At DTU Compute, we have received the communication regarding the planned elimination of pen and paper (PnP) exams at DTU from 2027/28 onward. This proposal has raised considerable concern among faculty at DTU Compute. While we fully support DTU’s strategic ambition to develop and modernize assessment forms, we are concerned that a complete removal of PnP exams at this stage does not support the goal of educating Europe’s most competent engineers.

We outline our concerns below:

Didactic value of PnP exams
In many courses, PnP is used to solve problems as a didactic method. The thinking process is emphasized and not interrupted by digital tools. Our experience is that the limitations on digital tools in such courses reduce complexity, student stress, and improve the learning outcomes. Students strongly appreciate the approach. In the exam, solutions are typically communicated in sketches, drawings and formulas with math notation. It is difficult to reach the same level of detail and clarity by typing on a computer. We would like to keep PnP as part of the exam to build on these positive experiences.

Need for AI-robust assessment formats
We need AI-free exams that allow us to assess students’ learning and not genAI’s capabilities. In many of our large courses with several hundred students, written exams without access to such tools are both the desired and the only scalable assessment format. With the emergence and rapid development of generative AI tools, allowing computers in exams makes the use of unapproved assistance easier, while reliable detection remains difficult. We have already observed several exam solutions that appear unusually strong, but we have no reliable way to substantiate concerns. This undermines the validity of exams, threatens the institution’s credibility, and potentially decreases student and teacher motivation. At present, PnP exams remain the most robust option in such contexts.

Limitations of current proctoring solutions
We have recently conducted a trial exam with the department’s study board using the available proctoring systems, Observer and Safe Exam Browser, provided by Arcanic. The trial revealed significant limitations. It showed that the systems only support commercial operating systems from the big tech industry (Windows, MacOS) and compromise any reasonable privacy standards. It is highly problematic if the Linux operating system, which any computer science student should learn to master, is not compatible with attending written exams at DTU. Furthermore, it is very easy to circumvent the proctoring. Based on this experience, we do not consider current proctoring solutions sufficiently mature for large-scale deployment.

Students’ perspectives
In the study board, students and faculty articulate the need for keeping the option for PnP exams open. Students, supported by faculty, also emphasize the importance of trust (pointing to the code of conduct), that the mentioned misalignment between learning activities and the exam is not acceptable, and that exams with only printed material allowed are not considered sustainable. When genAI is emerging in all software, we leave students behind by not giving clear guidelines on the use of software in exams. It is easy to imagine students using AI or agents without even being aware. We believe that clearer institutional guidelines are urgently needed. 

Consequences of forced transition
If PnP exams are removed without viable alternatives, we foresee that large courses may be forced to adopt pass/fail grading to maintain fairness or put a cap on the intake. In addition, we may consider merging courses to reduce the number of exams. Such changes are dramatic and may very well be challenging to the legal grounds for the educational system. It takes a long time to rethink the structure.

Generative AI poses a difficult and global challenge for assessment in higher education. We are constructively working towards finding solutions at several levels, but we recommend that this challenge be addressed at the institutional level, with coordinated support and collaboration across departments, study programmes, and teaching staff, rather than relying solely on departmental and individual initiatives. Only in this way will we find solutions that work across the university.

We strongly recommend that DTU retains the possibility of conducting written examinations without computers while more robust and aligned alternatives are developed. If a general policy change is implemented, we propose that study boards be given the authority to grant exemptions where academically justified.

At DTU Compute, we are highly aware that our scientific disciplines and the educational practices are changing rapidly these years due to AI. We are experimenting at all levels, and we would welcome the opportunity to collaborate with the rest of DTU to pilot initiatives across full degree programmes exploring new and timely forms of meaningful assessment.

Yours sincerely,
Aasa Feragen, Alberto Lluch Lafuente, Alceste Scalas, Allan Peter Engsig-Karup, Anders Nymark Christensen, Andreas Bærentzen, Andrea Burattin, Andrey Rivkin, Bjarne Kjær Ersbøll, Bjørn Sand Jensen, Bo Friis Nielsen, Carlos E. Budde, Carsten Baum, Carsten Thomassen, Carsten Witt, Christian Henriksen, Christian Majenz, Davide Calì, David Brander, David Earl Roberson, Dimitrios Papadopoulos, Ekkart Kindler, Emmanouil Vasilomanolakis, Finn Årup Nielsen, Flemming Stassen, Georgios Arvanitidis, Henrik Madsen, Hubert Baumeister, Hugo A. López, Inge Li Gørtz, Ivana Konvalinka, Jakob Lemvig, Jakob M. Pedersen, Jakob Sauer Jørgensen, Jan Kloppenborg Møller, Jan Madsen, Jes Frellsen, John Bagterp Jørgensen, Jørgen Villadsen, Karen Ambrosen, Karl Magnus Heuer, Kim Knudsen, Kristian Uldall Kristiansen, Lars Kai Hansen, Luca Pezzarossa, Luisa Siniscalchi, Mads Peter Sørensen, Maria Montanucci, Martin Skovgaard Andersen, Marzieh Hasannasabjaldehbakhani, Michael Pedersen, Michael Riis Andersen, Morten Brøns, Morten Mørup, Nicola Dragoni, Nick Papior, Nicki Skafte Detlefsen, Ole Christensen, Per Bækgaard, Per Christian Hansen, Peter Beelen, Philip Bille, Poul G Hjorth, Rasmus Larsen, Razgar Ebrahimy, Sebastian Mödersheim, Steen Markvorsen, Sune Lehmann, Søren Hauberg, Theodora Kontogianni, Tobias Andersen, Tommy Sonne Alstrøm, Tyge Tiessen, Uffe Høgsbro Thygesen, Vedrana Andersen Dahl, Yiqiu Dong
 

Faculty at DTU Compute