What should assessment measure when AI can produce the output? A conceptual framework for human-centered assessment in online education

Abstract

Background: Generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems can now produce written texts, solve complex problems, and create academic artifacts previously treated as reliable indicators of student learning. This capability undermines the construct validity of output-focused assessment, a challenge especially acute in online and distance learning (ODL) environments where AI agents can complete assessments on students' behalf. Purpose: This paper identifies the distinctly human capacities that educational assessment should prioritize and proposes conceptual principles for an assessment paradigm adequate to cultivating and evaluating those capacities across educational levels and delivery modes. Method: A systematic conceptual review was conducted across ERIC, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science (November 2022 to March 2026). From 874 initial records, 90 sources (64 journal articles, 17 monographs, 9 policy reports) were selected through a PRISMA-adapted screening process and synthesized using an integrative conceptual approach. Findings: The review identifies four distinctly human capacities resistant to AI replication (contextual judgment, lived-experience originality, dialogic meaning-making, and reflective action under uncertainty) and derives a four-principle assessment framework: processuality, dialogicity, situatedness, and reflexivity. These principles are organized along temporal/contextual and individual/relational axes. Implications: The framework offers assessment designers, particularly in online and technology-enhanced learning contexts, principled foundations for creating tasks that evidence genuine human learning rather than automatable output production. Implications for educational policy, teacher education, equity, and future empirical research are discussed.

Keywords

• generative artificial intelligence
• educational assessment
• human-centered assessment
• online learning
• assessment design framework

References

1. Assessment Reform Group. (1999). Assessment for learning: Beyond the black box. University of Cambridge School of Education.
2. Assessment Reform Group. (2002). Assessment for learning: 10 principles — Research-based principles to guide classroom practice.
3. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). University of Texas Press.
4. Bearman, M., & Ajjawi, R. (2023). Learning to work with the black box: Pedagogy for a world with artificial intelligence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 54, 1160–1173. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13337
5. Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594x.2010.513678
6. Biesta, G. (2010). Good education in an age of measurement: Ethics, politics, democracy. Paradigm Publishers.
7. Biesta, G. J. J. (2013). Beautiful risk of education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315635866
8. Biesta, G. J. J. (2020). Risking ourselves in education: Qualification, socialization, and subjectification revisited. Educational Theory, 70(1), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12411

9. Biesta, G. (2022). World-centred education: A view for the present. Routledge.
10. Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. L. (2020). Desirable difficulties in theory and practice. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 9(4), 475–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.09.003
11. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
12. Bozkurt, A., Crompton, H., & Fell Kurban, C. (2026). The devil is in the det[ai]ls: AI agents, ghost students, and the crisis of verified presence in an agentic AI world. Open Praxis, 18(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.55982/openpraxis.18.1.1145
13. Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2006). Aligning assessment with long-term learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 399–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930600679050
14. Brown, G. T. (2022). The past, present and future of educational assessment: A transdisciplinary perspective. Frontiers in Education, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.1060633
15. Chan, C. K. Y. (2023). A comprehensive AI policy education framework for university teaching and learning. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00408-3
16. Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2024). Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(2), 228–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148
17. Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. D. C. Heath & Co.
18. Elshall, A. S., & Badir, A. (2025). Balancing AI-assisted learning and traditional assessment: The FACT assessment in environmental data science education. Frontiers in Education, 10, Article 1596462. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1596462
19. European Parliament & Council of the European Union. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). Official Journal of the European Union.
20. Gerlich, M. (2025). AI tools in society: Impacts on cognitive offloading and the future of critical thinking. Societies, 15 (1), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15010006
21. Gilson, L. L., & Goldberg, C. B. (2015). Editors' comment: So, what is a conceptual paper? Group & Organization Management, 40(2), 99–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601115576425
22. Gulikers, J. T. M., Bastiaens, T. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2004). A five-dimensional framework for authentic assessment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 67–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504676
23. Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign.
24. Kapur, M. (2015). Learning from productive failure. Learning: Research and Practice, 1 (1), 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2015.1002195
25. Khlaif, Z. N., & Awadallah Alkouk, W. (2024). AI-resistant assessments in higher education: Practical insights from faculty training workshops. Frontiers in Education, 9, 1499495. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1499495
26. Kofinas, A., Tsay, C. H.-H., & Pike, D. (2025). The impact of generative AI on academic integrity of authentic assessments within a higher education context. British Journal of Educational Technology, 56(6), 2522–2549. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13585
27. Kristjánsson, K. (2015). Aristotelian character education. Routledge.
28. LeCun, Y. (2022). A path towards autonomous machine intelligence (Version 0.9.2) [Position paper]. OpenReview. https://openreview.net/pdf?id=BZ5a1r-kVsf
29. Leshem, S., & Trafford, V. (2007). Overlooking the conceptual framework. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(1), 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290601081407
30. Luckin, R. (2018). Machine learning and human intelligence: The future of education for the 21st century. UCL IOE Press.
31. Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. Routledge.
32. Mercer, N., Hennessy, S., & Warwick, P. (2019). Dialogue, thinking together and digital technology in the classroom: Some educational implications of a continuing line of inquiry. International Journal of Educational Research, 97, 187–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.08.007
33. Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090
34. Nussbaum, M. C. (1997). Cultivating humanity: A classical defense of reform in liberal education. Harvard University Press.
35. Nussbaum, M. C. (2010). Not for profit: Why democracy needs the humanities. Princeton University Press.
36. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
37. Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. National Academy Press.
38. Ryan, M., & Ryan, M. (2013). Theorising a model for teaching and assessing reflective learning in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 32(2), 244–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.661704
39. Sadasivan, V. S., Kumar, A., Balasubramanian, S., Wang, Z., & Feizi, S. (2023). Can AI-generated text be reliably detected? arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.11156
40. Selwyn, N. (2019a). Should robots replace teachers? AI and the future of education. Polity.
41. Selwyn, N. (2019b). What's the problem with learning analytics? Journal of Learning Analytics, 6(3), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2019.63.3
42. Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
43. Stadler, M., Bannert, M., & Sailer, M. (2024). Cognitive ease at a cost: LLMs reduce mental effort but compromise depth in student scientific inquiry. Computers in Human Behavior, 160, Article 108386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108386
44. Tang, K. S., Cooper, G., Rappa, N., Cooper, M., Sims, C., & Nonis, K. (2024). A dialogic approach to transform teaching, learning and assessment with generative AI in secondary education: A proof of concept. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 19(3), 493–503. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2024.2379774
45. Tanner, K. D. (2012). Promoting student metacognition. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 11(2), 113–120. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-03-0033
46. Teng, M. F., & Yue, M. (2023). Metacognitive writing strategies, critical thinking skills, and academic writing performance: A structural equation modeling approach. Metacognition and Learning, 18 (1), 237–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-022-09328-5
47. UNESCO. (2023). Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence in education. UNESCO.
48. Villarroel, V., Bloxham, S., Bruna, D., Bruna, C., & Herrera-Seda, C. (2018). Authentic assessment: Creating a blueprint for course design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(5), 840–854. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1412396
49. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
50. Wang, C. (2025). Exploring Students’ Generative AI-Assisted Writing Processes: Perceptions and Experiences from Native and Nonnative English Speakers. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 30, 1825–1846. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-024-09744-3
51. Wegerif, R. (2007). Dialogic education and technology: Expanding the space of learning. Springer.
52. Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Solution Tree Press.
53. Yeadon, W., Agra, E., Inyang, O., Mackay, P., & Mizouri, A. (2024). Evaluating AI and human authorship quality in academic writing through physics essays. European Journal of Physics, 45(5), 055703. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6404/ad669d
54. Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education – where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
55. Zhang, Y., & Liu, Y. (2025). Designing ChatGPT-mediated feedback activities in EFL writing: A design-based study of the dialogic feedback triangle. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2025.2571846