A recent survey of faculty in one large arts and sciences division found that about 64 percent now say AI has had negative effects on their courses, up from 42 percent a year earlier. Nearly nine in ten reported encountering student work they suspected was AI-generated, yet only about two-thirds felt confident they could tell the difference. Humanities courses were the most restrictive, with only about a quarter permitting any AI use, and instructors there are increasingly redesigning assessments around draft history, oral components, and in-person work.

The same survey showed that only a small share of suspected cases were referred to an honor council, which tells us that most instructors handle their doubts privately or not at all. That silence is understandable, because proving AI use is difficult and the consequences of a wrong accusation are serious. A more sustainable strategy is to design assignments so that authorship is visible from the start.

Process evidence has an advantage that detection tools lack: it is based on documents the student created and can explain. A paper that grew over three weeks, with a proposal, an outline, and a revised draft, leaves a trail that is difficult to counterfeit. It also teaches something valuable, since good writers do revise, and students who experience that process tend to write better.

Collect evidence without creating a mountain of grading

The key is to grade lightly at the early stages and heavily only at the end. A thesis statement and source list can be checked for completion in seconds, a draft can receive two or three rubric-based comments, and only the final essay needs a full evaluation. This keeps the total workload manageable while still making the writing process part of the course.

• Require a short proposal or thesis with a source list two weeks before the final deadline.
• Ask for a full draft with revision history from a shared document one week before it is due.
• Add a five-minute conversation about the paper for a sample of students or for every student.
• Request a half-page reflection on one major revision and the reason behind it.
• Grade early stages for completion and use the final essay rubric for the real evaluation.

In-person components that carry real weight

Short in-class writing samples, brief oral defenses, and timed passage analyses give you a reliable baseline for each student's voice and reasoning. When a polished take-home essay differs sharply from in-class work, you have a specific, nonaccusatory reason to talk with the student. Many instructors schedule these components early in the term so that the baseline exists before the major papers arrive.

Be thoughtful about equity when adding in-person requirements. Handwritten and oral formats can disadvantage students with disabilities, anxiety, or limited fluency, so build in accommodations and offer alternatives where needed. The goal is to verify understanding, not to create new barriers unrelated to the skills you are teaching. Offering a choice between a short oral conference and a timed in-class paragraph often lets every student demonstrate authorship in the way that suits them.

Keep feedback focused on the thinking

Feedback in a humanities course should address the quality of interpretation, the use of textual evidence, and the shape of the argument. Comments tied to specific rubric criteria, such as this claim needs a more precise relationship to the passage you quote, help students revise whatever their starting point. Teachers handling large sections can use a rubric-based drafting tool to produce first-pass comments, as long as they review and personalize each one.

Share patterns with your class, such as a common tendency to summarize instead of analyze, in short announcements or mini-lessons. Students respond to concrete examples of the standard, and the discussion builds a shared understanding of what good analysis looks like. This also reduces the need to repeat the same comment in dozens of margins. A five-minute mini-lesson built from anonymous excerpts also helps students who rarely read feedback closely, since they hear the lesson even if they skim their own paper.

Be transparent about the process

Explain to students at the start of the term why you require process evidence, framing it as part of learning to write and not as surveillance. Students who understand the purpose are more likely to participate honestly, and they tend to produce better final work. Clarity about expectations also protects you if questions later arise about a particular submission. A short, plain-language paragraph in the syllabus, repeated aloud on the first day, usually does more good than a long list of penalties.

Revisit your approach after each major assignment, asking what evidence was useful and what felt like busywork. Remove steps that did not change your understanding of a student's work and keep the ones that did. A lean, purposeful process is easier for you to sustain and easier for students to respect. Keeping a brief note after each unit about what you checked and why makes next term's planning noticeably faster.