evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Generative AI in the Exam Room — Denmark's VIVE-Evaluated Afsætning A Trial at HHX Business Schools

Denmark · Copenhagen · See the Denmark profile · See the Copenhagen profile

Evidence: Quasi-experimental Top 56% 47/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Denmark's education agency let 10 HHX schools trial a redesigned Afsætning A exam permitting generative AI; VIVE's independent evaluation found grades at least 1 point higher than 2023-2024 exams, without a full causal explanation, and the trial continues in 2026-2027.

10
Schools in summer 2025 trial exam
~1 grade point
Average grade increase vs ordinary exams
Generative AI in the Exam Room — Denmark's VIVE-Evaluated Afsætning A Trial at HHX Business Schools Generative AI in the Exam Room — Denmark's VIVE-Evaluated Afsætning A Trial at HHX Business Schools

Details

Maturity
Scaling
Promoter
Styrelsen for Undervisning og Kvalitet (Danish Agency for Education and Quality) / VIVE
Period
Summer 2025 trial exam, continuing 2026-2027
Region (NUTS)
DK01
Keywords
assessment policy, generative AI, upper-secondary business education (HHX)

Context

Denmark's Agency for Education and Quality has run a multi-year trial of a redesigned Afsætning A (Marketing A) exam for HHX business schools that explicitly permits generative-AI use, with 10 schools in the summer 2025 trial.

Results

VIVE's independent January 2026 evaluation found average grades across the trial exams were at least one full grade point higher than the same institutions' ordinary exams in 2023 and 2024, but VIVE was explicit that its data could not establish whether this reflects genuinely stronger competency or design effects of the new format; the Agency has continued the trial into 2026–2027 with a centrally designed exam case.

Implementation

Indicative cost
Low (< €50k)
Time to results
Medium (1–3 years)
Staffing & skills
Styrelsen for Undervisning og Kvalitet (Agency for Education and Quality), VIVE (independent evaluator)

Conditions for success

  • Independent third-party evaluation (VIVE) built into the trial design from the outset

Common failure modes

  • Cannot yet distinguish genuine competency gains from format-specific grading effects

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful