Image generated using Flux AI (Dev)

We have collated the most commonly asked questions here. A full set of FAQs is available on this Teaching@Sydney article.

What do we do about assessment tasks that are a mixture of Secure (Lane 1) and Open (Lane 2)?

This should be entered into Sydney Curriculum as two assessments - an Open (Lane 2) assessment, and a separate Secure (Lane 1) assessment. For clarity, it would be advisable to give them similar names. For example if there is a presentation task with a chance for staff to ask the student live questions after the presentation, the presentation itself would be added as an Open (Lane 2) assessment (category "Production and creation - open", type "Presentation") and the live question session could be added as a Secure (Lane 1) assessment (category "In class – secured", type "Q&A following presentation, submission or placement") if its purpose and format lends itself to assuring that attainment of learning outcomes has occurred.

What weighting should we give Secure (Lane 1) and Open (Lane 2) assessments?

As we wrestle with and adapt to a new approach to assessment, one heuristic may be the amount of effort that students need to apply to particular assessment tasks. Presumably these tasks will be meaningful and lead to deeper learning, i.e. assessment for and as learning (i.e. Open Lane 2). It follows that you likely want to more heavily weight Lane 2 assessments. Students should need to clear Secure (Lane 1) assessments to assure the community that they have gained the necessary knowledge, skills, and dispositions - to that end, Secure (Lane 1) assessments may become hurdle (must pass) tasks.

Why bother having Open (Lane 2) assessments at all? Shouldn't they just be learning activities that don't count for marks?

We know that marks drive student behaviour and promote effort. If we want students to effortfully engage in Open (Lane 2) assessments, we should recognise this by providing marks towards these assessment activities. Since assessment can engage the process of learning, aligning activities to Open (Lane 2) assessment is crucial even to the extent that they may become effectively the same in our heads and in those of our students. It may be appropriate that the assessments and even the units become about satisfying requirements rather than for marks (i.e. pass/fail).

Can I apply a scale or traffic lights to how AI is used in Open (Lane 2) assessments?

No. Any unenforceable restriction damages assessment validity so a scale or traffic light approach of telling students that they can only use AI for certain purposes, or use certain AI tools, is untenable. A clearer and more realistic approach is to consider the use of AI in Open (Lane 2) assessments as a menu, where students can pick anything and it is our role as educators to guide them which options are more delectable (better for learning).

We do though need to assure our students meet the learning outcomes of their programs and we need to do that through appropriate Secure (Lane 1) assessments.

If we allow any AI (in Open, Lane 2) because we can’t stop it or detect it, why don’t we use the same logic and just allow collusion or plagiarism?

Because collusion or plagiarism are not graduate qualities we wish to develop. The productive and responsible use of generative AI will be a key set of knowledge, skills, and dispositions that our graduates will need, much like our graduates need the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to use the internet, to work with others, to influence, and to lead.

Moreover, the reason why we are allowing and supporting generative AI in Open (Lane 2) assessments is actually because we want to help students prepare for a present and future where generative AI is ubiquitous, and because AI has powerful potential to support learning.

Is there any way we can detect if students have used AI?

From semester 2, 2025, generative AI cannot be banned or restricted in Open (Lane 2) assessments. AI detection software uses algorithms to try to identify how text was generated. Research suggests they are better than humans at spotting AI generated work. However, AI detection software is unreliable on its own and there are tools as well as prompting approaches on social media to avoid detection. Research also suggests relatively high rates of false positives, particularly for students with English as a second language.

That said, AI detection software is available to the University's central Office of Educational Integrity and may be used as part of investigations of reported academic integrity breaches.

Can we have more exams and in-semester tests?

Assessments that work beyond individual units, with program-level design, can ensure our programs have the required integrity without increasing the overall number of exams. In 2024, around 80% of our units (corresponding to just under 60% of unit enrolments) did not have exams. Adding these kinds of Secure (Lane 1) assessments to more units would require considerable resources and additional workload for academics. There are other Secure (Lane 1) assessments which are likely to be more authentic and appropriate for the needs of your unit, program, and students.

What about group work?

Each of the assessment types could potentially be suitable and selected as a group task within Sydney Curriculum.