The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) has influenced evaluation and evaluation education. As AI tools become more common, educators must explore how they can enhance student learning, engagement, and accessibility, and prepare students well for professional work. While some faculty may hesitate to integrate AI, a constructive approach is to equip students to use AI ethically and effectively. This article describes how an instructor integrated AI into an activity to teach evaluation paradigms in an online, asynchronous evaluation course. At the conclusion of the course, the instructor led a series of guided reflections with a voluntary student cohort. Drawing on readings, and their own experience, the cohort co-generated themes on AI's role in learning, which the instructor then used to code all class submissions. Findings suggest that, when used as intended, AI supported learning by deepening conceptual understanding, providing validation and building confidence, and supporting adult learners in constructing knowledge.
AlasadiE. A.BaizC. R. (2023). Generative AI in education and research: Opportunities, concerns, and solutions. Journal of Chemical Education, 100(8), 2965–2971. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00323
AlkinM. C.ChristieC. A. (2013). An evaluation theory tree. In M.C. Alkin (Ed.) Evaluation roots: A wider perspective of theorists' views and influences (2nd ed., pp. 11–57). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
4.
AlnafrahI. (2025). The Two Tales of AI: A Global assessment of the environmental impacts of artificial intelligence from a multidimensional policy perspective. Journal of Environmental Management, 392, Article 126813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.126813
5.
ArchibaldT. (2021). The role of evaluative thinking in the teaching of evaluation. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 35(3), 310–319. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.69753
6.
BeesonE. (2018). The SAGE encyclopedia of educational research, measurement, and evaluation (Vol. 4, pp. 92–92). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506326139.n43.
7.
CAST. (2018). Universal Design for Learning guidelines version 2.2. Retrieved September 25, 2025, from http://udlguidelines.cast.org
8.
ChilisaB.MertensD. M. (2021). Indigenous made in Africa evaluation frameworks: Addressing epistemic violence and contributing to social transformation. American Journal of Evaluation, 42(2), 241–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214020948601
9.
FoxC.GrimmR.CaldeiraR. (2016). Evaluation paradigms and the limits of evidence-based policy. In An introduction to evaluation (pp. 260–277). London, United Kingdom: Sage Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473983151
10.
GiannakosM.AzevedoR.BrusilovskyP.CukurovaM.DimitriadisY.Hernandez-LeoD.RientiesB. (2024). The promise and challenges of generative AI in education. Behaviour & Information Technology, 44(11), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2024.2394886
11.
GreeneJ. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
12.
HarnarM. A.PrieurA. M.Ross NelsonK. (2025). Using cognitive complexity to understand role-play as a pedagogical tool in graduate evaluation education. The American Journal of Evaluation, 46(3), 338–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/10982140241242128
13.
KnowlesM. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy (Revised and Updated). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Cambridge Adult Education.
14.
McGrath C.CerrattoP.JuthN.PalmgrenP. (2023). University teachers’ perceptions of responsibility and artificial intelligence in higher education - An experimental philosophical study. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 4,Article 100139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100139
15.
MemarianA.DoleckT. (2023). Fairness, accountability, transparency, and ethics (FATE) in AI and higher education: A systematic review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 5, 100152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100152
16.
MertensD. M.WilsonA. T. (2018). Program evaluation theory and practice: A comprehensive guide (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
MimoudiA. (2025). Generative AI to bridge the educational divide: Personalized learning and challenges. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 12, Article 102140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.102140
19.
NorooziO.SoleimaniS.FarrokhniaM.BanihashemS. K. (2024). Generative AI in education: Pedagogical, theoretical, and methodological perspectives. International Journal of Technology in Education, 7(3), 373–385. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijte.845
20.
SharplesM. (2023). Towards social generative AI for education: Theory, practices and ethics. Learning: Research and Practice, 9(2), 159–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2023.2261131
21.
Su (苏嘉红)J.Yang (杨伟鹏)W. (2023). Unlocking the power of ChatGPT: A framework for applying generative AI in education. ECNU Review of Education, 6(3), 355–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/20965311231168423
22.
TierneyA.PeaseyP.GouldJ. (2025). Student perceptions on the impact of AI on their teaching and learning experiences in higher education. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 20, Article 5. https://doi.org/10.58459/rptel.2025.20005
23.
TrevisanM. S. (2004). Practical training in evaluation: A review of the literature. American Journal of Evaluation, 25(2), 255–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/109821400402500212
24.
YinZChintaS.V.WantZ.GonzalezM.ZhangW. (2025). FairAIED: Navigating fairness, bias, and ethics in educational AI applications. ArXiv, abs/2407.18745, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.18745
25.
ZhaiC.WibowoS.LiL. D. (2024). The effects of over-reliance on AI dialogue systems on students' cognitive abilities: a systematic review. Smart Learning Environments, 11(1), Article 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00316-7
