A generic prompt about Richard Bean's The Heretic is easy for a chatbot to answer in seconds, which has left many teachers wondering how to assess real student thinking. Banning tools outright is difficult to enforce, and detection software is unreliable enough that accusations based on it can backfire. A better approach combines thoughtful assignment design with clear policies and grading practices that make original thinking visible. The aim is to make real engagement the easiest path.

Prompts that require specific classroom context are harder to outsource. Asking students to analyze a scene discussed in class, respond to a peer's argument, or connect the play to a personal observation produces writing that general tools cannot easily imitate. Including a requirement to cite particular lines from the assigned edition also helps. These design choices improve the assignment even for students who never consider shortcuts.

Process-based grading also strengthens integrity. When students submit an outline, a first draft, and a reflection on their revisions, the teacher can see how the essay developed. A final paper that differs sharply in voice or ideas from earlier work raises natural questions. Grading the process rewards students who do the thinking along the way.

Writing a Clear AI Use Policy

Ambiguity is the enemy of academic integrity, so students need to know exactly what is allowed. A good policy states whether tools may be used for brainstorming, outlining, grammar checking, or not at all, and explains how to disclose any permitted use. It should also describe what happens if the policy is violated. Teachers who explain the reasoning behind the rules tend to see better compliance.

• State which uses of AI tools are permitted and which are not for each assignment
• Require students to disclose any assistance in a short note
• Collect drafts and notes so the writing process is visible
• Include in-class writing components that show independent ability
• Explain the purpose of the assignment so students see why the thinking matters

Grading for Voice and Insight

Rubrics can reward the qualities that are hardest to fake, such as specific engagement with class discussion, personal insight tied to the text, and a distinctive angle. A paper that offers an original reading of a particular scene demonstrates thinking that generic summaries do not. Weighting these criteria heavily discourages bland, interchangeable writing. It also aligns grading with the goals of the course.

Teachers should approach suspected misuse carefully. A sudden change in quality is a reason to start a conversation, not to issue a verdict. Asking the student to explain their argument aloud or to write a short passage in class often clarifies the situation. Fair and respectful procedures protect both the student and the integrity of the course.

Using Technology Transparently

Schools that discuss AI openly with students tend to handle integrity issues better than those that avoid the topic. Teachers can also model responsible use by explaining how they themselves use tools, for example to draft rubric-based feedback that they then review. Transparency builds trust and shows that technology can support learning without replacing effort. Students notice when adults apply the same standards to themselves.

Over time, the goal is a classroom culture where students value their own thinking. Assignments that connect to real questions in the play, such as how a person responds to institutional pressure, give students something worth saying. When students care about the question, they are less tempted to outsource the answer. Good design and good relationships remain the strongest safeguards.