What happened
The Learning Scientists published Carolina Kuepper-Tetzel’s account of a London “AI in Assessment” workshop focused on psychology degrees in higher education. She reported Mark Carrigan’s view that AI in education is creating a crisis of trust, Patricia Gasalla Canto’s work on institutional trust issues, Oliver McGarr’s four phases of technology governance, and Laura Contu and Michael Smyth’s 11-week GenAI workshop with master conversion students.
Why it matters
For educators and designers, the reported shift is from treating AI mainly as a cheating problem toward aligning assessment choices with learning outcomes. The evidence describes student uncertainty about rules, mistrust of AI accuracy, and concerns about dependence, while also suggesting that guided use can reveal limitations and support more informed decisions.
What to do next
Audit assessments against their stated outcomes. Keep supervised, no-GenAI conditions where unaided knowledge demonstration is central. For unsupervised work, state when GenAI is permitted and how it should be acknowledged. Consider small, guided AI literacy activities and process-focused tasks, but treat the workshop evidence as context-specific rather than a universal model.
About this briefing
Reviewed by TutorFlow Editorial. We link the primary source, preserve its publication date, and distinguish reported claims from TutorFlow analysis. Our commentary focuses on practical decisions for educators and training teams.
Discussion (0)
Open to everyone