{"resourceId":"carletonian-carleton-professors-ai-handwriting-labs-in-class-quizzes-20261106","versions":[{"version":"external-d7dceac8da99a68c3841db7b63297fb37c611f6bbb4ecf73a1ee8d01907d0396","resource":{"id":"carletonian-carleton-professors-ai-handwriting-labs-in-class-quizzes-20261106","title":"The Carletonian: Carleton professors move writing into in-person handwriting labs and in-class quizzes while AI director warns blanket bans won’t prepare students","organization":"Carleton College","sector":"Higher education liberal-arts teaching, writing instruction and academic integrity","geography":"United States (Minnesota)","publishedAt":"The Carletonian, 6 November 2026","publicationDate":"2026-11-06","eventDate":null,"sourceName":"The Carletonian","sourceLabel":"Student newspaper","sourceUrl":"https://thecarletonian.com/21204/arts-and-features/the-elephant-in-the-classroom-how-do-professors-grapple-with-ai-at-carleton/","evidenceClass":"independent-reporting","outcomeClass":"cautionary","topics":["knowledge-work","operating-model","accessibility-workforce"],"finding":"The Carletonian (6 Nov 2026) profiles Carleton faculty responses to generative AI. Philosophy professor Jason Decker, on the Academic Standing Committee, runs in-person writing labs where students handwrite drafts without computers, meeting up to three times a week, with no writing outside lab except outlining and brainstorming. Film professor Catherine Licata prohibits AI and replaced take-home reflections with low-stakes in-class quizzes after students under workload pressure offloaded small assignments. English professor George Cusack, Director of AI Academic Initiatives, bans AI in the essay process for 100-level courses but uses exercises to explore AI’s limits, arguing it is hard for learners to tell whether AI substitutes for their thinking and that banning AI everywhere would not prepare students.","sledRelevance":"Shows faculty-level controls—shifting work into supervised class time—that trade class time for integrity, a real operating cost for student-success and curriculum planners.","evidence":"Interview-based feature; practices described by faculty; no measured learning outcomes or misconduct data.","architectureImplications":"Minimal technology; practices deliberately remove devices from writing time.","governanceImplications":"Course-level discretion ranges from prohibition to exploratory use; an AI academic initiatives director coexists with bans.","securityPrivacyImplications":"Limited relevance; reduces dependence on detection and on student data flowing to AI tools.","caveats":"Small, selective set of faculty voices at one selective college; no outcome evidence; RAND statistic cited refers to K-12 students.","streamIds":["student-success"],"roles":{"sales":"Sales framing: at liberal-arts colleges, some faculty are protecting foundational learning by moving writing into supervised class time rather than adopting AI tools. This feature signals where AI-tutor or writing-assistant pitches will meet resistance and where an AI director still wants structured exploration. A credible engagement is supporting course-design choices and accommodations, not selling tools into courses whose faculty prohibit them.","engineering":"Engineering framing: fit for technology is narrow—these controls remove devices. Where AI is explored, sandboxed exercises that expose limits are the use case. Engineers should flag accessibility constraints: handwriting-only labs need accommodation pathways such as offline, locked-down typing environments, and any such tool must be validated with disability services rather than assumed.","delivery":"Delivery framing: faculty own course-level rules; an AI academic initiatives office can collect practices, document trade-offs and ensure accommodations. Delivery should track class-time cost, student workload and accommodation requests when courses shift to in-class writing. Acceptance criteria should be proposed measures of writing development and equitable access, since the article reports no outcomes."},"roleDetails":{"sales":{"customerProblem":"Faculty fear AI offloading erodes foundational writing and critical thinking.","stakeholders":["Faculty in writing-intensive courses","Director of AI academic initiatives","Disability services","Academic standing committee"],"discoveryQuestions":["Which courses have moved writing into class time?","How are accommodations handled for in-person writing?","Where does faculty want structured AI exploration?"],"valueHypothesis":"Interpretation: supporting faculty-chosen controls and accommodations may build trust before any AI tool adoption; no outcomes measured.","potentialEngagement":"Course-design and accommodation review for in-class writing models in a small set of courses.","unsupportedClaims":["Handwriting labs improve learning","Representative of all faculty","Reduced misconduct"]},"engineering":{"fit":"Limited; possibly locked-down offline writing environments for accommodations.","architectureIntegration":"Offline or restricted-network writing devices for accommodation cases; no LMS AI integration.","prerequisites":["Disability services partnership","Faculty agreement","Device availability"],"constraints":["Faculty prohibitions","Single-college anecdotal evidence","Accessibility obligations"],"security":"If locked-down devices are used, ensure they do not store student work insecurely.","proofOfValue":["Pilot accessible alternative with disability services","Measure class-time cost","Student feedback on fairness"]},"delivery":{"work":"Document course-level controls, design accommodations, gather student and faculty feedback.","dependencies":["Faculty","Disability services","Registrar for room scheduling","AI initiatives office"],"ownership":"Director of AI academic initiatives with department chairs","skillsAdoption":"Faculty share practices; students adjust to in-class writing expectations.","governanceCheckpoints":["Accommodation policy review","Syllabus AI statement","Academic standing committee consultation"],"acceptanceCriteria":["Proposed: all affected courses list accommodation path","Proposed: class-time cost documented","Proposed: writing rubric scores compared with prior terms"],"risks":["Accessibility barriers","Lost instructional time","Inconsistent rules across courses"]}},"retrievedAt":"2026-11-08T04:19:07Z","enrichedAt":"2026-11-08T04:22:57Z","enrichmentBasis":"retrieved source","accessibilityWorkforceImplications":"Handwriting labs and in-class quizzes may disadvantage students needing accommodations (e.g., assistive typing) unless alternatives are designed; consumes class time.","procurementImplications":"Suggests limited appetite for AI tool purchases in foundational writing courses at such institutions.","operatingModelImplications":"Moves assessment into supervised class periods, reducing time for other instruction and requiring room scheduling.","peerReview":"unknown","sourceVerification":{"openedUrl":"https://thecarletonian.com/21204/arts-and-features/the-elephant-in-the-classroom-how-do-professors-grapple-with-ai-at-carleton/","referenceExcerpt":"Licata now implements low-stakes, in-class quizzes to allow students to reflect on their work without the help of AI.","promptVersion":"sled-research-v4.0","model":null,"basis":"agent-reported inspection"}}}]}