), 40.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00468-z

20