Strategic AI Adoption

Criteria

Excellent (50 /20/20)

Good (40/15/15)

Fair (30/10/10)

Poor (20/5/5)

Strategic Recommendation (60 pts)

Clear, actionable, and well-reasoned recommendation aligned to real-world needs. Integrates ‘Could we?/ Would we?/Should we?’, learning types, or architectures. Addresses risks and ethics in detail. Tone and format match the selected audience.

Clear recommendation with good logic. References at least one programme framework. Mentions risks or ethical concerns. Mostly consistent tone and format.

General suggestion with limited analysis or clarity. Frameworks mentioned briefly or inaccurately. Ethics or risks are noted superficially. Format inconsistently applied.

Vague or unclear recommendation. Little or no connection to course content. Risks and ethics overlooked. Poor structure or format.

Use of AI Tools (20 pts)

Clearly explains how AI was used. Demonstrates thoughtful, responsible integration with personal thinking.

Describes use with some detail. Artificial intelligence supports learner’s ideas, but integration may be uneven.

Mentions AI use but lacks clarity or critical engagement. Minimal personal input.

No meaningful explanation or shows over-reliance on AI with little reflection.

AI Reflection (20 pts)

Insightful reflection on AI’s strengths, limitations, and dimensions. Thoughtfully considers real-world applications.

Reasonable reflection on benefits and challenges. Mentions potential professional relevance.

Vague or surface-level reflection with little depth or specificity.

Minimal or unclear reflection. No meaningful connection to future use.