This study explores the integration of AI, particularly large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, into educational settings, focusing on the implications for teaching and learning. Through interviews with course coordinators from data science courses at Wageningen University, this research identifies both the benefits and challenges associated with AI in the classroom. While AI tools can streamline tasks and enhance learning, concerns arise regarding students' overreliance on these technologies, potentially hindering the development of essential cognitive and problem solving skills. The study highlights the importance of responsible AI usage, ethical considerations, and the need for adapting assessment methods to ensure educational outcomes are met. With careful integration, AI can be a valuable asset in education, provided it is used to complement rather than replace fundamental learning processes.

The influence of Artificial Intelligence (AI), and specifically Large Language Models (LLM), on education is continuously increasing. These models are frequently used by students, giving rise to the question whether current forms of assessment are still a valid way to evaluate student performance and comprehension. The theoretical framework developed in this paper is grounded in Constructive Alignment (CA) theory and Bloom's taxonomy for defining learning objectives. We argue that AI influences learning objectives of different Bloom levels in a different way, and assessment has to be adopted accordingly. Furthermore, in line with Bloom's vision, formative and summative assessment should be aligned on whether the use of AI is permitted or not. Although lecturers tend to agree that education and assessment need to be adapted to the presence of AI, a strong bias exists on the extent to which lecturers want to allow for AI in assessment. This bias is caused by a lecturer's familiarity with AI and specifically whether they use it themselves. To avoid this bias, we propose structured guidelines on a university or faculty level, to foster alignment among the staff. Besides that, we argue that teaching staff should be trained on the capabilities and limitations of AI tools. In this way, they are better able to adapt their assessment methods.

Case Management has been gradually evolving to support Knowledge-intensive business process management, which resulted in developing different modeling languages, e.g., Declare, Dynamic Condition Response (DCR), and Case Management Model and Notation (CMMN). A language will die if users do not accept and use it in practice - similar to extinct human languages. Thus, it is important to evaluate how users perceive languages to determine if there is a need for improvement. Although some studies have investigated how the process designers perceived Declare and DCR, there is a lack of research on how they perceive CMMN. Therefore, this study investigates how the process designers perceive the usefulness and ease of use of CMMN and DCR based on the Technology Acceptance Model. DCR is included to enable comparing the study result with previous ones. The study is performed by educating master level students with these languages over eight weeks by giving feedback on their assignments to reduce perceptions biases. The students' perceptions are collected through questionnaires before and after sending feedback on their final practice in the exam. Thus, the result shows how the perception of participants can change by receiving feedback - despite being well trained. The reliability of responses is tested using Cronbach's alpha, and the result indicates that both languages have an acceptable level for both perceived usefulness and ease of use.