{"id":1039,"date":"2026-07-07T08:51:55","date_gmt":"2026-07-07T08:51:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.curtin.edu.au\/assessment2030\/assessment-design-studio\/video-refelection-and-interview-2\/"},"modified":"2026-07-13T08:48:03","modified_gmt":"2026-07-13T08:48:03","slug":"assessment-design-pitch","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.curtin.edu.au\/assessment2030\/assessment-design-studio\/assessment-design-pitch\/","title":{"rendered":"Assessment Design Pitch"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n \n
\n\n

Overview <\/h2>\n \n \n

This Lane 2 assessment reframes a traditional essay as an authentic professional task: pre-service teachers present to colleagues at a simulated staff meeting, arguing how an existing assessment can be redesigned to address generative AI. By combining a real-world scenario, student choice, and a recorded presentation format, the approach develops critical thinking, professional communication, and assessment literacy while reducing the risk of AI misuse.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n \n \n

\n \n Watch now<\/a> <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n\n \n
\n \"\n <\/div>\n<\/a>\n\n
\n \n

Kelly Ilich
\n<\/strong>Faculty of Humanities<\/p>\n\n \n <\/div>\n <\/mimas-block>\n\n\n

About my unit:<\/strong> Faculty of Humanities | 150 + | Hybrid | Individual work<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kelly Ilich, an Associate Lecturer in the School of Education within the Faculty of Humanities, shares her redesign of an assessment in the Professional Experience unit. Kelly teaches the practical knowledge and skills pre-service teachers need on placement, and her work focuses on assessment and reporting, including assessment design, administration, marking, feedback, and communicating progress to families.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this Lane 2 assessment, pre-service teachers respond to a realistic scenario: their Head of Department has asked them to present at a staff meeting on how an existing assessment task could be redesigned to address the impact of generative AI. Students choose their own task and their own approach, either incorporating generative AI or restricting its use, mirroring Curtin’s Two-Lane model. They evaluate the task against the principles of reliability, validity, inclusivity and fairness, then build an evidence-based argument for change drawing on current literature and assessment theory. The work is submitted as a recorded presentation with a written transcript and references. Every element reflects authentic teaching practice, presenting to colleagues, making informed assessment decisions, and grappling with AI, so students develop critical thinking, professional communication, and genuine readiness for the classroom they are about to enter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Suggested Marking Criteria<\/h3>\n\n\n\n\n \n\n
\n