# data[].attributes.body
GenAI is risky for written assessment since students can use AI easily. Teachers can use oral exams as an option.

In-person assessment type and feedback

We can also do a two-step assessment where students can still do a written assessment but then a second assessment would be a "reflection" part of the assessment where teachers can ask students about what they've learned about a certain question from the assessment. This could be a great way to detect whether students use AI for the sake of using it or they actually learn something.

# data[].attributes.body
- Institutions should focus more on the process than on the product

- Provide or develop AI tools for teachers and/or students, but with some restrictions

- AI ethics (ethical guidance) training for teachers and maybe for students as well

# data[].attributes.body
- Teachers can feel more motivated by the feedback AI can provide for each student. Teachers have to keep autonomy over which AI tools should be used.

- This can also strengthen this notion of "openness" between students and teachers because teachers can place trust on students not to cheat using AI but then there has to be an open conversation between students and teachers to be vulnerable - being honest to each other - because honestly, students can always cheat even before AI. This is a very important idea how GenAI can also help strengthen the relationship between teachers and students to some extent!

# data[].attributes.body
Be as transparent as you can with your students

# data[].attributes.body
En Agent i CoPilot kan sættes didaktisk med eksempelvis differentierede sværhedsgrad i kemiopgaver, så eleverne udfordres på det niveau de er på, men uden at få svaret. Dygtige elever kan komme langt, men de svagere elever lærer også noget.