Gids voor de samenleving

The AI Assessment Scale for Classrooms

The AI Assessment Scale (AIAS) is a five-level framework developed by Mike Perkins, Leon Furze, Jasper Roe and Jason MacVaugh.

  • 4 minuten lezen
  • Laatst bijgewerkt
Op deze pagina4 minuten lezen
  1. Overzicht
  2. Diepe duik
  3. Strategische impact
  4. The Future of The AI Assessment Scale for Classrooms
  5. Implementatie in de echte wereld
  6. Risico's en vangrails
  7. Implementatie routekaart
  8. Blijf verkennen
  9. Veelgestelde vragen

Overzicht

It tells students how much generative AI they may use on a given assignment, from no AI to full AI. It matters because a general "be careful with AI" rule is replaced by a shared vocabulary, so every task comes with a clear label students can check.

Diepe duik

The AIAS was first published in 2023 and piloted in higher education. That version had five levels: No AI; AI-Assisted Idea Generation and Structuring; AI-Assisted Editing; AI Task Completion, Human Evaluation; and Full AI. In 2024, the authors released an updated version with simpler names: 1. No AI: work done without AI help. 2. AI Planning: AI for brainstorming, research and structuring, but not the final work. 3. AI Collaboration: AI helps with drafting and feedback, and students critically evaluate and change its output. 4. Full AI: AI may be used throughout, with students directing it. 5. AI Exploration: creative or new uses of AI as part of the task itself. The update made two points clear. First, the levels are not a ladder of quality. A Level 4 task is not easier or less rigorous than a Level 1 task. It assesses different skills. Second, a label cannot guarantee anything by itself. If students do an assignment at home, nobody can confirm that "No AI" was followed. Level 1 only means something when the work is done under supervision. That second point links the scale to wider thinking about assessment security. The University of Sydney's "two-lane" approach, for example, separates secure, supervised assessments from open ones where AI use is expected and taught. To tell students which level applies, teachers usually put it on the assignment brief, explain why that level fits the learning goal, show examples of acceptable and unacceptable use, and require a short disclosure at any level above 1. Common misconceptions are that a whole course must sit at one level, and that the scale is a detection or enforcement tool. It is a communication and design tool.

Strategische impact

Risico en veiligheid

Catastrofale en alledaagse schade door AI hangt af van wie de risico's begrijpt en wie kan handelen.

Duidelijkere beslissingen

Publieke en professionele geletterdheid bepalen of een krachtig veiligheidsbeleid politiek mogelijk is.

Door de hype heen snijden

Duidelijke verklaringen verminderen de kans op hypes, laboratorium-PR en vaag ethisch theater.

The Future of The AI Assessment Scale for Classrooms

Tiered scales like the AIAS have become a common starting point for schools and universities writing AI guidance, and more local adaptations are likely. The main work still to do is in assessment design, not labelling. Institutions are still figuring out how many supervised tasks they can realistically run and how to grade AI-assisted work fairly. As AI tools get built into everyday software, the lines between levels may need clearer examples. Research on how well these scales change student behaviour is still limited.

Implementatie in de echte wereld

A teacher labels an in-class timed essay Level 1, No AI, and a take-home research proposal Level 2, AI Planning. Students can brainstorm and outline with AI but must write the proposal themselves.

A science department colour-codes each assignment brief by AIAS level and adds one sentence saying why that level fits the task.

A university business course sets a Level 4 task where students may use AI throughout. The grade is based on how well they check, critique and improve the output.

A computing teacher sets a Level 5 exploration project. Students test creative uses of AI and report what worked and what failed.

Risico's en vangrails

  • Existentieel risico behandelen als sciencefiction, terwijl capaciteiten zich vermenigvuldigen.

  • De veiligheid van oppervlakteproducten verwarren met uitlijning onder hoge autonomie.

  • Hierdoor blijven niet-Engelstalige en niet-deskundige doelgroepen alleen bronnen van lage kwaliteit over.

Implementatie routekaart

  1. Afzonderlijke risico's voor productschade, misbruik en verlies van controle/verkeerde uitlijning.

  2. Vraag welk bewijs uw kijk op tijdlijnen en ernst zou veranderen.

  3. Geef de voorkeur aan primaire bronnen en concrete evaluaties boven marketingclaims.

  4. Identificeer één actiepad: carrière, beleid, financiering of vaardigheden – niet alleen bewustwording.

Blijf verkennen

Free newsletter

Get the daily AI briefing

Three verified AI stories every weekday morning, written in plain English. Free forever, no ads.

One email each weekday. Unsubscribe in one click. We never sell or share your address.

Test yourself

Take the The AI Assessment Scale for Classrooms quiz

Instant feedback on every answer, and a shareable certificate with a verifiable ID once you pass a course.

Quiz starten

Support free AI education. AI Understanding is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit — no ads, no paywall, ever. Make a donation

Veelgestelde vragen

What is The AI Assessment Scale for Classrooms?

The AI Assessment Scale (AIAS) is a five-level framework developed by Mike Perkins, Leon Furze, Jasper Roe and Jason MacVaugh. It tells students how much generative AI they may use on a given assignment, from no AI to full AI. It matters because a general "be careful with AI" rule is replaced by a shared vocabulary, so every task comes with a clear label students can check.

What is the AI Assessment Scale mainly used for?

The AIAS gives each assignment a level that says how much generative AI is allowed. It is a communication and design tool.

In the updated 2024 AIAS, what is Level 2 called?

Level 2, AI Planning, allows AI for brainstorming, research and structuring, but not for the final work.

Why does a Level 1 (No AI) label need supervised conditions?

A label alone guarantees nothing. No AI can only be trusted when the work is done under supervision.

Which statement about the AIAS levels is correct?

The authors stress that the levels are not a hierarchy. A Full AI task can be as demanding as a No AI task.

What evidence best supports a Level 2 or Level 3 task?

Drafts, transcripts and reflections show how AI was used and what the student contributed.