– Hi, I’m Lorri Barnett. I am the Senior Director of Professional Development for Quality Matters, which is based in the United States. Quality Matters is a research-based framework for designing high quality online and hybrid courses. And the activities in this session use QM principles to strengthen alignment, clarity, and student success. I am also an adjunct faculty for Purdue Polytechnic in West Lafayette, Indiana, which is considered the Midwestern part of the United States. In this activity, we will demonstrate a pattern that I started seeing in my online courses: polished, flawless assignments that didn’t sound like the same student that I was seeing in other written assignments or discussions.

This activity will help educators move from trying to catch AI to designing assessments that will still provide valid evidence of student learning in an AI-rich environment, aligning with QM’s emphasis on valid, reliable assessments that measure stated objectives, which happened to be our General Standard 3, and also upholds academic integrity. Initially, when I began looking at this worksheet, I was focused on just catching students using AI, but that really wasn’t sustainable or aligned with the culture and environment that I was trying to instill in the classroom. I wanted to turn to my design standards. What is this assignment actually measuring, and how can I see students thinking?

So we will be using a QM-informed worksheet to clarify outcomes, to design the process, and to make criteria around AI expectations more transparent. The goal of this activity is to make AI a tool within a clear structure, not the shortcut that replaces learning. The purpose of our AI-Resilient Assessment Redesign Worksheet is to help faculty redesign one assignment so that it emphasizes authentic learning, process, and transparent criteria in an AI-rich environment. The concept proposal identifies three design moves: make outcomes explicit, design for the process, and use transparent criteria. This worksheet is grounded in the QM Higher Education Rubric, and it helps faculty apply QM principles to assessment design in an AI-rich environment. It especially draws on our General Standard 2, which are our ‘Learning objectives and competencies’; our General Standard 3, which is “Assessment and Measurement”; our General Standard 5, which is “Learning Activities and Learner Interaction”; General Standard 6, which is “Course Technology”; and there is some relevance to General Standard 4 around “Instructional Materials” as well. This worksheet is going to be around the example I chose from my own work: “Introduction to Environmental Policy.” That’s from the demonstration that I want to show you. The original assignment was, “Students were to write a 1000 word paper on current environmental issues.” So this worksheet has you look at “before,” connecting the QM standards, and any revision that might be needed. And this is around trying to incorporate good use of AI inside your students’ outcomes and submissions.

So the learning outcome before was simply “Understand environmental policy issues.” Pretty vague, pretty broad, right? This aligns to our QM Standard 2, especially 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3, on clearly stated measurable objectives. So notice that is a pretty broad objective stated there. So the revision that I needed to make was, “Compare two policy responses to a current environmental issue and justify which is more effective using evidence from credible sources.” The credible sources is what opens the opportunity for students to utilize the use of AI inside of their work.

Then we look at the assessment task. I had written that “Students must submit one final paper at the end of the week.” The prompt is too broad and can easily be completed with generic AI output because I’m not specific in what I asked them to do. This aligns to our General Standard 3.1 on assessments, and then measuring against 3.4. And then, finally, sequencing those assessments, 5.1. So what I decided to do was to break the assignment into stages where there would be a topic proposal that they would submit, a source comparison chart, and a draft paragraph with their reasoning, and final submission. By allowing students to provide drafts in chunks, it allowed me to incorporate the use of AI with them, mentor them, and give them good, solid use of AI sightings and sources inside of their work.

Process evidence is the next category, and it sort of lends itself very well to the prior one. At first, I did not have a draft. There were no planning notes. I did not ask for exclamations from students on how they developed their work. It was one final submission that they were to complete. Alignment to QM is against General Standard 3.5 and 5.2. And the way that I made my revision was I required a short reflection explaining how their sources were selected, what revisions did they make, and whether AI tools were used for brainstorming, outlining, or editing. And by simply allowing their creativity to include and foster the use of AI, it changed the dynamic of the assignment and the outcomes 100%. And that was in a very positive direction as well.

My evaluation criteria was the next segment of my paper that I looked at my outline. My grading was based on that rubric mostly on grammar, the length of the paper, on formatting, with limited attention to evidence or reasoning, which is key in this assignment. This aligned to our General Standard QM 3.3 on descriptive and evaluation criteria. So what I did was change my rubric. I added a rubric to emphasize quality, comparison, policy options, use of evidence, justification of choice, and reflection on their decision making. What allowed me to really beef up the rubric was also giving them feedback along the way on the segments that I had them submit for draft review. And they would utilize the comments that I would give them based on, “You’re using too much AI. You did not cite. You did not source. I need you to explain to me your justification and reasoning for why you selected that piece of evidence.” And that helped them come up with a final product that they could be proud of and that incorporated AI in the right way, the use of AI in the right way.

Academic integrity guidance. The assignment directions did not explain what counted as acceptable or unacceptable use. I talk about AI and the use of AI in the syllabus in a very broad spectrum. I talk about use, how they may use it, how they must cite it, but I did not dive into the details that I feel are necessary inside each assignment. This aligns to QM’s Review Specific Standard 3.6. And how I revised my assignment was I added guidance to the assignment itself. I specified what they might be allowed to use, how to acknowledge that use of AI, and what parts of the analysis must remain in their own words. And that helped seal the deal, if you will, on doing a very effective use of AI, of research in a new way, and giving the flexibility to students that they were so looking for in terms of doing great work.

Finally, on the course technology piece, I had, “They may use these digital tools,” but I did not give them guidance on the learning attachment to the goals and the outcomes. So it was one thing to be very disconnected in telling them they could use these tools, but quite another to align that to an actual learning outcome. That is aligned to our 6.1 and our 6.2 General Standard. And I was specific in naming which tools they could use. So I like to use NotebookLM, Claude, and ChatGPT. And so, I absolutely was explicit in outlining the tools I wanted them to use, how to use them, and how to use them to strengthen and not replace their own words and their own thoughts. And again, this redesign helps you apply our rubric to one of today’s most urgent teaching questions: how do we create assessments that are still measuring authentic learning when students have such access to AI tools all around them? This worksheet helps you keep that focus on measurable objectives, aligned assessments, transparent criteria, active learning, and clear academic integrity guidance. The specific standards that we used are listed there. And if you want more information on Quality Matters Higher Education Rubric, please reach out to [email protected], and someone will be happy to assist you. Thanks for working through this activity with me.

If you found it helpful, I encourage you to complete the worksheet for one course that you’re teaching now and just notice what changes for your students. OneHE has more microlearning resources, and Quality Matters offers deeper frameworks and peer review support to help strengthen your ongoing course design work. The worksheet resources are contained below this video.