{"resourceId":"student-life-washu-professor-drops-writing-for-in-class-exams-ai-detection-20261029","versions":[{"version":"external-ec59d49726ba1ed639b6ee01033933e8f34be4b2d77549b010495e21279f0ee2","resource":{"id":"student-life-washu-professor-drops-writing-for-in-class-exams-ai-detection-20261029","title":"WashU professors diverge on AI: an intro psychology professor replaced writing assignments with in-class exams after colleagues could not tell AI from student writing","organization":"Washington University in St. Louis (+AI initiative; Psychological & Brain Sciences; English)","sector":"Higher education teaching, assessment design and academic integrity","geography":"St. Louis, Missouri, United States","publishedAt":"Student Life, 29 October 2026","publicationDate":"2026-10-29","eventDate":null,"sourceName":"Student Life","sourceLabel":"Student newspaper reporting","sourceUrl":"https://www.studlife.com/uncategorized/2026/10/29/as-ai-sweeps-into-higher-education-two-professors-take-divergent-approaches","evidenceClass":"independent-reporting","outcomeClass":"cautionary","topics":["knowledge-work","operating-model"],"finding":"WashU's +AI initiative provides enterprise AI tools and a mandatory Canvas module for incoming students. An Introduction to Psychology professor who uses AI for slides and research ran an informal test giving five faculty a mix of AI and student writing; they said they could not identify the origin. He removed writing assignments and now uses three in-class exams and an in-class final, which he called a terrible way to evaluate students, and said he lacks administrative guidance on AI-resistant writing assignments. A creative writing director rejects AI for learning, ignores +AI emails, and starts integrity concerns with a conversation because detection tools are unreliable. Students said instructors should remain the core source of learning.","sledRelevance":"A concrete case of AI pressure narrowing assessment to in-class multiple-choice exams, a student-success risk for students who show learning better through writing.","evidence":"Faculty and student interviews; an informal, unpublished faculty detection test.","architectureImplications":"Interpretation: institutional AI suites and mandatory LMS modules do not by themselves supply assessment-design support.","governanceImplications":"Faculty report no direct administrative guidance on AI-resilient writing assignments.","securityPrivacyImplications":"Not addressed beyond reliance on conversation rather than detection software.","caveats":"Two professors; anecdotal test; reporter is a student in one course (disclosed by the paper).","streamIds":["student-success"],"roles":{"sales":"Sales framing: this WashU account shows a real cost of AI pressure on teaching: a professor dropped writing for in-class exams he considers poor assessment, and says he lacks central guidance. Teaching and learning centres are the natural buyer for assessment redesign support. A bounded engagement could build discipline-specific AI-resilient writing assignment patterns with faculty. Do not claim detection tools solve this; the faculty quoted distrust them, and the test was informal.","engineering":"Engineering framing: technical options here are about assessment workflow rather than detection: process capture such as drafts and version history, oral or in-class checkpoints, and LMS features that structure staged submissions. Check what the institution's LMS and AI suite already support. Proof of value should show a staged writing assignment can run at intro-course scale without excessive grading load, and that process evidence is reviewable by teaching assistants in a reasonable time.","delivery":"Delivery framing: delivery should give faculty practical alternatives before more courses abandon writing. Work includes a short library of AI-resilient writing designs, orientation sessions for new faculty, and teaching assistant guidance on reviewing process evidence. Pilot with a large intro course and compare grading workload and student feedback against the in-class exam format. Keep integrity handling conversation-first, consistent with faculty distrust of detection software."},"roleDetails":{"sales":{"customerProblem":"Faculty abandon writing assessment for in-class exams because they cannot distinguish AI from student writing and lack guidance.","stakeholders":["Teaching and learning center","Department chairs","Faculty","Academic integrity office","Students"],"discoveryQuestions":["How many courses have removed writing because of AI?","What assessment-design support exists for new faculty?","How are integrity concerns handled without detectors?"],"valueHypothesis":"Interpretation: discipline-specific AI-resilient assignment patterns could preserve writing without heavy detection reliance.","potentialEngagement":"Assessment redesign support for large intro courses, piloted in one department.","unsupportedClaims":["That faculty cannot detect AI in general, from one informal test","That in-class exams reduce learning","That detection tools are effective"]},"engineering":{"fit":"Institutions with an LMS supporting staged submissions and version history.","architectureIntegration":"Staged LMS assignments, draft and version capture, and optional in-class or oral checkpoints.","prerequisites":["LMS staged-submission features","Teaching assistant capacity","Faculty willing to pilot"],"constraints":["Large enrolments raise grading load","Students can use tools outside managed systems","Discipline differences"],"security":"Process evidence includes student drafts; set access and retention rules.","proofOfValue":["Grading time per student measured in a pilot","Student feedback compared with exam format","Process evidence review feasible for teaching assistants"]},"delivery":{"work":"Build an assignment design library, run new-faculty orientation sessions, and pilot staged writing in a large intro course.","dependencies":["Teaching center staff","Faculty participation","LMS configuration"],"ownership":"Center for teaching and learning with department chairs.","skillsAdoption":"Faculty workshops on AI-resilient writing; teaching assistant training on process review.","governanceCheckpoints":["Department review of redesigned assessments","Integrity office review of conversation-first process","End-of-term pilot review"],"acceptanceCriteria":["Proposed: pilot course retains a writing component","Proposed: grading time within agreed limits","Proposed: student feedback collected and reported"],"risks":["Faculty time constraints","Uneven adoption across departments","Students still outsourcing drafts"]}},"retrievedAt":"2026-10-30T03:20:59Z","enrichedAt":"2026-10-30T03:25:23Z","enrichmentBasis":"retrieved source","accessibilityWorkforceImplications":"Professor notes multiple-choice formats disadvantage students who are not strong test-takers; faculty want orientation support.","procurementImplications":"Interpretation: detection tools are distrusted by these faculty, weakening the case for buying them.","operatingModelImplications":"Assessment redesign is falling to individual faculty without central support.","sourceVerification":{"openedUrl":"https://www.studlife.com/uncategorized/2026/10/29/as-ai-sweeps-into-higher-education-two-professors-take-divergent-approaches","referenceExcerpt":"Now in Intro Psych, we have three in-class exams [and] a final in-class exam, and I think that’s a terrible way to evaluate students.","promptVersion":"sled-research-v4.0","model":null,"basis":"agent-reported inspection"}}}]}