Assurance of learning has always been about more than assessment design.
In the final episode of The Thought Bubble’s season on assurance of learning in the age of AI, sector leaders and students themselves explore what is at stake for participation, equity and public confidence when we decide how to evidence learning.
Listen to episode 6 now:
Why assurance is a public trust issue for the entire higher education system
The final episode of our series on Assurance of Learning opens by revisiting the season’s journey; moving beyond cheating and detection, challenging assumptions about online learning, and unpacking the pedagogical, relational and technological pillars of connected assurance.
The season’s host, OES’s Amanda Ford frames the core issue – that assurance decisions are not neutral; they shape who participates, who persists, how institutions make claims about learning, and how those claims are trusted by students, employers, regulators, government and the wider community.
AI has intensified this question, but it has not created it.
The real challenge, as Amanda notes, is not to perfectly control every assessment moment, but to build a coherent, defensible and equitable body of evidence that institutions can stand behind.
If assurance is too weak, confidence in qualifications can erode; if responses are too narrow, compliance-led or surveillance-heavy, we risk narrowing access, increasing burden, discouraging innovation and disadvantaging the very students that higher education is trying to support.
Learn more about the series here:
The Thought Bubble, Season Two – ‘Assurance of Learning in the Age of AI: A Connected Approach’
System-level perspectives: what regulators and partners need to see
The episode centres on a conversation led by Rebecca Hall, OES’s Director of Government Relations, with sector expert and commentator Claire Field, who brings a system-level and cross-sector lens to the assurance challenge.
Claire explores what gives regulators and partners confidence when institutions present connected, program-level evidence, and how assurance interacts with workforce needs, participation and digital transformation. She highlights that design-led, program-level assurance can reduce compliance burden by providing clearer, more coherent narratives, instead of isolated technical fixes.
If the sector fails to reconfirm with government, industry and the community that qualifications still reliably signal capability, trust in institutions is at risk.
Rebecca reflects that connected assurance principles (integrating technology, pedagogy and relational elements) should be explicitly recognised in policy and standards.
OES’s vantage point across thousands of learners and hundreds of programs, particularly for equity cohorts, provides evidence and case studies that can support regulators in moving from consultation to genuine collaboration.
Student voices: how system settings land in real lives
To ground these system-level conversations, episode 6 brings in a student voice montage that captures how assurance settings are experienced in real classrooms and lives. Students talk about cost-of-living pressures, balancing study with work and caring responsibilities, and what flexible provision actually means to them.
They describe AI as “the elephant in every classroom”: a normalised tool for summarising readings, checking references and managing administrative tasks, but also a source of anxiety when rules are unclear, inconsistent or enforced through fear.
Some highlight creative assessment redesigns – such as one-to-one interviews with teaching staff – as more meaningful and confidence-building than traditional exams.
Others critique blunt approaches like heavy reliance on AI checkers or attendance marks that do not reflect their real capability.
The montage also surfaces themes of feeling seen versus unseen: students who live far from campus or study mostly online speak about disconnection, peers as their main support, and the impact of losing student community.
They are clear that outright AI bans are unrealistic, but also that “free rein” would undermine the human capability degrees are meant to develop; instead, they call for clear, fair rules and acknowledgment of AI use as part of honest learning.
Amanda’s synthesis of these student reflections underlines that these voices show why connected assurance matters. System settings are not an abstract concept, when you’re a student and you are working two days a week, juggling sport, family and rising costs, and trying to complete a degree that still feels worth the sacrifice.
The way assurance is designed affects whether participation remains possible, whether flexibility is meaningful, and whether trust is built in ways that support rather than exclude.
Bringing the Connected Assurance Framework together
In the final segment of our six-part series on assurance of learning, Amanda brings the full Connected Assurance Framework back into focus. Pedagogical assurance matters because curriculum and assessment design create the body of evidence; relational assurance matters because interaction, feedback and academic judgement make that evidence visible and interpretable over time; technical assurance matters because systems, signals and traceability can support confidence at scale when they are used proportionately and in service of learning.
Over-emphasising any one dimension, she argues, weakens the whole; the strongest approach is an inherently connected and intersectional one.
The season closes on a clear message: in the age of AI, assurance of learning must be treated as a connected, program-level system, not a narrow compliance response.
What is at stake is not just internal process, but public trust, student participation, institutional credibility and the future relevance of higher education itself.
The work ahead is collective across institutions, regulators, policymakers, industry and students, and demands both avoiding inaction and resisting over-correction.
If you are involved in policy, regulation, institutional leadership or sector advocacy, this episode offers a concise synthesis of the case for connected assurance and a roadmap for enabling confidence without narrowing access.
Listen to The Thought Bubble podcast now >
Explore OES’s connected approach to assurance of learning >
