Development of an AI-Resilient Competency Assessment Model for Implementing Competency-Based Curriculum in the Generative AI Era
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Abstract
The rapid adoption of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) in education has created significant challenges for conventional assessment practices, particularly in determining whether students' submitted work genuinely represents their competencies. This study aims to develop an AI-Resilient Competency Assessment Model that maintains the validity and authenticity of competency-based assessment in an educational environment where GenAI is readily accessible. The study employed a Research and Development (R&D) approach using Design-Based Research (DBR). The development process consisted of needs analysis, theoretical and conceptual analysis, model development, expert validation, revision, pilot testing, empirical validation, and implementation evaluation. Data were collected through questionnaires, interviews, document analysis, focus group discussions, expert validation, and assessment implementation involving experts, teachers or lecturers, and students. The proposed model integrates eight key dimensions: authenticity, process-based evidence, higher-order thinking, AI transparency, AI literacy, oral defense, reflection, and competency demonstration. The model emphasizes authentic and contextualized tasks, documentation of students' learning processes, transparent disclosure of AI use, evaluation of products and performance, oral verification, and reflective learning. Expert validation and subsequent testing are used to determine the model's validity, reliability, practicality, and effectiveness. The findings indicate that AI-resilient assessment should move beyond dependence on final products and AI-detection technologies toward a multiple-evidence approach to competency judgment. The developed model provides a framework for schools, universities, vocational institutions, and educators to redesign competency-based assessment so that it remains meaningful, authentic, transparent, and relevant in the GenAI era. Future research should examine its implementation across different disciplines, educational levels, institutional contexts, and longitudinal settings.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Allen, D., & Tanner, K. (2006). Rubrics: Tools for making learning goals and evaluation criteria explicit for both teachers and learners. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 5(3), 197–203.
Banta, T. W., & Palomba, C. A. (2014). Assessment essentials: Planning, implementing, and improving assessment in higher education. John Wiley & Sons.
Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T. M., & Perry, J. D. (2013). Theory into practice: How do we link? In Constructivism and the technology of instruction (pp. 17–34). Routledge.
Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Salas, E., Pierce, L., & Kendall, D. (2006). Understanding team adaptation: a conceptual analysis and model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1189.
Carver, J., Jaccheri, L., Morasca, S., & Shull, F. (2004). Issues in using students in empirical studies in software engineering education. Proceedings. 5th International Workshop on Enterprise Networking and Computing in Healthcare Industry (IEEE Cat. No. 03EX717), 239–249.
Curry, L., & Docherty, M. (2017). Implementing competency-based education. Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, 10, 61–73.
de Olde, E. M., Sautier, M., & Whitehead, J. (2018). Comprehensiveness or implementation: Challenges in translating farm-level sustainability assessments into action for sustainable development. Ecological Indicators, 85, 1107–1112.
Frey, B. B., Schmitt, V. L., & Allen, J. P. (2012). Defining authentic classroom assessment. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 17(2), n2.
Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2005). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 3–31.
Haudek, K. C., Kaplan, J. J., Knight, J., Long, T., Merrill, J., Munn, A., Nehm, R., Smith, M., & Urban-Lurain, M. (2011). Harnessing technology to improve formative assessment of student conceptions in STEM: forging a national network. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 10(2), 149–155.
Havnes, A., Smith, K., Dysthe, O., & Ludvigsen, K. (2012). Formative assessment and feedback: Making learning visible. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 38(1), 21–27.
Kay, S. (2004). The Move from Oral Evidence to Written Evidence:’The Law Is Always Too Short and Too Tight for Growing Humankind’. J. Int’l Crim. Just., 2, 495.
Kouwenhoven, W. (2009). Competence-based curriculum development in higher education: A globalised concept? Technology Education and Development, 8(2), 1–22.
Kumar, S., & Rani, R. U. (n.d.). Artificial. TOWARDS OPEN, DECENTRALISED AI ECOSYSTEMS, 41.
Leroy, J. L., Ruel, M., Frongillo, E. A., Harris, J., & Ballard, T. J. (2015). Measuring the food access dimension of food security: a critical review and mapping of indicators. Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 36(2), 167–195.
Leslie, D. (2019). Understanding artificial intelligence ethics and safety. ArXiv Preprint ArXiv:1906.05684.
Mendoza, N. B., Cheng, E. C. K., & Yan, Z. (2022). Assessing teachers’ collaborative lesson planning practices: Instrument development and validation using the SECI knowledge-creation model. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 73, 101139.
Molloy, E., & Boud, D. (2012). Changing conceptions of feedback. In Feedback in higher and professional education (pp. 11–33). Routledge.
Pareto, L., Haake, M., Lindström, P., Sjödén, B., & Gulz, A. (2012). A teachable-agent-based game affording collaboration and competition: Evaluating math comprehension and motivation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(5), 723–751.
Pedro, F., Subosa, M., Rivas, A., & Valverde, P. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Challenges and opportunities for sustainable development.
Rikhardsson, P. M. (2017). Information systems for corporate environmental management accounting and performance measurement. In Sustainable Measures (pp. 132–150). Routledge.
Samwel Mwasalwiba, E. (2010). Entrepreneurship education: a review of its objectives, teaching methods, and impact indicators. Education+ Training, 52(1), 20–47.
Schneider, M. C., & Gowan, P. (2013). Investigating teachers’ skills in interpreting evidence of student learning. Applied Measurement in Education, 26(3), 191–204.
Schwartz, D. L., Lin, X., Brophy, S., & Bransford, J. D. (2013). Toward the development of flexibly adaptive instructional designs. In Instructional-design theories and models (pp. 183–213). Routledge.
Steiner, G., & Posch, A. (2006). Higher education for sustainability by means of transdisciplinary case studies: an innovative approach for solving complex, real-world problems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(9–11), 877–890.
Thompson, J. E. (2021). Influencing Trust in Human and Artificial Intelligence Teaming Through Heuristics.
Tzirides, A. O. O., Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2020). Contextual AI meets generative AI: Addressing the literacy crisis. In Artificial Intelligence in Literacy Education (pp. 3–25). Routledge.
Zimmerman, M. (2018). Teaching AI: Exploring new frontiers for learning. ASCD.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.