From the Student Success edition of November 7, 2026
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
Carleton College · Higher education liberal-arts teaching, writing instruction and academic integrity · United States (Minnesota)
- Publisher
- The Carletonian
- Original publication
- The Carletonian, 6 November 2026
- Source retrieved
- 2026-11-08
What happened
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.
Why it matters
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 and measured results
Interview-based feature; practices described by faculty; no measured learning outcomes or misconduct data.
Limitations and uncertainty
Small, selective set of faculty voices at one selective college; no outcome evidence; RAND statistic cited refers to K-12 students.
Put this evidence to work
Lighthouse Advisory interpretation, grounded in this source. Enriched 2026-11-08; this does not change the original publication date. Each role follows the same checklist so takeaways compare across sources.
Sales
Role takeaway
- Customer problem
- 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
- Discovery questions
- Which courses have moved writing into class time?
- How are accommodations handled for in-person writing?
- Where does faculty want structured AI exploration?
- Value hypothesis
- Interpretation: supporting faculty-chosen controls and accommodations may build trust before any AI tool adoption; no outcomes measured.
- Potential engagement
- Course-design and accommodation review for in-class writing models in a small set of courses.
- Unsupported claims
- Handwriting labs improve learning
- Representative of all faculty
- Reduced misconduct
Pre-sales engineering
Role takeaway
- Fit
- Limited; possibly locked-down offline writing environments for accommodations.
- Architecture and integration
- 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.
- Proof of value
- Pilot accessible alternative with disability services
- Measure class-time cost
- Student feedback on fairness
Delivery
Role takeaway
- 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
- Skills and adoption
- Faculty share practices; students adjust to in-class writing expectations.
- Governance checkpoints
- Accommodation policy review
- Syllabus AI statement
- Academic standing committee consultation
- Acceptance criteria
- 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
Implementation considerations
Lighthouse Advisory interpretation across the operating dimensions a public-sector buyer must settle before this evidence becomes a design. Each note answers the question under its heading for this specific source.
Architecture and integration
What must connect, and where does the AI sit in the workflow?
Minimal technology; practices deliberately remove devices from writing time.
Governance
Who approves, reviews and stays accountable for outcomes?
Course-level discretion ranges from prohibition to exploratory use; an AI academic initiatives director coexists with bans.
Security and privacy
What data, permissions and controls need testing?
Limited relevance; reduces dependence on detection and on student data flowing to AI tools.
Accessibility and workforce
Who is affected, and what skills or accommodations follow?
Handwriting labs and in-class quizzes may disadvantage students needing accommodations (e.g., assistive typing) unless alternatives are designed; consumes class time.
Procurement
What should contracts, pricing and exit terms secure?
Suggests limited appetite for AI tool purchases in foundational writing courses at such institutions.
Operating model
Which teams own the service once it runs?
Moves assessment into supervised class periods, reducing time for other instruction and requiring room scheduling.
Publication history
- 2026-11-07Student Success · Issue 615 resources
Stable resource ID: carletonian-carleton-professors-ai-handwriting-labs-in-class-quizzes-20261106