The Aeneid is exactly the kind of text that generative AI tools can write about fluently, since the poem and its common themes are heavily discussed online. Teachers worry that students may submit essays that sound polished but reflect little personal engagement. Detection tools are unreliable and can produce false accusations, so many educators are turning to assignment design and grading practices instead. These approaches focus on making genuine student thinking visible.

One effective strategy is requiring specific engagement with the text that generic responses tend to lack. Asking students to analyze a particular passage that was discussed in class, cite line numbers from the edition they are using, and refer to an in-class observation makes it harder to submit a generic essay. These requirements also reward students who actually did the reading. They shift the emphasis from broad themes to concrete evidence.

Process-based assignments offer another safeguard. Collecting an outline, a draft, and a short reflection on revision decisions provides a record of how the essay developed. Teachers can see the student's thinking evolve and notice if the final product departs sharply from earlier work. This approach is educational in itself and reduces the incentive to outsource the writing.

Setting clear expectations about AI use

Ambiguity about what is allowed creates problems for both students and teachers. A clear policy should state whether AI tools may be used for brainstorming, outlining, grammar checking, or not at all, and should explain why. Students should also know how to disclose any permitted use. Explaining the learning goals behind the policy helps students understand that the point is to build their own skills.

• State plainly which uses of AI are permitted and which are not
• Require citations to specific lines and class discussions
• Collect outlines and drafts to show the writing process
• Include a short oral check-in or written reflection on the essay
• Focus feedback on the student's own reasoning and evidence

Grading in ways that value authentic work

Rubrics can be adjusted to reward features that are difficult to fake. Criteria such as precise textual evidence, engagement with class discussion, and specific analysis of word choice favor students who have done the work. Generic summaries and broad claims, which AI tools produce easily, earn lower marks under such rubrics. This approach rewards the right behaviors without requiring accusations.

When an essay seems suspicious, a conversation is usually better than a formal accusation. Asking the student to explain their argument or discuss a specific passage can reveal whether they understand the material. This approach is fair and educational, and it avoids the risks of relying on detection software. Teachers should follow school policies on academic integrity throughout.

Using AI responsibly as a grading support

Teachers who use AI to help with grading should be transparent about doing so and should keep their own judgment central. Rubric-based tools can provide consistent first-pass feedback, while the teacher reviews results and decides on final scores. This is different from asking a tool to determine whether a student cheated. Keeping these roles distinct maintains fairness and trust.

Modeling responsible use can also teach students something valuable. Explaining how technology supports the grading process, without replacing human judgment, demonstrates thoughtful engagement with new tools. Students may be more willing to follow expectations when they see consistent practice. It opens the door to honest conversations about the role of AI in learning.

Building a culture of integrity

Academic integrity is easier to maintain when students feel their work is valued and their voices matter. Assignments that invite personal interpretation, such as asking which character's perspective in the Aeneid they find most compelling and why, encourage genuine engagement. Teachers can celebrate original insights in class. This builds a culture where honest effort is recognized.

Regular communication about expectations and consequences reinforces this culture. Teachers can review the policy at the start of each unit and answer questions openly. When students understand both the rules and the reasons behind them, compliance improves. The goal is to support learning rather than to police it.