Redesign assessment so fluency is not enough: process logs, staged drafts, in-class composition, and oral defences¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · no claims cited

Description¶

The article's first recommendation is to reclaim epistemic labour through assessment redesign. Because students turn to AI to meet expectations that "prioritise fluency over originality and polish over intellectual risk", the response is to design assessments for which fluency is not enough. The article specifies that "Process logs, staged drafts, in-class composition, and oral defences make the work of thinking visible, and reframe writing as a process rather than a deliverable."

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Assessments designed so that situated judgement, ethical reasoning, or genuine voice is required, which the article says AI cannot meaningfully complete

Constraints¶

• The article pitches this as a pedagogical stance rather than a checklist, and does not report empirical testing of these formats

Target Learners¶

• higher education students

Target Learning Goals¶

• epistemic labour
• intellectual depth
• writing as process

Related Strategies¶

• Require process transparency artefacts: process logs, prompt records, reflective commentaries and oral defences
• Teach students to read AI critically and discuss the difference between fluency and thought
• Redesign assessments to require critical thinking, originality, interactive activities, and real-time or proctored formats

Examples¶

-

Key Sources¶

• Chinomso Nwagboso & Sunday Atuba. (2026). Academic erasure: the disappearance of complexity under AI-supported writing. Teaching in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2026.2707601