The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes is a frequent subject of essay assignments, and that popularity makes it especially easy for students to generate a passable response using a chatbot. The stories are famous, widely analyzed, and summarized across the internet, so a generic essay can be produced in seconds. Teachers who still want to use these stories need a plan for protecting the integrity of the assignment.

The first line of defense is a clear policy. State what is allowed, such as brainstorming or checking grammar, what is not allowed, such as generating full paragraphs, and how students should disclose any use. Ambiguity creates room for excuses and puts teachers in uncomfortable situations, while a specific policy gives everyone a shared standard.

Prompt design is the second line of defense. Generic prompts such as "analyze Holmes's methods" invite generic answers, while prompts tied to class discussion or a specific passage require students to engage more personally. Asking students to respond to an argument made in class or to use a particular quotation makes it harder for a tool to produce an acceptable answer without their involvement.

Building Process into the Assignment

Requiring drafts, outlines, and reflection notes gives you visibility into how each essay develops. A student who submits only a polished final paper offers little evidence of their own thinking, while one who provides an outline, two drafts, and a short revision memo has documented their process. These artifacts also make it easier to have a fair conversation if you are concerned about authenticity.

• Collect a brief in-class thesis and outline before the essay is drafted at home
• Require at least one draft with visible changes between versions
• Ask students to submit a short note explaining their strongest revision and why they made it
• Include a follow-up question about the essay that must be answered in class without notes
• Grade process elements with a small portion of the total score to reward genuine effort

Handling Suspected Misuse Fairly

Detection tools are imperfect and can produce false positives, so accusations should never rest on a single score. Instead, look for concrete signs, such as a sudden shift in voice, generic claims that ignore class discussion, or citations that do not match the story. Begin with a conversation in which the student explains their argument in their own words.

Follow your school or department policy and document what you observe. Treat students fairly and give them a chance to respond, since misunderstandings do occur. A consistent, transparent process protects both students and teachers.

Distinguishing Assistance from Substitution

Not all AI use is misuse, and it helps to distinguish between tools that support learning and those that replace it. A student who asks a chatbot to explain the meaning of an unfamiliar Victorian term is using it as a reference, while a student who submits generated paragraphs is substituting. Spelling out this distinction in your policy helps students make appropriate choices.

You can also model responsible use by demonstrating how feedback tools work within the boundaries you set. When students see the teacher using AI to support grading and feedback transparently, they better understand the difference between support and substitution. That clarity encourages honest engagement with the assignment.

Grading to Reward Authentic Thinking

Rubrics can be designed to reward specificity, personal insight, and engagement with class conversation, all of which are harder to fake. A row for originality of interpretation, for example, gives credit to students who offer a distinctive reading supported by evidence. Generic essays tend to earn lower marks on this row regardless of how well they are written.

AI grading tools can support this by applying the rubric consistently and flagging essays that lack specific textual engagement. The teacher then examines those essays more closely, using the tool as a guide rather than a judge. This approach keeps human judgment at the center of decisions about integrity and grades.