This is authored by Dr Peter Adjei-Bamfo | Lecturer in Management, School of Business
Context – Why this mattered
My reflection examines the redesign of Assessment 1 (A1) in a Project Management (PM) subject taught here at Charles Sturt University, prompted by emerging academic integrity challenges associated with GenAI. The subject aims to equip students with practical PM skills to plan and implement organisational and community change. Authentic assessments form the backbone of the subject, requiring students to apply PM tools to real‑world problems. A1, titled ‘Our PMBOK’, traditionally required students to research two PM topics, produce two 500‑word posts, and comment on peers’ posts. However, the nature of this task made it highly susceptible to GenAI use even though GenAI use was prohibited. Hence, there was a potential to undermine both academic integrity and the authenticity of learning.
Human Insight – What changed my thinking
My reflection of broader socio‑political and economic trends shaping the HE sector also informed the redesign. GenAI has rapidly become a core capability expected of graduates, with the 2025 World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Report estimating that 39% of workers’ core skills will need to change by 2030 to include GenAI competencies. Regulatory and institutional bodies have responded accordingly. TEQSA, for example, has published evidence‑informed guidance on assuring student learning in the GenAI era, emphasising adaptive capabilities and assessment reform principles. Charles Sturt University has similarly invested in building staff capability through initiatives such as the Critical AI Literacies program. These developments highlight the need for assessments that both safeguard integrity and support students to develop responsible GenAI literacies.
Practice – What I redesigned
Guided by TEQSA principles, scholarship on authentic assessment (e.g., Kofinas et al., 2025), and inclusive design (Larkin et al., 2014), I foremost sought help from an educational designer (Ingrid Wilmott) with a recalibration of the proposed A1. The proposed workload was adjusted to align with its 15% weighting, and the task was refined so that each student received one PM topic within a defined context. Crucially, I offered students a choice: complete the task using GenAI assistance or adopt a human‑only approach. This was necessary to empower students, some of whom may either be genuinely disadvantaged by their limited digital capabilities and access or unhappy about the substantial electrical power used by the AI data centres and the millions of gallons of water for cooling them. Equity was maintained through identical rubrics and equal weighting across both pathways. I also embedded a GenAI statement referencing CSU’s SECURE framework to guide responsible use.
To strengthen authenticity and foster critical GenAI capability, students were required to produce a 500‑word critical review reflecting on their chosen pathway, content‑context alignment, observed limitations, and considerations for future improvement. I finally provided students with a preparation checklist and GenAI resources to support them.
Impact – What changed and how I know
Analysis of 178 submissions across three cohorts revealed that 16% chose the human‑only pathway, citing reasons such as workplace policy constraints, preference for deeper analysis, concerns about shallow AI outputs, and commitment to academic integrity. Students who used GenAI emphasised curiosity, desire to experiment GenAI use in academic research, and the need to build AI capability for professional contexts. Approximately 4% did not declare their approach. Overall, students appeared to understand that GenAI should complement, not replace, ethical reasoning and human sense‑making. AI was considered as a complementary tool in co-creating through its interactive use and ideation. My future work will explore transparency issues, particularly how students verify content generated through different methods in their learning decisions.
My Elevate experience
I very much appreciate the opportunity to share this redesign at the SLOWposium and to learn from colleagues’ teaching innovations that have enhanced student learning outcomes and experience.
This reflective blog post is part of the Faculty’s Learning and Teaching SLOWposium 2026: Elevate session. Continue the conversation by exploring the reflections of our fellow presenters and discovering new perspectives on learning and teaching. Read the other presenters’ reflections here.
“Supporting academic integrity in the AI era means giving students flexibility and support in their use. Equity and student assurance are strengthened when learners can choose whether to incorporate AI into their work, rather than feeling compelled to use it.”
You can download Peter’s presentation slides here