Home
Guidance
Assessment and Feedback
GenAI and academic integrity
Teaching and Assessing in the Two-Lane Framework: Staff Guidance and FAQs
Teaching and Assessing in the Two-Lane Framework: Staff Guidance and FAQs

Teaching and Assessing in the Two-Lane Framework: Staff Guidance and FAQs

Published on: 26/02/2026 · Last updated on: 10/09/2026

Creating a culture for effective and responsible use of GenAI

Assessments are now classed as closed lane or open lane, according to our two-lane framework. The guidance below sets out overarching principles for teaching and assessment in that context. It is not prescriptive: technology changes too rapidly for prescriptive guidance to remain relevant, and there is no one-size-fits-all model for teaching in a GenAI age. Staff must explore what effective and responsible use looks like in their own disciplinary contexts. FAQs for staff can be found at the bottom of this page.

Closed-lane conditions

Closed-lane assessments test students in conditions where they do not have access to GenAI tools, and teaching and formative assessment should prepare them for those conditions. Where GenAI use is increasingly common, closed-lane conditions may not reflect changing disciplinary and professional contexts, and students may reasonably want to know why these learning outcomes must be tested this way, and how it fits into their wider assessment diet.

Open-lane conditions

In the open lane, staff should embed discipline- and unit-specific guidance on effective and responsible use across teaching, formative assessment and summative assessment briefs. GenAI is an emergent and disruptive technology, and uncertainty about how to guide its use is understandable; your professional experience and subject expertise will help shape your insights and guidance over time. The principles below focus on creating a collaborative and open teaching culture, orientated towards trust and responsible use and critical appraisal of GenAI.

Microsoft CoPilot, accessed with a university login, is the supported tool and gives every student the same access. As an academic community, we need to track the ways in which paid tools risk widening educational equity gaps in our subject areas and graduate outcomes.

Principles for teaching in a GenAI context

Explore tool use and avoidance in your disciplinary context

The applications and limitations of GenAI vary considerably across disciplines, activities and assessments. Steering students towards effective usage and avoidance requires academics to bring their subject expertise to the critical evaluation of GenAI tools and outputs.

Begin by asking:

What are these tools good at in my specific field, and where do they fail?
In my unit context, what would I want a student to evaluate before trusting an output?
Are there specific disciplinary or professional imperatives to engage or avoid GenAI usage, and how can these be explored with students?

Co-discover uses with students, not only for them

Staff and students are both trying to determine what effective and responsible usage looks like. Being transparent about this ‘boundary work’ (as a recent article on GenAI and assessment has characterised it), and inviting collective reflection and experimentation, can foster trust and accelerate the establishment of disciplinary norms.

Begin by:

Raising the question of GenAI use early in your units, and well in advance of summative assessment.
Asking students to propose and critique GenAI use cases.
Being open to students proposing new ways of working with GenAI, or reasons to avoid its use.

Identify ‘windows’ onto your students’ learning

GenAI facilitates the rapid production of polished outputs, which makes the ‘windows’ we have onto students’ learning processes more important than ever (see this article on GenAI and assessment by Winstone et al.). These windows on learning might range from classroom discussion and feedback to more formal reflective learning journals.

Begin by asking:

Where in this unit can I already see learning in progress: drafts, plans, notebooks, seminar contributions, code commits, lab records, studio critiques?
How can we can make this evidence visible and valued?
Where could errors, revisions and false starts count as evidence of learning?
Can I model one strong and one weak interaction from my own discipline or practice?

Non-use should be informed and intentional

Encouraging students to work without GenAI is a legitimate educational position. Where non-use feels desirable, consider how it can be communicated as an academic judgement, rather than a mandate i.e., ‘There is something valuable in doing this without GenAI, and here is what I think it is’, rather than ‘AI is not permitted’. Similarly, allow space for students to develop and articulate reasoned critique of GenAI usage.

Begin by asking:

What is the specific value of non-use, here, or the risks of use?
Could promoting non-use have unintended impacts on certain students, for example where GenAI use supports accessibility?

Staff FAQs on the two-lane framework

In a nutshell, Two-Lane is an assessment design approach that simplifies and replaces our ABC categorisation approach. In the closed lane use of GenAI is not permitted and assessments are designed to prevent the use of GenAI. In the open lane use of GenAI is authorised.

The key things to keep in mind about Two-Lane are that:

a) it necessitates a course-wide approach
b) learning outcomes must be assessed in the appropriate lane
c) students must be supported to use GenAI in ways that support their learning
d) it emphasises a shift from ‘policing’ GenAI use to building AI literacy

EQSC has approved that the two-lane framework will replace the ABC categorisations from September 2026.

The two-lane framework provides a simpler, more robust and sustainable model for categorising assessments in a GenAI-rich context. This change reduces complexity, improves clarity for students, and gives courses more flexibility. Assessment strategies built on policing AI tool use become less reliable over time. Instead of designing assessments around what we want students not to do, we should focus on what we want them to demonstrate, regardless of the tools they use. Our aim should be to build an assessment model that remains robust even as these technologies evolve.

No, the key part about a closed lane assessment is that, not only are students not permitted to use AI tools, but that the assessment is designed in such a way as to prevent usage of AI tools. This means that invigilated exams or tests, whether practical, written or oral, where students do not have access to AI tools are closed lane assessments, but exams or tests where students could feasibly access AI tools will be classed as open lane. Written or otherwise recorded coursework is classified as open lane assessment.

a) You should ensure your assessment briefs and other assessment information for AY26/27 tells students which lane their assessment is in. As a general rule, Type A becomes closed lane and B and C become open lane. If you had any Type A coursework this should now be regarded as open lane.
b) You should review your assessment, its alignment with intended learning outcomes, how that fits with the wider course assessment map and how you frame GenAI use in your assessment materials, teaching and in your feedback.
c) You should reflect on how you might want to evolve your assessment strategy for AY27-28. At a course level, review of two-lane categorisation should become part of ongoing course review processes.

No, although we undertook that exercise when moving to the ABC approach, we do not propose doing the same for the move to the two-lane approach. Instead, we rely on Directors of Teaching to oversee the updating of assessment information by unit convenors and to update assessment maps – created as part of the Curriculum Transformation project – indicating which assessments are open and which are closed lane. Directors of Teaching should confirm to ADEs that both updates have occurred before the start of AY26/27. This activity enables reflective engagement with the issue of academic integrity and validity and ensures clarity around course assessment strategy.

Not in and of itself; however, changing assessment lanes may mean changing assessment type or subtype, which would necessitate seeking approval. There may be small changes you can make to your assessment to keep in the spirit of two-lane without making a formal change, for example, changing the way you communicate about the task, changing the weighting of the marking criteria or changing the focus of the feedback you give to focus more on the process students undertook rather than the end-product. If you do wish to change an assessment type, note that this will require careful consideration and guidance from Academic Registry and CLT, especially where the change would materially affect students. It is important to note there are limits to the changes we will be able to make in-year to assessment to ensure CMA compliance.

No, the main thrust of those messages are likely to still be very relevant to your students, but you will need to update the language so that it refers to ‘open lane’ rather than ‘Type B’. We also ask that you are less prescriptive in your language. We encourage you to contextualise the ways in which GenAI might be helpful or detrimental as regards the assessment(s) in question, however, you should no longer refer to specific uses being permitted or forbidden (excepting their use to commit an assessment offence).

For central guidance on the ethical and effective use of GenAI students can be directed to Skills Centre resources. For information on acknowledging GenAI use and referencing it appropriately they can access Library resources. Both links, along with other relevant information, are included in our assessment brief text for open lane assessments.

It continues to be important that students use GenAI ethically and responsibly in line with the Academic Integrity Test and training. Misusing GenAI is not classified as misconduct in itself, but we recognise that it can contribute to the offences of plagiarism, fabrication and collusion and we have prepared some guidance to help support you to crystallise and act on your concerns.

In the open lane GenAI may be used to complete an assessment. This means that students may choose to use GenAI in the completion of assessments (provided they follow academic integrity requirements), or that staff may design an assessment where they ask students to engage with GenAI.

In setting assessments where students are required to use GenAI, staff should be mindful that they may have students who object to its use. As with any other situation where an assessment impinges on religious, ethical, cultural or political sensitivities, staff should be prepared for these objections and consider whether there is an alternative means for that student to meet the intended learning outcomes that meets any applicable accreditation requirements. In the first instance you should discuss the situation with the student and attempt to find a solution. If further guidance is required, please contact your Faculty Assistant Registrar.

The Students’ Union are aware this change is coming, and we are working with the SU, the Skills Centre and the Library on communications for students. We encourage teaching staff to share the student-facing two lane overview slides with your students.

We have prepared self-paced resources to help support staff in this area. We are also running an on-going training opportunities to help staff teach in the two-lane framework, as well as many other challenges teaching staff face, such as providing actionable feedback, or running group or oral assessments. For department-level support around curriculum planning, teaching and assessment design please contact your Director of Studies or Director of Teaching who may then escalate the query to CLT if appropriate copying in the Faculty’s Assessment and Feedback Lead.

The pace of development in the AI field means that we are necessarily working at pace to consider how it impacts education. The GenerativeAI in Education Oversight Group (GEOG) meets regularly to discuss changes. To increase the group’s transparency, we will be starting a blog from March. We have also reworked the Assessment and Feedback pages on the Teaching Hub to make it easier to find key links and resources on GenAI.

Was this article helpful?