Teachers who assign Mountains Beyond Mountains now face a practical question: how do you design essay assignments that students must actually think through? A generic prompt such as "discuss Paul Farmer's impact" can be answered by a chatbot in seconds with a polished but shallow response. Detection tools are unreliable, and relying on suspicion damages trust. Better prompt design and process-based assessment offer more dependable solutions.

The most effective prompts require engagement with specifics that a general-purpose tool cannot easily supply. Ask students to analyze a particular scene they chose, connect it to a discussion from class, or respond to a classmate's argument from a seminar. Include a requirement to cite page numbers from the edition used in class. These features do not make cheating impossible, but they make generic output obviously inadequate.

Assignments that ask for personal judgment also help. A prompt that asks students to decide whether they would have supported Farmer's spending priorities if they were a health official, and to defend that decision using evidence from the book and their own values, is hard to answer without real thought. Even if a student uses a tool to brainstorm, the resulting essay will need their own reasoning to be persuasive.

Building Process Into the Assignment

Requiring visible stages of work makes authenticity easier to see. Ask for an annotated outline, a rough draft, a peer review, and a revision memo explaining changes. These artifacts show how the essay developed and make it difficult to substitute a finished product. They also improve writing, since the process is where most learning happens.

• Collect a thesis and three pieces of evidence with page numbers before the full draft is due.
• Hold a short in-class writing session on one passage so you can see each student's natural voice.
• Require a revision note that explains two changes made in response to feedback.
• Ask students to reference a specific class discussion or classmate's point in their argument.
• Offer a brief oral check-in where students explain their thesis and evidence choices.

Setting a Clear and Fair AI Policy

Students need to know exactly what is and is not allowed. Some teachers permit AI for brainstorming and grammar checks but prohibit it for drafting, while others ban it entirely. Whatever the policy, write it down, explain the reasoning, and give examples of acceptable and unacceptable use. Ambiguity creates unintentional violations and unfair accusations.

Consider requiring students to disclose any AI use in a brief note, including what they asked and how they used the response. Treat honest disclosure as a positive habit, not an automatic penalty. This approach encourages transparency and gives you insight into how students are using the tools. It also treats students as capable of making ethical choices.

Using Feedback to Reinforce Authentic Work

Detailed, personalized feedback encourages students to engage with their own writing. When comments reference specific sentences and ask students to explain their reasoning, there is little value in submitting work they did not create. Rubric-based AI feedback can support this by generating individualized comments quickly, which teachers then refine. The faster return of feedback also makes iterative revision realistic.

Be mindful that AI feedback tools are different from AI writing tools. Evaluating a student's own draft against a rubric does not substitute for the student's thinking, and many schools find this use more acceptable than text generation. Clarify the distinction in your policy so students understand why one is encouraged and the other restricted. This precision builds trust.

Responding When You Suspect Misuse

If an essay seems inconsistent with a student's previous work, start with a conversation rather than an accusation. Ask the student to explain their thesis, describe how they chose their evidence, or write a short paragraph on a related passage in class. Patterns in these responses usually reveal whether the work is authentic. Follow school procedures if concerns persist.

Avoid relying solely on automated detection scores, which can produce false positives and disproportionately affect English learners. Document your reasoning and the evidence considered, and keep the focus on learning. Students are more likely to change their behavior in response to clear expectations and fair processes than to threats. A thoughtful approach protects both integrity and relationships.