AI & NCEA Assessment
Dr Craig Hansen – AI Expert: FAQ on AI, Te Mātaiaho & Curriculum Integration
How do secondary school leaders and HoDs navigate the rise of generative technologies whilst protecting assessment integrity? Guided by New Zealand Ministry of Education PLD & AI Facilitator Dr Craig Hansen, this practice guide explains how AI affects assessment integrity, workloads, equity, and future qualification design with practical checklists and research-backed answers.
About Dr Craig Hansen – AI in Education in Aotearoa New Zealand
Dr Craig Hansen is a New Zealand Ministry of Education PLD & AI Facilitator, founder of the Summit Institute, and one of Aotearoa’s leading authorities on integrating artificial intelligence into schooling, curriculum, and assessment. His work blends advanced methodologies from the cognitive sciences of learning with secure, culturally responsive AI and curriculum design, helping school leaders implement AI in ways that align with Te Mātaiaho | the refreshed New Zealand Curriculum, NCEA integrity requirements, and the rights and wellbeing of ākonga and whānau.
Craig has designed NZQA‑listed micro‑credentials in AI for education and workflow, trained secondary teachers and leaders on AI policy, governance, and classroom practice, and advised schools across Aotearoa on AI risk, compliance, and curriculum integration. His focus is on practical, evidence‑based AI strategies that keep teacher professionalism, equity, and authentic learning at the centre.
National Guidance & Research Underpinning This FAQ
New Zealand’s Ministry of Education generative AI guidance for schools sets out how AI should be used safely in teaching, learning, and assessment, emphasising academic integrity, privacy, bias, and age‑appropriate use. NZQA builds on this with its guidance on the acceptable use of artificial intelligence in assessment and detailed GenAI in NCEA assessment FAQs for schools and teachers, clarifying where AI is prohibited (for example, NCEA externals) and where limited support may be acceptable.
For internal marking, the Ministry’s Marking work with AI tools guidance for NCEA internal assessments cautions schools to treat AI as a support for feedback and rubric wording, not as a replacement for teacher judgement. NZQA’s own pilot work with automated text scoring shows the potential of AI to improve turnaround time and consistency, but always with careful calibration and human oversight.
Research such as NZCER’s Generative artificial intelligence in Aotearoa New Zealand schools and the associated webinar on AI use at Years 5–8 shows that many ākonga and kaiako are already experimenting with generative AI tools, often without sufficient guidance or PLD. The Prime Minister’s Chief Science Adviser report, On the impact and potential of AI in education similarly highlights both opportunities for inclusion and risks around equity.
International and local guidance such as the Privacy Commissioner’s guidance on artificial intelligence and the Information Privacy Principles, the Royal Society Te Apārangi’s best‑practice guidelines for generative AI, the OECD’s analysis of artificial intelligence in education, and NZ Digital Government guidance on artificial intelligence in the public service all reinforce the message: use AI deliberately, transparently, and with strong human oversight.
FAQ: AI, Te Mātaiaho, and Secondary Education
❓ Q1. How should NZ secondary schools integrate AI with Te Mātaiaho?
Answer: Te Mātaiaho emphasises deep disciplinary learning, key capabilities, and rich contexts for ākonga, not just content coverage. AI should be used to support these aims—for example, by helping teachers generate rich examples, adapt resources for different phases, and personalise practice—while ensuring tasks still require students to analyse, evaluate, and create in ways that AI cannot fully replicate.
❓ Q2. Can teachers use AI to plan units and lessons in the refreshed curriculum?
Answer: Yes. Teachers can use AI tools to draft unit plans, generate learning activities, and differentiate materials across Te Mātaiaho phases, provided they review and adapt all outputs. Planning must stay grounded in the curriculum’s big ideas, progress outcomes, and local contexts, and teachers should avoid copying AI‑generated plans directly into practice without critical checking.
❓ Q3. How do we align AI use in curriculum planning with NCEA assessment integrity?
Answer: Curriculum planning with AI is acceptable when teachers use AI as a co‑designer and retain professional control. Assessment integrity becomes a concern when students use AI to generate assessed work or when AI is used to mark internal assessments; schools should ensure that any AI‑supported tasks still require students to show their own thinking and that AI is not used to make final NCEA marking decisions.
❓ Q4. What does a good AI policy for NZ secondary schools need to cover?
Answer: A robust AI policy should address purpose and scope, acceptable and prohibited uses, assessment authenticity (including NCEA, Cambridge, and IB), data privacy and security, cultural responsiveness, staff responsibilities, student expectations and breach processes. It should explicitly reference national guidance on generative AI and align with your school’s values and local curriculum.
❓ Q5. How can AI support Te Mātaiaho’s focus on equity and inclusion?
Answer: AI can help personalise practice, provide scaffolds and explanations, and support accessible formats, which can make learning more inclusive for diverse learners. However, schools must actively monitor for bias in AI outputs, ensure equitable access to devices and AI literacy, and guard against over‑reliance on AI that could undermine students’ confidence and independent capability.
❓ Q6. What professional learning do teachers need to use AI and Te Mātaiaho together safely?
Answer: Teachers need AI literacy that covers how AI works, its limitations, bias, and privacy issues, plus practical training in safe classroom use and assessment design. They also need time and support to explore how AI tools can help them unpack Te Mātaiaho’s progressions and contexts without compromising authenticity or student wellbeing.
❓ Q7. How should secondary leaders talk to whānau about AI, Te Mātaiaho and assessment changes?
Answer: Leaders should explain plainly how AI is being used (and not used) in curriculum planning and assessment, how Te Mātaiaho and qualification reforms aim to improve learning, and what safeguards are in place for privacy, integrity, and equity. Inviting whānau into the conversation—through hui, newsletters, and policy summaries—builds trust and helps communities co‑shape how AI supports learning in their local context.
Feedback from Secondary Leadership Sessions
Discover more research & credentials: AI in education expert for NZ schools
