This question is at the centre of a new exam format in Danish at Future Classroom Teacher (FCT) at University College Copenhagen. As one of the first teacher education programmes to do so, FCT is now testing an exam model where generative AI is permitted in parts of the examination process. But the permission comes with an important condition: AI may be used only when the student can document, justify and critically reflect on its role.

This is not an exam that asks whether students can get AI to produce an answer. It is an exam that asks whether future teachers can demonstrate professional judgement in a world where AI is already reshaping how texts are read, written, designed, revised and assessed.

A new kind of exam for a new kind of classroom

The written exam in Danish for FCT is built around a close relationship between Danish subject didactics and technological literacy. It consists of a four-day laboratory part followed by a six-hour on-site written exam. The laboratory gives students time to work with a practice-based case, theoretical texts and the development of a digital product. The on-site exam then builds on the same overall context and asks students to analyse and evaluate pupil-produced multimodal texts, formulate formative feedback and connect their response to teaching.

In the 2026 exam material, the case focuses on interactive storytelling, coding and Twine in a future 7th grade Danish classroom. Students must argue why pupils should work with interactive narratives, how Danish as a school subject is understood in this kind of design, and how literacies, multimodality, language, coding and technological understanding can be brought together without losing the core of the subject.

This makes the exam highly contemporary. Pupils today do not only meet texts as printed pages. They meet texts as interfaces, links, choices, images, systems, prompts, platforms and interactive environments. The exam therefore asks future teachers to work with an expanded concept of text — one where meaning is created across verbal language, visual design, navigation, structure and user interaction.

AI is allowed — but not invisible

The most striking element is the regulated use of generative AI. In the laboratory part of the written exam, AI is permitted. In the on-site written exam, it is not. This distinction is important. It allows students to explore AI as part of a longer design, writing and production process, while still preserving a controlled exam situation where individual analytical performance can be assessed without AI support.

When AI is used, students must submit documentation as an appendix. This includes a critical reflection on the chosen AI tools, prompt and chat histories, and a short reflection on the writing and production process. The purpose is not simply to “declare” AI use in a formal sense. The purpose is to make the student’s professional choices visible.

Why was this AI tool selected? What was it used for? What was rejected? How were outputs evaluated? Where did AI help, and where did it risk weakening the academic or didactic quality of the work?

These questions are crucial because they shift the focus from detection to judgement. The exam does not attempt to pretend that AI does not exist. Nor does it surrender the assessment to AI-generated output. Instead, it treats AI use as something that must be made transparent, examined and discussed.

Critical reflection as a professional competence

The FCT AI guidelines are built around principles such as reliability, honesty, respect and responsibility. Students must be able to verify information, be open about their use of AI, consider ethical consequences and take full responsibility for the final product.

This is a demanding model, because it does not reduce AI to a technical shortcut. It asks students to demonstrate academic integrity and professional independence while using powerful tools that can support brainstorming, language revision, summarising, feedback, image production or experimentation.

In that sense, the AI documentation becomes more than an appendix. It becomes a window into the student’s thinking. It can show how the student frames a problem, tests alternatives, evaluates suggestions, improves prompts, identifies limitations and makes independent decisions.

For future teachers, this is essential. They will not only need to use AI themselves. They will need to guide pupils in responsible and meaningful use of AI. They will need to understand when AI supports learning, when it hides learning, and when it risks narrowing pupils’ language, imagination or critical agency.

The teacher is no longer the only brain in the room

The exam reflects a broader development in FCT: teaching is no longer imagined as a space where knowledge flows from teacher to pupil through stable materials and predictable tasks. Instead, the classroom is understood as a dynamic environment where teachers, pupils, texts, technologies and digital systems all participate in shaping learning.

As Lise Dissing Møller, coordinator and teacher at Future Classroom Teacher, puts it:

“Over these eight years, we’ve had to completely rethink what it means to teach. We’ve created a culture where the teacher is no longer the only brain in the room.”

This does not make the teacher less important. On the contrary, it makes the teacher’s professional judgement even more important. When AI, multimodal tools and interactive platforms enter the classroom, the teacher must be able to design learning environments where technology strengthens — rather than replaces — subject knowledge, creativity and critical reflection.

From Twine to teacher judgement

The exam’s focus on Twine and interactive narratives is a strong example of this balance. Twine is not included merely because it is digital. It is included because it invites pupils to think about narrative structure, reader choices, links, consequences, coherence and multimodal meaning-making.

When pupils create interactive stories, they must consider how a text changes when the reader is allowed to choose a path. They must work with plot, conflict, endings, linguistic precision and textual cohesion. At the same time, they must understand how digital structures shape meaning. A link is not just a technical function; it is also a sign, a narrative possibility and a didactic choice.

This is exactly the kind of complexity the FCT exam asks students to handle. They must argue for a didactic design, create a digital product, analyse pupil texts and formulate feedback that supports both language development and technological understanding.

An exam that points forward

The FCT exam model is important because it does not treat AI as a threat to education in itself. It treats uncritical, undocumented and unreflective AI use as the problem. That distinction matters.

By allowing AI in a clearly defined part of the exam, FCT creates a space where students can practise the kind of judgement they will need as teachers. They must learn to work with AI without outsourcing their thinking. They must learn to document their process without reducing documentation to bureaucracy. And they must learn to connect technology use to the central questions of Danish didactics: What is a text? What is language? What does it mean to read, write, interpret, create and respond in a digital culture?

This makes the exam more than a practical adjustment to new technology. It is a pedagogical statement. Future teachers need to be prepared for classrooms where AI is present, whether schools feel ready or not. The task is therefore not to choose between technology and subject knowledge, but to educate teachers who can bring them into a critical and constructive relationship.

FCT’s new exam format is a first step in that direction. It shows that AI can be part of an exam without becoming the exam. What is being assessed is still the student’s independent professional competence: the ability to analyse, design, create, evaluate, reflect and take responsibility.

That may be one of the most important competencies for future teachers in the years to come.

Author: Lise Møller