AIEd Knowledge Base logoAIEd Knowledge BaseAIEd KB
On this page

Research Article

Assessment Design Through Co-Creation: Student-Staff Partnership in Evaluating the Impact of Artificial Intelligence

Synthesis: Williams and Ingle (2025) report a case study of the AI Co-Creators project at University College London (UCL), a co-creation initiative in which a student partner who had completed her second year of an undergraduate medical sciences programme and a staff member collaboratively evaluated ChatGPT-generated output in response to diverse coursework assessments. The pair co-designed seven evaluation criteria grounded in UNESCO and JISC guidance, then examined the challenges surfaced through iterative dialogue, a structured interview, and thematic analysis. The partnership found that no coursework assessment was completely immune to ChatGPT interference and explored the value of the collaboration from student, staff, and institutional perspectives, connecting co-creation and students-as-partners practice to Self Regulated Learning, enhanced understanding, and student empowerment in assessment design.

AI Co-Creators: A Students-as-Partners Assessment Project

The AI Co-Creators project was part of UCL's broader ChangeMakers initiative, established in 2014 to support dialogue between students and staff on education challenges, including curriculum change and learning enhancement. This case study focused on a single partnership between a staff member and a student partner who had personal experience of the assessments under evaluation — a deliberate choice given the dialogic nature of the work and the aim of drawing on the insight of an experienced student. From the outset the project sought a non-hierarchical, inclusive working environment that positioned staff and student as equal partners, echoing the students-as-partners emphasis on students as co-researchers and co-creators rather than passive subjects of education (Healey, 2014).

The project employed an iterative working strategy of in-person and online meetings with clearly established partner responsibilities. The student partner collated assessment information and evaluated ChatGPT-generated output, while the staff partner provided academic support, mentorship, and feedback; both partners co-created the assessment evaluation criteria and parameters. Throughout, the student's input was given space and priority, and the student primarily drove the project forward — an intentional structure aimed at empowering the student as an active participant.

Co-Designing Evaluation Criteria

Due to the novelty of Generative AI and the recent release of ChatGPT, the partners co-created their own evaluation criteria rather than relying on established frameworks. Drawing on UNESCO guidelines (Holmes & Miao, 2023; Sabzalieva & Valentini, 2023), pedagogical applications, and JISC guidance for Generative AI in assessments (Gamage et al., 2023), they designed seven criteria around three themes: the application of ChatGPT to higher education teaching and learning, challenges and ethical implications, and adapting to ChatGPT in higher education. ChatGPT 3.5 was used to generate responses to coursework instructions, and the outputs were co-evaluated through iterative dialogue against the criteria.

The criteria addressed the potential impact of ChatGPT on academic integrity, key challenges facing coursework assessments, applicability to formative and summative assessment, challenges for students and staff, impact on the student experience, how ChatGPT might be incorporated into existing assessment designs, and an analysis of example ChatGPT-generated output for each coursework instruction. Both partners agreed the main impact would likely fall on academic integrity and the potential use of AI for plagiarism, with the student partner raising particular concerns about equity and fairness in grading.

Key Findings

  1. No assessment was immune. The main finding, agreed by both partners, was that no form of coursework assessment was completely immune to ChatGPT interference — with important implications for how assessments are regulated and designed.
  2. Co-creation surfaces student-centric applications. The student partner highlighted ways ChatGPT could serve as a more inclusive form of formative assessment, a learning assistant, an auxiliary tool to provide Feedback, and a proofing aid — uses more student-centric than staff-centric.
  3. Training is needed. Both partners recommended training for staff and students on the capabilities, limitations, and ethical use of Generative AI.
  4. Co-design supports assessment literacy. Co-creation can help align differing assessment expectations and deepen both student and staff assessment literacy (Smith et al., 2013; Boud et al., 2018).

Student Perspective

A structured interview with the student partner, subject to thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke (2006), surfaced three main themes: transforming university assessment through generative AI, empowering education through co-creation, and navigating institutional and ethical landscapes. The student echoed broader concerns about academic integrity and equitable access, while also identifying opportunities to integrate Generative AI into assessments to enhance learning through continued and constructive feedback.

The student partner described the process as highly rewarding, felt she had contributed valuable feedback for designing assessments and teaching plans, and noted the collaboration allowed her to discuss ideas she may not have considered independently. Taking responsibility for elements of the project was a powerful device for empowerment, and the project made her more reflective in her own learning. Positioning the student as an equal partner helped build Trust and fostered a proactive, self-regulated approach to the work — illustrating the link between co-creation and Self Regulated Learning.

Staff and Institutional Perspectives

From a staff perspective, the partnership gained important insights that would not have emerged independently, particularly the student's personal experience of the assessments and her effectiveness at identifying areas where ChatGPT could impact coursework. Co-creation and student-staff collaborations are argued to be ideally positioned to scrutinise Generative AI use by capitalising on differing perspectives and expertise (Bovill, 2020). At the institutional level, projects such as AI Co-Creators contribute to policy on the use of generative AI in assessments and the classroom, benefiting existing and future student cohorts and supporting the shift from traditional hierarchical structures toward more democratic, student-voice-oriented higher education (Cook-Sather, 2006; Mercer-Mapstone & Bovill, 2020).

Implications

The study positions co-creation and student-staff partnership as central to developing solutions to the AI challenge in Higher Ed, particularly in assessment. Its findings support involving students in the design of assessment to improve Self Regulated Learning and enhance understanding, consistent with an assessment-for-learning approach (Carless, 2005; Deeley & Bovill, 2017). The authors recommend extending such work to more assessment formats and student cohorts, collaborating with more diverse students to improve inclusivity and equity, and using the Creativity of students when designing teaching and learning materials for an AI-influenced world.

Connected Concepts

Connected Articles

Citation

Williams, A., & Ingle, E. (2025). Assessment design through co-creation: Student-staff partnership in evaluating the impact of artificial intelligence. International Journal for Students as Partners, 9(1), 214–226.

View SourceView ChangesEditChat