In-Depth Support of AI Literacy and Assessment Redesign

University of Saskatchewan

Submitted by: Wendy James, Director, Gwenna Moss Centre for Teaching and Learning, University of Saskatchewan

Description

Domain:

Assessment & Pedagogy

Challenge Area:

Educator Capacity & Support Systems

Status:

Established Best Practice (validated and replicable practices)

Implementation Complexity:

Medium

The University of Saskatchewan (USask) has multiple years of in-depth support for AI literacy and assessment redesign supported by the Gwenna Moss Centre for Teaching and Learning, the USask Library, and the integrity strategist. The overall strategic plan for AI is supported by a literacy-specific annual plan for 2025–26, including data collection, general workshops, tutorials, conferences, department-specific workshops, and one-on-one help. It is supported by policy and procedure changes in course delivery, assessment, and academic misconduct. Strong leadership from the Interim Associate Provost, Teaching Innovation & Strategic Initiatives, Dr. Nancy Turner, enables coordination and problem solving.

Practical Implementation

In-depth support for AI literacy and assessment at USask is guided by an overall AI Theory of Action and strategic planning, and a specific annual literacy plan for faculty and sessional instructors that considers faculty understanding, barriers to change, what happens in courses, and what happens in broader USask academic systems.

USask has prioritised AI literacy with clear frameworks for faculty, students, and staff, developed as a modification of the DEC framework. A basic literacy tutorial aligned with the framework yields data about progress against the literacies. Professional learning includes a conference launching the literacy framework, ongoing sessions for faculty throughout the academic year, and a wide variety of web resources. Later in the academic year, USask will launch a second-level faculty-specific tutorial and will run the DEC faculty and student AI surveys in March.

USask has its own AI tool to support course design and provides sample language and templates to support faculty in communicating expectations for AI use or non-use to students. Alignment between supports for faculty and sessionals and supports for students has been essential. Like many institutions, USask has a common AI tool, but also offers a variety of other tools to support AI literacies. USask’s list of AI tools and support documents is available to educators in the Learning Technology Ecosystem.

Strong leadership and central messaging are emphasised as essential for complex institutional change. This leadership approach has helped surface concerns and address issues such as access, data security, and clear expectations that can delay or prevent literacy. Updating policy has been essential in communicating common goals for embedding AI in teaching and learning. USask anticipates having course delivery, assessment, and integrity policy and procedures updated this year.

Impact Measurement

USask has used multiple impact measures for this professional learning year, starting in April 2025.

At a basic level, the team tracks access to communications and materials online. The main AI website received 5,876 sessions since its launch in June, detailed resources in the Learning Technology Ecosystem received 820 sessions, and integrity and AI resources received 2,955 sessions. Tailored articles addressing specific questions received 2,284 sessions.

Professional learning reach is tracked through conference and workshop participation, with 705 participants to date. Primary outcomes include:

1. Building AI literacy (prompting effectively, establishing best practices, understanding ethical AI use, drafting AI disclosure statements).

2. Advancing assessment design and redesign (shifting assessment toward more authentic and experiential learning that acknowledges the existence of AI).

Since the start of the academic year, 492 people have completed the basic AI tutorial, and 312 have completed the optional post-assessment to earn certification. Tutorial activity data suggests learners can explain key GenAI concepts and implications, including ethical concerns and institutional guidelines, and describe strategies for responsible and effective GenAI use, such as prompting techniques, output evaluation, and transparency practices.

One-on-one supports are also tracked as a core indicator for course and assessment redesign. In the last six months, 74 faculty and sessionals accessed support. Consultations most commonly focus on further developing faculty AI literacy to support student AI literacy, and redesigning assessments to create more authentic and experiential learning experiences.

Enablers