Page 277 - CyberSecurityEssentialsEnglish

accepted or rejected and why. In the fourth stage they submit a shorter final version and
then answer two questions orally: why did you choose this evidence? And what would
change in your recommendation if the context were different?

The method of assessment also changed. The rubric no longer focused only on language and
organization; it added criteria for the process: clarity of the question, quality of the source,

effect of the revision, and strength of the defense. Acceptable AI use became part of the
skill: how to ask the tool, how to verify, and how to reject an attractive but weakly evidenced
suggestion. At the same time, clear limits remained: no personal data, no fabricated sources,

no submission of text the student had not reviewed, and no concealment of use.

The new design produced three educational effects. First, cheating became less attractive
because the task required a path rather than only a product. Second, less experienced
students benefited from structured support without delegating all the thinking. Third, the

teacher obtained better evidence for diagnosing difficulty: a student who cannot select a
source needs different support from a student who has good evidence but cannot build an
argument. The most important lesson is that reforming assessment does not mean

increasing penalties; it means making learning visible, fair, and defensible.

Video: Assessment Reform in the Age of Artificial
Intelligence
A practical session on redesigning assessment so

that it gathers evidence of the process, the
performance, and the transfer, not the final
product alone.

Duration: about 50 minutes | Level: Intermediate
Learning objective: Redesign one existing

assessment task so that it collects more than one

kind of evidence.
Source: TEQSA and CRADLE [22].
https://youtu.be/8F5jZrFbjJY

Verified: June 6, 2026

● A quick card: oral defense questions that reveal understanding

1. Which idea did you change between the first draft and the final version, and why?
2. Which AI suggestion did you reject, and on what grounds?
3. What is your strongest piece of evidence, and what are its limits?
4. Apply the finding to a local case or an opposite case.
5. Explain one step in your own words without returning to the text.

276