SamfunnsGUIDE

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 min lesing
  • Sist oppdatert
På denne siden4 min lesing
  1. Oversikt
  2. Dypdykk
  3. Strategisk innvirkning
  4. The Future of The AI Assessment Scale for Classrooms
  5. Real-World Implementering
  6. Risikoer og rekkverk
  7. Veikart for implementering
  8. Fortsett å utforske
  9. Ofte stilte spørsmål

Oversikt

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.

Dypdykk

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.

Strategisk innvirkning

Risiko og sikkerhet

Katastrofale og hverdagslige AI-skader avhenger begge av hvem som forstår risikoen og hvem som kan handle.

Tydeligere avgjørelser

Offentlig og faglig kompetanse former om sterk sikkerhetspolitikk er politisk mulig.

Skjærer gjennom hypen

Tydelige forklaringer reduserer fangst av hype, laboratorie-PR og vagt etikkteater.

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.

Real-World Implementering

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.

Risikoer og rekkverk

  • Behandling av eksistensiell risiko som sci-fi mens evnesammensetninger.

  • Forvirrende overflateproduktsikkerhet med justering under høy autonomi.

  • Etterlater ikke-engelske og ikke-eksperter med kun kilder av lav kvalitet.

Veikart for implementering

  1. Separate risikoer for produktskade, misbruk og tap av kontroll/feiljustering.

  2. Spør hvilke bevis som vil endre ditt syn på tidslinjer og alvorlighetsgrad.

  3. Foretrekk primære kilder og konkrete vurderinger fremfor markedsføringspåstander.

  4. Identifiser én handlingsvei: karriere, politikk, finansiering eller ferdigheter – ikke bare bevissthet.

Fortsett å utforske

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.

Start quiz

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

Ofte stilte spørsmål

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.