design assessments in the age of AI
1. Privacy Threats — "Who Owns the Student's Data?" AI tools tap into enormous reservoirs of student information — what they score on tests, their written assignments, their web searches, and even how rapidly they respond to a question. This teaches AI about students, but risks making possible to miRead more
1. Privacy Threats — “Who Owns the Student’s Data?”
AI tools tap into enormous reservoirs of student information — what they score on tests, their written assignments, their web searches, and even how rapidly they respond to a question. This teaches AI about students, but risks making possible to misuse information and monitoring.
The problems:
- Gathering data without specific consent: Few students (and parents, too) are aware of what data EdTech technology collects and for how long.
- Surveillance and profiling: AI may create long-term “learning profiles” tracking students and labeling them as “slow,” “average,” or “gifted.” Such traits unfairly affect teachers’ or institutions’ decisions.
- Third-party exploitation: EdTech companies could sell anonymized (or not anonymized) data for marketing, research, or gain, with inadequate safeguards.
The human toll:
Imagine a timid student who is slower to complete assignments. If an AI grading algorithm interprets that uncertainty as “low engagement,” it might mislabel their promise — a temporary struggle redefined as a lasting online epidemic.
The remedy:
- Control and transparency are essential.
- Schools must inform parents and students what they are collecting and why.
- Information must be encrypted, anonymized, and never applied except to enhance education.
Users need to be able to opt out or delete their data, as adults in other online spaces.
2. Threats of Bias — “When Algorithms Reflect Inequality”
AI technology is biased. It is taught on data, and data is a reflection of society, with all its inequalities. At school, that can mean unequal tests that put some groups of children at a disadvantage.
The problems
- Cultural and linguistic bias: Essay-grading AI may penalize students who use non-native English or ethnically diverse sentences, confusing them with grammatical mistakes.
- Socioeconomic bias: Students from poorer backgrounds can be lower graded by algorithms merely because they reflect “lower-performing” populations of the past in the training set.
- Historical bias in training data: AI trained on old standardized tests or teacher ratings that were historically biased will be able to enact it.
The human cost
Consider a student from a rural school who uses regional slang or nonstandard grammar. A biased assumption AI system can flag their work as poor or ambiguous, and choke creativity and self-expression. The foundation of this can undermine confidence and reify stereotypes in the long term.
The solution:
- AI systems used in schools need to be audited for bias before deployment.
- Multi-disciplinary teachers, linguists, and cultural experts must be involved in the process.
Feedback mechanisms should provide human validation — giving teachers the ultimate decision, not the algorithm.
3. Risks of Openness — “The Black Box Problem”
Almost all AI systems operate like a black box — they decide, but even developers cannot always understand how and why. This opacity raises gigantic ethical and learning issues.
The issues:
- Transparent grading: If a student is assigned a low grade by an AI essay grader, can anyone precisely inform what was wrong or why?
- Limited accountability: When an AI makes a mistake — misreading tone, ignoring context, or being biased — who’s responsible: the teacher, school, or tech company?
- Lack of explainability: When AI models won’t explain themselves, students don’t trust the criticism. It’s a directive to follow, not a teachable moment.
The human cost
Picture being told, “The AI considers your essay incoherent,” with no explanation or detail. The student is still frustrated and perplexed, not educated. Education relies on dialogue, not solo edicts.
The solution:
- Schools can utilize AI software providing explicable outputs — e.g., marking up what in a piece of work has affected the grade.
- Teachers must contextualize AI commentary, summarizing its peaks and troughs.
Policymakers may require “AI transparency standards” in schools so that automated processes can be made accountable.
4. The Trust Factor — “Students Must Feel Seen, Not Scanned”
- Learning is, by definition, a trust- and empathy-based relationship. Those students who are constantly put in a situation where they feel monitored, judged, or surveilled by machines will likely be hesitant to learn.
- Feedback from machines or robots that is impersonal can render students invisible — reducing their individual voices to data points. It is especially dangerous with topics like literature, art, or philosophy, where subtlety and creativity are most important.
Human instructors have gigantic empathy — they know when to guide, when to incite, and when to simply listen. AI cannot replace that emotional quotient.
5. Finding the Balance — “AI as a Tool, Not a Judge”
AI in education is not a bad thing. Used properly, it can add equity and efficiency. It can catch up on learning gaps early, prevent grading bias from overworked teachers, and provide consistent feedback.
But only if that is done safely:
- Teachers must stay in the loop — pre-approving AI feedback before the students’ eyes lay eyes on it.
- AI must assist and not control. It must aid teachers, not replace them.
- Policies must guarantee privacy and equity, setting rigorous ethical boundaries for EdTech companies.
Final Thought
AI can analyze data, but it cannot feel the human emotion of learning — fear of failure, thrill of discovery, pride of achievement. When AI software is introduced into classrooms without guardrails, it will make students data subjects, not learners.
The answer, therefore, isn’t to stop AI — it’s to make it human.
To design systems that respect student dignity, celebrate diversity, and work alongside teachers, not instead of them.
- AI can flag data — but teachers must flag humanity.
- Technology can only then truly serve education, not the other way around.
How to Design Tests in the Age of AI In this era of learning, everything has changed — not only the manner in which students learn but also the manner in which they prove that they have learned. Students today employ tools such as ChatGPT, Grammarly, or math solution AI tools as an integral part ofRead more
How to Design Tests in the Age of AI
In this era of learning, everything has changed — not only the manner in which students learn but also the manner in which they prove that they have learned. Students today employ tools such as ChatGPT, Grammarly, or math solution AI tools as an integral part of their daily chores. While technology enables learning, it also renders the conventional models of assessment through memorization, essays, or homework monotonous.
So the challenge that educators today are facing is:
How do we create fair, substantial, and authentic tests in a world where AI can spew up “perfect” answers in seconds?
The solution isn’t to prohibit AI — it’s to redefine the assessment process itself. Let’s start on how.
1. Redefining What We’re Assessing
For generations, education has questioned students about what they know — formulas, facts, definitions. But machines can memorize anything at the blink of an eye, so tests based on memorization are becoming increasingly irrelevant.
In the AI era, we must test what AI does not do well:
Attempt replacing the following questions: Rather than asking “Explain causes of World War I,” ask “If AI composed an essay on WWI causes, how would you analyze its argument or position?”
This shifts the attention away from memorization.
2. Creating “AI-Resilient” Tests
An AI-resilient assessment is one where even if a student uses AI, the tool can’t fully answer the question — because the task requires human judgment, personal context, or live reasoning.
Here are a few effective formats:
Have students record how they utilized AI tools ethically (e.g., “I used AI to grammar-check but wrote the analysis myself”).
Choose students for the competition based on how many tasks they have been able to accomplish.
Example: “You are an instructor in a heterogeneously structured class. How do you use AI in helping learners of various backgrounds without infusing bias?”
Thinking activities:
Instruct students to compare or criticize AI responses with their own ideas. This compels students to think about thinking — an important metacognition activity.
3. Designing Tests “AI-Inclusive” Not “AI-Proof”
it’s a futile exercise trying to make everything “AI-proof.” Students will always find new methods of using the tools. What needs to happen instead is that tests need to accept AI as part of the process.
Mark not only the result, but their thought process as well: Have students discuss why they accepted or rejected AI suggestions.
Example prompt:
This makes AI a study buddy, and not a cheat code.
4. Immersing Technology with Human Touch
Teachers should not be driven away from students by AI — but drawn closer by making assessment more human-friendly and participatory.
Ideas:
Human element: A student may use AI to redo his report, but a live presentation tells him how deep he really is.
5. Justice and Integrity
Academic integrity in the age of AI is novel. Cheating isn’t plagiarizing anymore but using crutches too much without comprehending them.
Teachers can promote equity by:
Employing AI-detecting software responsibly — not to sanction, but to encourage an open discussion.
It builds trust, not fear, and shows teachers care more about effort and integrity than being great.
6. Remixing Feedback in the AI Era
Example: Instead of a “AI plagiarism detected” alert, give a “Let’s discuss how you can responsibly use AI to enhance your writing instead of replacing it.” message.
7. From Testing to Learning
The most powerful change can be this one:
AI eliminates the myth that tests are the sole measure of demonstrating what is learned. Tests, instead, become an act of self-discovery and learning skills.
Teachers can:
Final Thought
Not to be smarter than AI. To make students smarter, more moral, and more human in a world of AI.
See less