Gen-AI dan Masa Depan Asesmen: Menakar Peluang, Risiko, dan Kesiapan Evaluasi Pembelajaran di Era Kecerdasan Buatan Generatif
Penulis
-
Adam Malik
UIN Raden Intan Lampung
Penulis
Kata Kunci:
Gen-AI, evaluasi pembelajaran, Validitas dan Reliabilitas, Integritas Akademik, Kesiapan KelembagaanAbstrak
Selama beberapa dekade, evaluasi pembelajaran dibangun di atas empat pilar, yakni validitas, reliabilitas, objektivitas, dan kepraktisan. Tetapi kemunculan Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen-AI) sejak akhir 2022 mengguncang tatanan tersebut secara fundamental, sementara literatur belum memadai memetakan pengaruh perubahan ini terhadap kualitas pengukuran maupun kesiapan kelembagaan untuk meresponsnya, khususnya di Indonesia. Artikel ini bertujuan menyusun sintesis konseptual yang memetakan secara berimbang peluang, risiko, dan kesiapan kelembagaan pemanfaatan Gen-AI dalam evaluasi pembelajaran. Kajian ini disusun menggunakan pendekatan tinjauan literatur naratif dengan unsur sistematis yang mengadopsi sebagian prinsip pelaporan PRISMA 2020, dengan penelusuran dilakukan pada Google Scholar dan Scopus melalui tujuh kombinasi kata kunci berbahasa Inggris dan Indonesia. Proses penyaringan menghasilkan 17 artikel terindeks Scopus dan Sinta terbitan 2023 hingga 2026 dari 57 rekaman awal, yang kemudian dianalisis melalui sintesis tematik empat tahap. Hasil kajian menunjukkan bahwa Gen-AI membawa manfaat nyata, seperti mempercepat proses penilaian, mempersonalisasi soal sesuai kebutuhan mahasiswa, dan mempercepat pemberian umpan balik. Di sisi lain, teknologi ini juga membawa sejumlah risiko, mulai dari skor esai otomatis yang tidak stabil ketika tidak menggunakan rubrik yang jelas, bias penilaian terhadap peserta didik berlatar bahasa asing, kecenderungan Gen-AI memberi skor lebih tinggi dibanding penilai manusia, hingga munculnya bentuk baru pelanggaran akademik akibat penggunaan AI tanpa pengawasan. Dari sisi kesiapan, kebijakan, literasi AI para pendidik, dan tata kelola etis di Indonesia ternyata masih berada pada tahap awal dan berbeda-beda antarjenjang pendidikan. Artikel ini menyimpulkan bahwa hubungan antara penggunaan Gen-AI dan pelanggaran akademik tidak bersifat langsung, melainkan bergantung pada konteks penggunaannya, sehingga kebijakan asesmen ke depan perlu disusun berdasarkan bukti dan menempatkan Gen-AI sebagai alat bantu yang tetap berada di bawah pengawasan manusia.
Referensi
[1] Q. Xia, X. Weng, F. Ouyang, T. J. Lin, and T. K. F. Chiu, “A scoping review on how generative artificial intelligence transforms assessment in higher education,” Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ., vol. 21, pp. 1–22, 2024, doi: 10.1186/s41239-024-00468-z.
[2] B. Arslan et al., “Opportunities and challenges of using generative AI to personalize educational assessment,” Front. Artif. Intell., vol. 7, 2024, doi: 10.3389/frai.2024.1460651.
[3] C. Preiksaitis and C. Rose, “Opportunities, challenges, and future directions of generative artificial intelligence in medical education: Scoping review,” JMIR Med. Educ., vol. 9, 2023, doi: 10.2196/48785.
[4] S. Halliday, T. Lavis, P. Callaghan, and A. Chur-Hansen, “Generative AI in higher education psychology programs: A scoping review exploring the opportunities for its use in assessment methods,” Aust. Psychol., 2025, doi: 10.1080/00050067.2025.2580236.
[5] F. García-Varela, M. Nussbaum, M. Mendoza, C. Martínez-Troncoso, and Z. Bekerman, “ChatGPT as a stable and fair tool for automated essay scoring,” Educ. Sci., vol. 15, no. 8, 2025, doi: 10.3390/educsci15080946.
[6] J. R. Stowell and J. Zhu, “Evaluating ChatGPT for automated creation and grading of essay questions in higher education,” Teach. Psychol., 2025, doi: 10.1177/00986283251408813.
[7] M. Thoharudin, “Peran Generative AI dalam Meningkatkan Kemampuan Perencanaan Penelitian pada Mata Kuliah Metode Penelitian Pendidikan,” VOX Edukasi J. Ilm. Ilmu Pendidik., 2024.
[8] A. Irfan, S. Arifin, and S. Mas’ula, “Menavigasi Era AI: Tinjauan Sistematis terhadap Tantangan, Dampak, dan Respon Institusional untuk Menjaga Integritas Akademik,” Pendas J. Ilm. Pendidik. Dasar, vol. 10, no. 4, 2025, doi: 10.23969/jp.v10i04.38607.
[9] F. Syahputra et al., “Dampak AI Generatif (LLMs) terhadap Keterampilan Menulis dan Integritas Akademik: Tinjauan Literatur Sistematis,” TRILOGI J. Ilmu Teknol. Kesehatan, dan Hum., vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 103–113, 2025, doi: 10.33650/trilogi.v6i4.13431.
[10] A. Fatmadiwi, Suryani, A. Hartoyo, and E. Erlina, “Kebijakan Artificial Intelligence (AI) dalam Pembelajaran di Perguruan Tinggi,” J. Alwatzikhoebillah Kaji. Islam. Pendidikan, Ekon. Hum., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 284–291, 2025, doi: 10.37567/alwatzikhoebillah.v11i1.3633.
[11] B. E. Susanto, “Pemetaan Kompetensi Digital Guru SMK dalam Pemanfaatan Generative AI Gemini menggunakan K-Means Clustering,” J. Artif. Intell. Digit. Bus., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 4839–4846, 2026.
[12] M. B. Z. Ar Romdhoni and C. A. Jaya, “Pengaruh Penggunaan AI Generatif dalam Penyusunan Tugas Mahasiswa: Antara Bantuan Pembelajaran atau Pelanggaran Akademik,” EDUTECH, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 2347–2357, 2026, doi: 10.51878/edutech.v6i3.14409.
[13] D. Thalib, N. Karnain, C. Labaso, and S. R. Tudja, “Analisis Ketergantungan Penggunaan AI Generatif berbasis Large Language Models (LLM) di Kalangan Mahasiswa,” AKSARA J. Ilmu Pendidik. Nonform., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 85–92, 2026, doi: 10.37905/aksara.12.1.2026.
[14] N. R. Haddaway, M. J. Page, C. C. Pritchard, and L. A. McGuinness, “PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis,” Campbell Syst. Rev., vol. 18, no. 2, p. e1230, Jun. 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1230.
[15] J. Thomas and A. Harden, “Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews,” BMC Med. Res. Methodol., vol. 8, p. 45, 2008, doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-8-45.
[16] N. K. Denzin, The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods, 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1978.
[17] N. K. Denzin, “Triangulation 2.0,” J. Mix. Methods Res., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 80–88, 2012, doi: 10.1177/1558689812437186.
[18] D. R. Sadler, “Formative Assessment and the Design of Instructional Systems,” Instr. Sci., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 119–144, 1989, doi: 10.1007/BF00117714.
[19] D. J. Nicol and D. Macfarlane-Dick, “Formative Assessment and Self-Regulated Learning: A Model and Seven Principles of Good Feedback Practice,” Stud. High. Educ., vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 199–218, 2006, doi: 10.1080/03075070600572090.
[20] S. Messick, “Meaning and Values in Test Validation: The Science and Ethics of Assessment,” Educ. Res., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 5–11, 1989, doi: 10.3102/0013189X018002005.
[21] American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education, Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://www.aera.net/publications/books/standards-for-educational-psychological-testing-2014-edition
[22] UNESCO, “Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research,” UNESCO, Paris, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000386693
[23] Educational Testing Service, “ETS Standards for Quality and Fairness,” Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://www.ets.org/pdfs/about/standards-quality-fairness.pdf
[24] Educational Testing Service, “Best Practices for Constructed-Response Scoring,” Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ. [Online]. Available: https://www.ets.org/pdfs/about/cr_best_practices.pdf
[25] R. I. Fariani, K. Junus, and H. B. Santoso, “A Systematic Literature Review on Personalised Learning in the Higher Education Context,” Technol. Knowl. Learn., vol. 28, pp. 449–476, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s10758-022-09628-4.
[26] L. S. Vygotsky, Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978.
[27] D. Wood, J. S. Bruner, and G. Ross, “The Role of Tutoring in Problem Solving,” J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 89–100, 1976, doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x.
[28] E. Kyrkou, “Artificial Intelligence as a Cognitive Partner in Education: The Transformation of Learning Autonomy,” Knowl. - Int. J., vol. 74, no. 2, pp. 267–271, 2026, [Online]. Available: https://ojs.ikm.mk/index.php/kij/article/view/8090
[29] S. P. Joseph and J. Jose, “Artificial Intelligence as a Cognitive Partner: A Developmental Framework for Human-AI Co-Regulation in Learning,” Front. Dev. Psychol., 2026, doi: 10.3389/fdpys.2026.1835258.
[30] UNESCO, “AI Competency Framework for Students,” UNESCO, Paris, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000391105
[31] D. Long and B. Magerko, “What Is AI Literacy? Competencies and Design Considerations,” in Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery, 2020, pp. 1–16. doi: 10.1145/3313831.3376727.
[32] M. Usher, “Generative AI vs. Instructor vs. Peer Assessments: A Comparison of Grading and Feedback in Higher Education,” Assess. Eval. High. Educ., vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 912–927, 2025, doi: 10.1080/02602938.2025.2487495.
[33] J. Hattie and H. Timperley, “The Power of Feedback,” Rev. Educ. Res., vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 81–112, 2007, doi: 10.3102/003465430298487.
[34] D. Carless and D. Boud, “The Development of Student Feedback Literacy: Enabling Uptake of Feedback,” Assess. Eval. High. Educ., vol. 43, no. 8, pp. 1315–1325, 2018, doi: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354.
[35] R. E. Bennett, “A Framework for the Evaluation and Use of Automated Scoring,” Educ. Meas. Issues Pract., vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 36–45, 2012, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2011.00223.x.
[36] E. T. Service, “Guidelines for Constructed-Response and Other Performance Assessments,” Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ. [Online]. Available: https://www.ca.ets.org/pdfs/about/constructed-response-guidelines.pdf
[37] J. A. Colquitt, “On the Dimensionality of Organizational Justice: A Construct Validation of a Measure,” J. Appl. Psychol., vol. 86, no. 3, pp. 386–400, 2001, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386.
[38] R. L. Brennan, “Generalizability Theory,” in Educational Measurement, 4th ed., R. L. Brennan, Ed., Westport, CT: Praeger, 2006, pp. 347–408. [Online]. Available: https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/mee/2008-v31-n2-mee01401/1025007ar.pdf
[39] L. J. Cronbach, G. C. Gleser, H. Nanda, and N. Rajaratnam, The Dependability of Behavioral Measurements: Theory of Generalizability for Scores and Profiles. New York, NY: Wiley, 1972.
[40] S. Messick, “Validity,” in Educational Measurement, 3rd ed., R. L. Linn, Ed., New York, NY: Macmillan, 1989, pp. 13–103. [Online]. Available: https://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/Images/471470-tracing-the-evolution-of-validity-in-educational-measurement-past-issues-and-contemporary-challenges.pdf
[41] F. B. Baker and S.-H. Kim, Item Response Theory: Parameter Estimation Techniques, 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2004.
[42] R. J. de Ayala, The Theory and Practice of Item Response Theory. New York, NY: Guilford Press, 2009. [Online]. Available: https://pure.amsterdamumc.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/150149753/Common-measures-or-common-metrics-the-value-of-irt-based-common-metrics.pdf
[43] N. Andersen, J. Mang, F. Goldhammer, and F. Zehner, “Algorithmic Fairness in Automatic Short Answer Scoring,” Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ., vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 3128–3165, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s40593-025-00495-5.
[44] M. Hardt, E. Price, and N. Srebro, “Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learning,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 29, 2016, pp. 3315–3323. [Online]. Available: https://home.ttic.edu/~nati/Publications/HardtPriceSrebro2016.pdf
[45] S. Barocas and A. D. Selbst, “Big Data’s Disparate Impact,” Calif. Law Rev., vol. 104, no. 3, pp. 671–732, 2016, doi: 10.15779/Z38BG31.
[46] N. I. of S. and Technology, “Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0),” National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 2023. doi: 10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1.
[47] N. I. of S. and Technology, “Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework: Generative Artificial Intelligence Profile,” National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 2024. doi: 10.6028/NIST.AI.600-1.
[48] F. Miao and W. Holmes, “Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research,” UNESCO, 2023. doi: 10.54675/EWZM9535.
[49] OECD and E. International, “Opportunities, Guidelines and Guardrails for Effective and Equitable Use of AI in Education,” OECD Publishing, Paris, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/about/projects/edu/smart-data-and-digital-technology-in-education/Opportunities, guidelines and guardrails for effective and equitable use of AI in education.pdf
[50] OECD, “OECD Digital Education Outlook 2023: Emerging Governance of Generative AI in Education,” OECD Publishing, Paris, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-digital-education-outlook-2023_c74f03de-en/full-report/emerging-governance-of-generative-ai-in-education_3cbd6269.html
[51] M. J. Koehler, P. Mishra, and W. Cain, “What Is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)?,” J. Educ., vol. 193, no. 3, pp. 13–19, 2013, doi: 10.1177/002205741319300303.
[52] C. Redecker, “European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators: DigCompEdu,” Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2017. doi: 10.2760/159770.
[53] UNESCO, “AI Competency Framework for Teachers,” UNESCO, Paris, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10196729/
[54] Fitriyana, S. Hadi, B. Luthfiyah, and M. Akmansyah, “Penerapan Fungsi POAC dalam Integrasi Artificial Intelligence pada Tata Kelola Perguruan Tinggi Islam: Sebuah Systematic Literature Review,” J. Innov. Creat., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 34778–34784, 2026.
[55] UNESCO, “Readiness Assessment Methodology: A Tool of the Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence,” UNESCO, Paris, 2023. doi: 10.54678/YHAA4429.
[56] D. Hampson, “Strategic Leadership for Ethical AI Integration in Higher Education: A Systematic Review,” Front. Educ., vol. 11, 2026, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2026.1906579.
[57] Y. Gao and X. Huang, “The Need for Agile AI Governance in Higher Education,” Stud. High. Educ., 2026, doi: 10.1080/03075079.2026.2614986.
