When students write about a lesser-known text such as Gorski vijenac, AI writing tools become both tempting and risky. A generated essay may sound confident while inventing plot points, misattributing speeches, or confusing the poem with other works. These errors can reveal that the student never read the text, but only if the instructor knows the poem well enough to spot them. Designing assignments with integrity in mind is more effective than trying to catch every violation afterward.

Start with assignment design. Prompts that require specific passages, class discussion references, or a personal line of reasoning are harder to complete with generic generated text. Asking students to analyze a short passage you supply, or to build on a point raised in a seminar, ties the work to the shared course experience. Process requirements such as outlines and drafts further make the work traceable.

Clear policy is equally important. State what uses of AI are allowed, such as brainstorming or grammar checks, and what is prohibited, such as generating whole paragraphs. Explain the reasoning behind the policy, noting that the purpose of the assignment is to develop the student's own interpretation. Students who understand the rationale are more likely to follow the rules.

Signs that a paper needs a closer look

Certain patterns warrant attention, though none is proof on its own. These include quotations that cannot be found in the assigned translation, summaries of events that do not match the poem, and a style that differs sharply from the student's earlier work. Treat these as reasons to ask questions, not as grounds for accusation. A conversation with the student about their process often clarifies the situation.

• Quotations that do not appear in the assigned translation
• Plot or character details that conflict with the poem
• Generic claims that could apply to any epic
• A voice that differs sharply from earlier submissions
• Missing drafts or notes when process work was required

Being cautious with detection software

AI detection tools are unreliable and can produce false positives, especially for English learners and for writers with formal styles. Do not base serious decisions on a detector score alone. Use it, if at all, as one weak signal that prompts a closer reading and a conversation. Fairness to students demands that accusations rest on solid evidence.

A more reliable approach is to verify the content. Check quotations against the text and ask students to explain their argument orally if concerns arise. Many instructors find that a short conference resolves doubts in either direction. This respectful process protects honest students while discouraging misuse.

Grading in a way that rewards genuine reading

Adjust your rubric to emphasize qualities that are difficult to fake, such as precise engagement with specific lines and original reasoning about them. Reward essays that show the marks of real struggle with the text, including thoughtful uncertainty. Penalize generic claims that are not anchored in the passage. This shifts incentives toward authentic work.

AI-assisted grading tools can support this by checking essays against the actual text and flagging quotations or claims that cannot be verified, saving you from checking each line by hand. They also apply your rubric consistently, so generic writing is scored as generic. You make the final determination on any integrity concern. In this way, technology assists in protecting standards without replacing human judgment.