Is your curriculum GenAI-proof? A method for GenAI impact assessment and a case study

<ns3:p>Background Generative AI (GenAI) can complete tasks that previously could only be performed successfully by humans. Although GenAI provides many opportunities, it also poses risks such as invalid assessments and irrelevant learning outcomes. This article presents a broadly applicable method to (1) determine current assessment validity, (2) assess which learning outcomes are impacted by student GenAI use and (3) decide whether to alter assessment formats and/or learning outcomes. This is exemplified by a case-study on our Medical Informatics curriculum. We developed a five-step method to evaluate and address the impact of GenAI. Together with the respective lecturers, all assessments in the courses comprising a curriculum are analysed and subsequently adapted to address the impact of GenAI usage. Results 57% (55/96) of assessments, especially for courses involving writing and programming, were at risk of reduced validity and relevance. GenAI impact on assessment validity was closer related to the content and structure of assessments than to their complexity according to Bloom’s taxonomy. During educational retreats, lecturers discussed the relevance of impacted learning outcomes and whether students should be able to achieve them with or without GenAI. Furthermore, the results led to a plan to increase GenAI literacy and the intentional use by students during their education. For this purpose, course coordinators were asked to either adjust their manner of assessment to preclude GenAI use, or to alter learning outcomes to include GenAI use and literacy. For 64% of the impacted assignments (35/55) the assessment format was adapted and for 36% (20/55) the learning outcomes were adapted. Conclusion The majority of assessments in our curriculum were at risk of reduced assessment validity and relevance of learning outcomes, necessitating adaptations of either the manner of the assessment or learning outcomes. The proposed method and case-study offer a potential blueprint for educational institutions facing similar challenges.</ns3:p>

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
MedEdPublish
Published
2026-02-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.12688/mep.20815.2
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Is your curriculum GenAI-proof? A method for GenAI impact assessment and a case study

Hemmik Leopold, Remco Jongkind, Erik Elings, Tom Broens et al.
MedEdPublish
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
article

Is your curriculum GenAI-proof? A method for GenAI impact assessment and a case study

Hemmik Leopold, Remco Jongkind, Erik Elings, Tom Broens, Jennita Meinema, Floris Wiesman, Erik Joukes
article en

Abstract

<ns3:p>Background Generative AI (GenAI) can complete tasks that previously could only be performed successfully by humans. Although GenAI provides many opportunities, it also poses risks such as invalid assessments and irrelevant learning outcomes. This article presents a broadly applicable method to (1) determine current assessment validity, (2) assess which learning outcomes are impacted by student GenAI use and (3) decide whether to alter assessment formats and/or learning outcomes. This is exemplified by a case-study on our Medical Informatics curriculum. We developed a five-step method to evaluate and address the impact of GenAI. Together with the respective lecturers, all assessments in the courses comprising a curriculum are analysed and subsequently adapted to address the impact of GenAI usage. Results 57% (55/96) of assessments, especially for courses involving writing and programming, were at risk of reduced validity and relevance. GenAI impact on assessment validity was closer related to the content and structure of assessments than to their complexity according to Bloom’s taxonomy. During educational retreats, lecturers discussed the relevance of impacted learning outcomes and whether students should be able to achieve them with or without GenAI. Furthermore, the results led to a plan to increase GenAI literacy and the intentional use by students during their education. For this purpose, course coordinators were asked to either adjust their manner of assessment to preclude GenAI use, or to alter learning outcomes to include GenAI use and literacy. For 64% of the impacted assignments (35/55) the assessment format was adapted and for 36% (20/55) the learning outcomes were adapted. Conclusion The majority of assessments in our curriculum were at risk of reduced assessment validity and relevance of learning outcomes, necessitating adaptations of either the manner of the assessment or learning outcomes. The proposed method and case-study offer a potential blueprint for educational institutions facing similar challenges.</ns3:p>

MedEdPublishVol. 15
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 44%
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.