Switch course ▾
Session 4. AI-Resistant Assignments and Pupil Rules
Objective. Redesign an assignment so that the pupil's own thinking is visible, set a clear AI-use rule with a disclosure note, and handle doubts about authorship fairly.
No assignment is fully AI-proof, and a detector cannot tell you who wrote a text. What you can do is design tasks where a pupil's own thinking is visible, say clearly what help is allowed, and handle doubts with a conversation. This session adds detail to the design moves, shows how to keep tasks fair for pupils without devices, and gives a calm way to respond when work looks too good to be true.
Key ideas
Why bans and detectors do not work
- Pupils will meet AI at home, on phones and later at work. A rule that only says 'forbidden' cannot be enforced outside your classroom.
- AI-text detectors are unreliable. A research study (Liang and colleagues, 2023) found that they often wrongly flagged essays by people writing in English as a second language.
- Many of our pupils write in a second language, so a detector score can accuse an honest child. Never treat it as proof.
Make thinking visible
- No task is AI-proof, but you can make it AI-resistant: add process evidence (a plan on paper, a draft, notes), local or personal material (an interview, a measurement from the school garden), a step done in class, and a short oral check.
- Ask for reasoning, not only a result: 'Which of your three sources did you trust least, and why?'
- Two minutes of talking with a pupil often tells you more about authorship than any tool.
Clear pupil rules and honest disclosure
- Give each task one of three levels: No AI; AI as a helper for ideas or checking, with a note; AI open for drafting, with a note. Write it on the task sheet in pupil-friendly words.
- A disclosure note takes one minute: whether AI was used, for what, and what the pupil changed. Honest notes are not punished; hidden use against a clear rule is a conversation.
- Check the age rules of any tool and your school's policy first; many tools set minimum ages and your school may be stricter.
Try it in your next lessons
- Redesign one assignment with a process step, a local element, an in-class part and an oral check, and state the AI level on the sheet. Fallback: everything here works on paper.
- Evidence: ask five pupils to explain their work for two minutes and record how many could, using a tally.
- Evidence: collect the disclosure notes and write a 5-minute observation note on what pupils said they used AI for.
Three AI levels for a task
| Level | What pupils may do | Note needed |
|---|---|---|
| No AI | Do all the thinking themselves | Only 'I did not use AI' |
| AI helper | Ask for ideas or check their own work | What for, what changed |
| AI open | Draft with AI, then rewrite and explain | Prompt and changes |
A ladder of response to doubt
Design moves in practice
Create a baseline of voice: ten minutes of in-class writing early in the term shows how a pupil writes without help, so later work can be compared fairly. Use a ladder of evidence: a plan on paper, a draft with changes visible, and a two-minute conference in which the pupil explains one choice, names the hardest part and says what they would change.
Keep local tasks fair. A task that needs an internet search or a device at home excludes children without them. Offer a paper route: the school library, an interview with a family member, a measurement in the school yard. A task that works without AI also works when the power is off.
A culture of honesty, and a calm response to doubt
Talk with pupils about why honesty matters: the purpose of the task is their learning, and an essay written by a tool teaches them nothing. Make disclosure safe by praising clear, honest notes about how AI was used. If pupils fear punishment for honesty, they will hide the use and you will learn nothing.
When work looks too polished, respond in steps: compare with class work, talk privately with an open question, ask for a short redo in class, and only then follow the school's process. Remember what the research shows: detectors can wrongly flag the writing of second-language writers, so a score must never be the reason for accusing a child.
Examples from the classroom
Two-minute conferences
Scene. Jasur teaches Grade 9 history in Fergana. Essays are now written in three stages: a paper plan, a home draft and a conference. Over one week he talks with six pupils per lesson for two minutes each, asking which source they trusted least. Pupils who wrote the work themselves answer easily, and the others quickly say they need more help.
Insight. A short conversation makes thinking visible and turns a doubt into teaching.
Answers only
Scene. Malika sets a Grade 5 sheet of 20 fraction exercises with answers only. A tool could produce them in seconds. She changes it: pupils show the method for five exercises, explain one in a sentence, and two exercises are checked orally in class. She also states 'no AI, or AI only to check answers, with a note'.
Insight. Asking for method and explanation, not just answers, makes outsourcing pointless.
No device at home
Scene. Dilnoza teaches Grade 8 Uzbek literature in Bukhara. Several pupils have no phone at home. Her poem task offers the school library after lessons and an interview with a grandparent as sources, and the rule says AI is optional for word meanings only, with a one-line note. Every pupil can do the task, with or without a device.
Insight. A fair rule and task do not depend on what the family owns.
Common pitfalls
- Accusing a pupil because a detector gave a high score.
- Banning AI without changing a task that can be outsourced in one paste.
- Setting a task that needs a device or internet at home.
- Responding to doubt in front of the class instead of privately.
Redesign the Take-Home Task
- In groups of three (10 min): take one assignment card from the Activity Kit and answer the four risk questions: could pasting the question into a tool finish it, is there local or personal material, is the process visible, must the pupil explain it?
- Same group (15 min): redesign the task with at least three changes, keeping the learning goal. Write the new task sheet in pupil-friendly words.
- Same group (10 min): choose the AI level, write the rule in two sentences and design the disclosure note.
- Role-play (10 min): one person is the teacher, one the pupil whose homework is suspiciously polished, one the observer. Use the 'talk first' script. Rotate once.
Your facilitator will guide you through this activity in the session.
Questions to discuss
- Which change made the biggest difference to how easy the task is to outsource?
- In the role-play, what made the pupil feel safe to tell the truth?
- Is your new task still fair for a pupil with no device at home?
Reflect
- Which of your regular homework tasks could be finished by pasting it into a tool?
- How do you want pupils to feel when they tell you they used AI?
- What would you say to a parent who asks whether AI use is cheating?
Try it tomorrow
- Run a ten-minute in-class writing task to keep as a voice baseline.
- Add a two-minute conference or an oral check to your next essay or project.
- Print the AI level and the disclosure note on your next task sheet.
Further reading and links
Design the task so that thinking is visible, state the AI level and the disclosure note, and talk before you judge; a detector score is never proof.