QAA GenAI assessment group will include student expertise

Updated Sep 26, 2026

Students will contribute expertise to QAA's GenAI assessment work through a new Sector Advisory Group, announced on 16 September 2026. For university teams, the practical question is how students can help shape AI assessment policy as well as comment on it.

What the QAA GenAI assessment announcement adds

The group will develop principles and definitions to support a framework that providers can adapt locally. QAA places the work in 2026-27, drawing on UK and international expertise.

QAA also announced an AI in Assessment Community of Practice for its members. On student participation, Phil Maull, its Head of Nations Enhancement, said:

students deserve to understand their institution's approach to GenAI

This is a development programme. The announcement does not publish a completed framework or set an institutional implementation deadline. Teams should distinguish its planned work from a requirement to change local policy now.

What this means for institutions

Our recommendation is to give students a defined role in reviewing how assessment guidance works in practice. An assessment policy group could ask students to work through an example brief, explain which uses of AI it permits and identify anything they would need clarified. That creates a concrete discussion about the wording and the task, without assuming students have misunderstood or broken a rule.

Connect that discussion to existing feedback. Invite participants to consider anonymised comment themes alongside the brief, including accounts that challenge the dominant interpretation. Make the group's remit clear: can it recommend wording, propose a change to assessment design, or decide policy? Our guide to feedback, representation and partnership explains why those roles need different arrangements. Give students a way to contribute outside meetings and record which perspectives remain absent.

For quality leaders, the useful output would be a decision record: the concern raised, evidence considered, response agreed and date for review. Explain the reasons when the group cannot adopt a suggestion. After revising guidance, ask students unfamiliar with it to explain what it allows. These are proposed local checks, not QAA-prescribed tests or evidence that the new national work has already improved assessment.

How student feedback analysis connects

For open-text analysis, consider separating comments about finding guidance, understanding permitted use, acknowledging assistance and receiving conflicting advice. These are suggested categories for local review. Retain the question, collection period and assessment context, and check ambiguous comments before assigning a theme. The open-text analysis methodology sets out how to document inclusion rules, coding and quality checks.

A comment theme is a prompt for investigation. It cannot establish whether an assessment demonstrates learning or how every student experiences the policy. Ask the relevant course team to check the instructions and discuss possible explanations with students. If rules differ between tasks, investigate whether the reasons are clear before treating the difference as a problem. Report both the evidence and the limits of the interpretation.

FAQ

Q: What should Student Experience and quality teams do now?

A: Start with an assessment brief and relevant existing feedback. Agree who will review the comments, protect identifying details and record decisions. The student comment analysis governance checklist provides prompts for that preparation.

Q: What is the timeline and scope?

A: QAA describes UK and international collaboration during 2026-27. The announcement sets no common implementation deadline; institutions should follow their current assessment policies.

Q: Can survey comments replace student participation in policy review?

A: Use comments to inform discussion, then involve students in interpreting the concerns and considering responses. Record disagreement and explain the eventual decision. Collecting feedback and sharing responsibility for a review are different activities.

References

[Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education]: "Assuring the standard of UK awards in the age of GenAI" Published: 2026-09-16