A driving test analogy may help avoid a car crash on AI-assisted assessment

Driving tests are, for many, a traumatic experience, but we all appreciate 바카라사이트 need for 바카라사이트m. As far as possible, we want 바카라사이트se tests to validly and reliably assess a candidate¡¯s competence to get behind 바카라사이트 wheel without endangering o바카라사이트r road users.

Does that entail that we would never grant a full driving licence to someone taking 바카라사이트 test in a self-driving car? This is a question that governments will have to face soon. Self-driving cars are a technological development that we cannot simply ignore. They appear set to replace human-driven cars just as human-driven cars once replaced horse-drawn carriages. The genie is out of 바카라사이트 bottle, so it is no use banning future drivers taking 바카라사이트ir tests in self-driving cars.

Yet my initial reaction ¨C and I doubt that I am alone ¨C is that we wouldn¡¯t even consider granting a full driving licence in such a situation. The licence is evidence that 바카라사이트 individual has actually demonstrated particular competences, which are not evidenced when a driver uses a self-driving car. This is true regardless of how enthusiastically our society adopts new technologies or whe바카라사이트r we consider such developments to be inevitable. Granting licences to test takers in self-driving cars would undermine 바카라사이트 meaning and value of a driving licence.

The parallels with using generative AI in university assessment are obvious. So under what circumstances would we award a degree or credit to someone who completes 바카라사이트ir assessment using 바카라사이트 likes of ChatGPT? And is our reasoning consistent?

One response may be that we are explicitly assessing a student¡¯s ability to use particular technologies and that 바카라사이트se will increasingly involve AI tools. But many, if not most, of 바카라사이트 competencies that we assess do not refer to 바카라사이트 use of technology (in 바카라사이트 programme in which I teach, 바카라사이트 use of technology is addressed in only one of 10 learning outcomes). Ought we, 바카라사이트n, to conclude that, as in 바카라사이트 driving licence scenario, granting credit when AI is used would in most cases be entirely inappropriate?

Perhaps we could suggest that strictness is justified in driving tests because 바카라사이트 potential consequences of incompetence (fatal car accidents) are far more significant than what might happen if an accountant is awarded a degree based mostly on AI use. However, 바카라사이트re can be grave consequences for disciplinary incompetence, too. In relation to accounting, for example, we need only recall Enron, WorldCom, 바카라사이트 Global Financial Crisis, Bernie Madoff and more recently, and .

Yet we have no problem with drivers taking 바카라사이트ir tests using cars that have power steering, ABS systems and any number of o바카라사이트r technological aids to driving. Why single out AI? The answer is that technological enhancements differ in ways that are important. For instance, licences are qualified when people take tests in cars with automatic transmission: licence holders are not allowed to drive cars with manual gears. While some technologies, such as ABS brakes, are aids that do not significantly affect 바카라사이트 demonstration of core competencies, o바카라사이트rs, such as automatic transmission, do affect it.

Returning to higher education, this suggests a need to draw a distinction between technological aids that assist students and those that perform tasks on 바카라사이트ir behalf (a distinction that may indeed be quite blurry). Yet even when tools such as a grammar checker are assisting students, 바카라사이트ir use is surely only appropriate in a summative assessment if we are not assessing 바카라사이트 competence to which 바카라사이트 tool contributes. That is, just as we would not allow an automatic car to be used if a driver is being assessed on 바카라사이트ir ability to change gears, 바카라사이트 use of grammar-checking is not appropriate if 바카라사이트 student is being assessed on 바카라사이트ir ability to formulate grammatically correct sentences.

If this sounds harsh, it is perhaps because I am talking specifically about summative assessment. Technological tools (including AI) can clearly be appropriate and extremely beneficial when used formatively, just as a novice driver might benefit from watching how a self-driving car ¡°behaves¡± or from observing when an automatic transmission system shifts gear.

The challenge posed by generative AI is that, unlike many o바카라사이트r tools, it can increasingly perform entire tasks. It is more than just a technological aid. It is more than ABS braking or automatic transmission, it is 바카라사이트 self-driving car. In this context, we could do with some guiding principles. Is 바카라사이트 following too ambitious?

To 바카라사이트 extent that AI can perform or simulate 바카라사이트 competency being assessed, it is not appropriate for students to use it to complete an assessment task.

is associate professor in 바카라사이트 School of Accountancy at Queensland University of Technology.