{"id":195970,"date":"2026-02-05T11:56:27","date_gmt":"2026-02-05T10:56:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.erasmusmagazine.nl\/en\/2026\/02\/05\/keurmeester-nvao-weet-niet-of-opleidingen-grip-hebben-op-ai\/"},"modified":"2026-02-05T11:56:31","modified_gmt":"2026-02-05T10:56:31","slug":"keurmeester-nvao-weet-niet-of-opleidingen-grip-hebben-op-ai","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.erasmusmagazine.nl\/en\/2026\/02\/05\/keurmeester-nvao-weet-niet-of-opleidingen-grip-hebben-op-ai\/","title":{"rendered":"NVAO quality assessor unsure whether degree programmes have control over AI"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

How do students use ChatGPT when writing their thesis? That question receives \u2018strikingly\u2019 little attention during the assessment of degree programmes, according to the education quality assessor itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"

\n\t\n\n<\/svg>\n<\/span>\n\tImage by:<\/span>\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tMigle Alonderyte<\/a>\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t<\/p>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Degree programmes must be accredited in order to be allowed to award a recognised hbo or wo degree. This is regulated by the NVAO, the Dutch-Flemish Accreditation Organisation. Panels of experts visit institutions to assess their facilities, plans and education programmes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The \u2018visitation reports\u2019 they produce have now been analysed by the NVAO on one specific topic: generative artificial intelligence. How do degree programmes deal with AI? What do they want to teach students about it? Are there clear rules? And do lecturers understand how they should work with AI?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Struggling<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Attention to AI has risen rapidly, the NVAO observes<\/a> in a \u2018start exploration\u2019. At the end of 2022, ChatGPT went online and turned out to be astonishingly good<\/a> at generating texts. Degree programmes have been struggling with the consequences ever since.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Or are some perhaps struggling too little? In a further analysis of 194 recent visitation reports, the NVAO sees that university programmes in particular pay attention to AI. Hbo programmes do so \u2018less\u2019, the NVAO notes, without further explanation. A caveat: the situation may now be better, as quite some time passes between the visit by the experts and the final approval by the NVAO.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In any case, the NVAO sees that attention is mainly focused on the consequences for assessment. Degree programmes pay far less attention to the influence of AI on students\u2019 future professions. Which competences should students learn if AI soon becomes a standard part of their work?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Quality of graduation work<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The NVAO also calls it \u2018striking\u2019 that visitation reports do pay attention to assessment in general, but not to the graduation thesis. Both the degree programmes and the visiting expert panels do \u2018not explicitly\u2019 focus on the risks of AI for final projects. \u201cFrom the visitation reports it cannot be determined whether degree programmes and their examination boards have control over this and whether they have had this discussion with the panel.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The NVAO does not draw any further conclusions from this. NVAO chair Arnold Jonk writes in his foreword: \u201cThe call for frameworks and certainty that is often heard is a logical one, but we will probably have to live with uncertainty for some time yet.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The exploration states: \u201cPanels are not obliged to enter into discussions with degree programmes about the use of generative AI, nor do they have to report on this.\u201d Meanwhile, the quality assessor is considering whether procedures around quality assurance should be more focused on generative AI. And if so, what the expert panels would then need in order to be able to judge properly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

AI literacy<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Last year, the Education Inspectorate also raised<\/a> the alarm. It saw a \u2018major risk\u2019 to the quality of graduation work. Examination boards find it difficult to detect or prove fraud using AI. And they do not have enough time to train themselves in the risks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The NVAO agrees with this. It calls on degree programmes to improve the AI literacy of lecturers and to think more carefully about the role of AI in their education.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\t

\n\t\t\n\t\t
\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Read more<\/h2>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t