Exams: Rules and Options
Coursework for exams (NEA) places obligations on both teachers and students to be very clear about the use of resources, including AI, in the creative process.
Non Examined Assessment (NEA)When work is submitted for external assessment towards a qualification, students present evidence of their achievement against a range of specific criteria. Their teacher becomes the examiner, and their work becomes the evidence that they present. This changes the dynamic of the student-teacher relationship. Which requires absolute transparency about the process followed by the student. The issue is significant because the penalties for failing to observe the regulations will have significant consequences for both students and, potentially, their teachers.
This page explores the rules and regulations governing external assessment, which constrain the use of AI as a medium for art in each component of the assessment in both GCSE and A level examinations.
However, there are options for students to use AI in their research, provided they always declare it. In this respect AI generated images may be understood and treated as any other images identified through search engines such as Google.
These conditions, of course, only apply where work is submitted for external assessment. All other work which may involve AI will be subject to the school’s own policies. |
Thinking allowed:
- Should students be discouraged from using AI because the benefits are limited and are accompanied by significant risk?
- Should there be a written art and design department AI policy (even if there is a generic school AI policy). If so what should be in it?
- Do teachers’ know and understand their professional responsibilities with regard to AI use?
- How can students entering examinations legitimately use AI for research?
JCQ Regulations
At the time of writing (December 2024), the Joint Council for Qualifications (JCQ) took the view that the issue of plagiarism in external assessment had been clearly addressed in examination rubrics. The penalties for failing to disclose sources were also deemed to be clear.
Click here for JCQ guidance on plagiarism, and understanding and avoiding malpractice.
JCQ guidelines are clear that AI-generated images cannot be used or understood as the student’s own independent and personal response and, therefore, cannot be awarded marks.
It is deemed that, although the potential for misuse is new, the procedures to prevent misuse and mitigate associated risks are already in place.
Click here to see the relevant and current JCQ regulations that apply to each external examination component.
These JCQ regulations cover all subject areas and are chiefly related to written NEA components. However, they do also apply to art and design assessment.
In a nutshell
The existing JCQ regulations indicate that in art and design examinations, candidates:
- should not submit images initially generated by AI because it will not be seen as evidence of their own personal and independant work. It will, therefore, not be awarded any marks.
- should not submit, or reference any AI generated images without acknowledging and recording the source of these images. (details of how this should be recorded can be found in the JCQ regulations referenced above.) Because is a form of cheating and will be taken seriously.
- may use AI as part of their research process in much the same way as they might use a search engine like Google. Once again AI images should be declared and recorded. Care must be taken because this becomes an issue if AI is generating ideas taken directly into the students’ work, as the work they submit as evidence needs to be their own personal response in line with the criteria.
AI for Coursework
In some subjects you will have an opportunity to do some independent research into a topic.
The research you do may involve looking for information in published sources such as textbooks, encyclopedias, journals, TV, radio and on the internet.
You can demonstrate your knowledge and understanding of a subject by using information from sources or generated from sources which may include the internet and AI. Remember, though, information from these sources may be incorrect or biased. You must take care how you use this material – you cannot copy it and claim it as your own work.
This indicates that AI-generated images and information can be used in coursework research. Art and design is the only subject where the work presented for assessment is primarily produced under the conventions of coursework and in practice almost all of that work is submitted as evidence for the award.
It is, of course, important to preserve the integrity of the assessment system and to ensure the safety and well being of young people in the face of new technologies. However, it is an anomaly that, at a time when the creative industries are being redefined by new technologies and AI, and the government seeks to embrace AI as a key feature of national prosperity, students who will become the next generation of creatives are restricted in the opportunity to learn how AI can feed their creativity.
The essential issue for students and their teachers is to demonstrate that the student retains control of the creative process and that they use the resources explicitly to support the creative choices they make.
Evidence of Learning – Evidence for External Assessment
This is an obvious point, however, the exponential rise in the role and use of generative AI in so many different contexts does make the point uniquely significant. Because the work discussed above is presented as evidence for external examination, it has consequences that other (non-examined) student artwork does not. These particular regulations, obviously, do not apply to non-examined art and design work, for instance, in Key Stage 3 or Key Stages 1 and 2 in primary schools.
AI in years 10 – 13.
It is typical to assume, that all coursework undertaken in years 10 – 11, and 12 – 13, is produced for, and defined by, examination regulations. However, this is not necessarily the case. The notion that art education is defined only by examination regulations is a common fallacy. Not all coursework has to be examination evidence. Some learning may be educationally valuable, but the learning outcome does not contribute to the evidence for external assessment. It would be non-assessed coursework.
The notion of non-assessed coursework opens the door, to teachers and students, who wish to experiment with AI, to do so without the constraints of JCQ regulations. Below this section there are examples of how and when AI might be used within the JCQ guidelines. In this section we reflect on the fact that the JCQ guidelines do not apply when work is not submitted as evidence for an award.
For instance: A student is interested in experimenting with AI, discusses it with their teacher, declares it appropriately, understands that it will not contribute to the evidence for the award and includes it in the portfolio simply for the sake of transparency. This student has done nothing wrong. The teacher, in the role of examiner, is not required by JCQ regulations to apply any penalties for the existence of appropriately declared AI in the portfolio. It is simply discounted as evidence for the award. In this case neither the student nor the teacher has transgressed any regulations.
It follows from this that an art department may include some student use of AI (modelling combinational creativity for example) in the curriculum for years 10-13 acknowledging it as non-examined coursework. It would be important that students understood that such work would not be seen as evidence of achievement for the examination, but no doubt the teachers would provide clear learning objectives.
If this is the case it would be sensible for the department to have this explained in an AI policy document, and it would be likely that issues such as AI, plagiarism and examination regulations would be a common feature of student-teacher dialogue.
Obviously there are caveats in such an approach, different schools and departments will have different views. But it would be remiss of this guidance if it implied that AI in art education was solely defined by JCQ generic regulations. However, even if non-examined coursework is free from JCQ regulations it will, nevertheless, come under the jurisdiction of school policies.
This section about AI in years 10 – 13 was reworked following a query from a teacher which caused us to rethink these paragraphs in response (see comments). We are always grateful for responses from teachers who spend their time in classrooms with real students. Ed.
Ofsted
Ofsted April 2024 published a statement about AI and its use. Ofsted’s approach to Artificial Intelligence. (AI). This is short, clear and succinct. It indicates how Ofsted will use AI in its own work and the principles that will govern its use. These follow from the five principles set out by the government’s AI Regulation White Paper.
Ofsted defines what it will expect from schools in relation to their use of AI using these principles. This recent publication by Ofsted explains what it will expect of providers, and consequently will increase the momentum for schools to develop their own AI policies as this will become evidence used by Ofsted. Art and design teachers will, like all other teachers, need to be aware of these AI issues.
In view of the need for transparency in the use of AI, subject leaders for art and design may wish to create departmental policies to define and reaffirm the departments approach to AI use in addition to generic school policies. Click here for more information about policies.
AI & Research?
It has been noted above that AI may be used in the research phase of students’ producing work for external assessment. However, this needs to be done carefully and with a view to demonstrating that the research supports, but does not determine, the student’s own creative and independent responses.
Below are some ideas which might represent a legitimate use of AI in art and design coursework which is offered for external assessment. However, these have not been tested and no doubt other ideas will emerge as teachers become familiar with AI.
Research Reference Images:
Research which involves the collection of images for reference is a normal practice in art and design. The source of such images has to be acknowledged, and teachers should be confident that students are open about the source of their images and have documented AI-generated images correctly.
It would be good advice to students that they should research a variety of images from a variety of sources. This is not only good practice, but it would also serve to confirm and demonstrate that the student retains creative control and makes their own informed choices in the process of developing their work.
Research Specific Details:
Research into specific parts or aspects of students’ ideas, for instance, AI-generated images, to illustrate the detail of how a hand might hold a paintbrush in particular circumstances. This is the same as using a google researched, reference image.
It would be good advice to students to recommend that, in some circumstances, such reference imagery be produced as if in a different medium to that to be used in the final outcome. For instance, if the student intends to make a painting which involves a hand, some reference images might be in black and white or a line drawing. This mirrors the process of making preliminary drawings and will again avoid the charge of simply copying a single AI image.
all images in these AI pages are generated by MidJourney or ChatSmith
Contribute Some Components of a Final Piece:
AI might be used to create certain component parts of a student’s final image or work. For instance, in making designs using digital software programmes. This would be typical in graphic design practice and animation, where different software and processes are typically used to create different components of the final work. It might also be relevant in collage work or in an installation involving a digital projection.
In these circumstances, although the AI component may not contribute evidence of independent work, the student’s creative input is evidenced in the way in which the component parts are chosen, combined and used in the final piece.
It would be good advice to students to discuss and keep their teacher fully aware of the processes they are using to generate their final piece, because the processes are often involved and complementary. This would make detailed documentation cumbersome and time-consuming, whereas conversations during the process would ensure the teacher is fully aware of how the final piece was created and able to make an informed assessment.
Present Evidence of Critical Understanding:
AI can be used effectively to present students’ critical understanding and knowledge about art, artists and designers along with their cultural and historical context. For instance, Adobe After Effects offers the ability to generate avatars which can reproduce the spoken voice. Students could use this to provide an animation speaking about an artwork and spoken by an avatar in front of the artwork (see demonstration below).
Increasingly, students will be familiar with short-form techniques of animation, video and other digital technologies like TikTok, which enable them to present information in new ways which can involve AI-generated images, words and sounds. This seems appropriate in a creative subject like art and design, which aims to encourage digital literacy as well as visual literacy. Teachers will need to distinguish between the medium and the message in their assessment.
It would be good advice to students to discuss and keep their teacher fully aware of the processes they are using to produce these innovative means of communicating ideas and information, because the processes are often involved and complementary. This would make detailed documentation a cumbersome and time-consuming process, whereas conversations during the process would ensure the teacher (in the role of examiner) is fully aware of how the final piece was created and able to make an informed assessment.
PS. Identifying Plagiarism
Further reading
Resources
Click here to download a simple writing frame for students to support research using AI generated images.
Click here to see an example of a student prompt to support their research as part of their examination coursework.
Click here for JCQ guidance on plagiarism and understanding and avoiding malpractice.
Click here to see a web page of the relevant and current JCQ regulations that apply to each external examination component.
Click here for a page on the JCQ website which contains downloads for the above guidance documents.
Click here for a poster published by JCQ which is a quick guide for students about AI and Assessments.
Click here for the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) regulations on AI in assessments.