Adapting University Teaching for a World with Generative AI

Master AI-Resilient Teaching: What You'll Achieve in 8 Weeks

In eight weeks you will transform a single course so that learning outcomes remain rigorous and meaningful in the presence of generative AI. Specifically, you will:

Redesign at least two major assignments to prioritize process, reflection, and evidence over polished final products. Create clear course language and a policy that balances academic integrity with skill-building around AI tools. Introduce one classroom activity that teaches students to critique AI-generated outputs. Adopt practical assessment techniques that reduce grading ambiguity and detect misconceptions quickly. Build a small portfolio of rubrics, prompt-safety checks, and troubleshooting responses you can reuse each term.

This guide walks you from the initial decision to redesign through the concrete steps to deploy and troubleshoot these changes in real classrooms. If you are department head or instructor, you will find templates and examples you can adapt to your discipline.

Before You Start: Required Documents and Tools for AI-Ready Courses

Before redesigning a course, collect materials and align stakeholders. Skipping this stage makes implementation messy and increases student anxiety. Gather the following:

Current syllabus, assignment prompts, and grading rubrics. Learning management system (LMS) access and knowledge of its assessment tools (quizzes, discussion boards, version history). Institutional policies on academic integrity, privacy, and third-party tool approval. Examples of AI outputs relevant to your field (e.g., essay drafts, code snippets, lab reports) to use as classroom artifacts. Simple tech: a shared document platform, a secure plagiarism tool that flags paraphrase and ghostwriting, and optionally a vetted AI sandbox for demonstrations. Colleague contacts: at least one instructional designer and one IT or library staff member willing to pilot or advise.

Finally, prepare a one-page syllabus insert that explains your stance on AI: what students must disclose, when AI is allowed, and how you will evaluate process versus product. Students respond better to clear rules paired with opportunities to practice AI literacy.

Your Complete Course-Redesign Roadmap: 8 Steps from Syllabus to Assessment

This roadmap translates policy into classroom practice. Each step includes a concrete action you can complete in one to three hours.

Inventory and prioritize learning outcomes

List the three most important skills students should graduate with from this course. Rank them by whether they are conceptual (theories), procedural (methods), or communicative (arguing, presenting). Prioritize outcomes that require reasoning and evidence over merely producing text or code.

Identify vulnerable assignments

Mark assignments where a competent AI could produce a near-final product (e.g., essays, lab reports, code). These need redesign. Low-risk items include in-class activities, oral exams, handwritten problem sets, and process logs.

Redesign for process and artefacts

Convert at least two vulnerable assignments into multi-stage tasks that require drafts, annotated feedback, source logs, and reflections. Example: replace a single final essay with a research journal, three graded drafts, and a 5-minute oral defense of methods.

Write explicit AI policy language and disclosure forms

On the syllabus, add short, specific rules: what is permitted, when disclosure is required, and what constitutes misuse. Create a one-click disclosure form where students paste prompts and list how they used AI. This keeps transparency simple.

Create learning activities around AI critique

Design a class session where students generate answers with an AI, then analyze errors, missing context, and bias. Provide a worksheet with targeted questions: "What did the model assume?" "Which sources does it cite, and are they real?"

Adjust assessment and rubrics

Change rubrics to reward process evidence: idea development, methodological choices, and corrective revisions. Add a small "AI literacy" criterion: did the student correctly disclose and evaluate AI contributions?

Pilot and collect feedback

Run a single redesigned assignment with 10-20 students. Track how long tasks take, where students get stuck, and whether disclosure forms are used honestly. Use quick surveys and a brief focus group to refine the approach.

Institutionalize and scale

Package your rubrics, sample prompts, syllabus language, and a short instructor guide. Share it with colleagues in your department, and suggest two courses you can co-pilot next term to build consistency across programs.

Avoid These 7 Course Design Mistakes That Let AI Undermine Learning

In my experience, certain missteps lead to either false security or unfair student burdens. Avoid these common errors.

Banning AI without teaching how to use it

The one thing I can't stand is blanket bans that ignore student access to technology. A ban turns assessment into a compliance test rather than a learning opportunity. If you prohibit AI, also provide alternatives that test the same skills without technology dependence.

Keeping single-deliverable assessments

A single polished submission invites outsourcing. Break tasks into checkpoints and require artifacts that are hard to fake: handwritten notes, data collection logs, or timestamps of progressive drafts.

Using rubrics that only reward final polish

If your rubric values grammar and style over reasoning, students will use tools to polish while skipping work on argument or method. Add criteria for critical thinking and decision-making and score them openly.

Assuming AI outputs are uniformly high quality

AI can be fluent but mistaken. Teach students to verify claims rather than trust surface confidence. Encourage source-checking as part of every research assignment.

Over-reliance on similarity detection alone

Plagiarism detectors can flag copy-paste but struggle with AI-original text. Pair detection with process evidence and oral checks to form a more complete picture of authorship.

Presuming students know how to prompt thoughtfully

Prompt design is a craft. If you expect high-quality outputs, teach basic prompt structure and model ethical considerations around prompts that generate fabricated sources.

Failing to synchronize policies across courses

Students take multiple courses. If departments send mixed messages, students get confused. Coordinate with colleagues on consistent disclosure defaults and acceptable AI practices.

Pro Teaching Strategies: Advanced Assignment Designs and AI-Integrated Assessments

pedagogy for AI

Once the basics are stable, introduce higher-level approaches that use AI to deepen learning rather than replace it.

Use AI as an opponent or collaborator in staged tasks

Design an assignment where students must first produce a draft, then submit it to an AI to receive a critique. Students must respond to the critique in a revision memo, explaining which suggestions they accepted and why. This trains judgment.

Adopt process-based portfolios

Require a small portfolio of artifacts for major projects: initial notes, annotated sources, intermediate code commits, and a final reflection linking each artifact to learning objectives. Assess the portfolio holistically.

Design "prompt-proof" assessments

Prompt-proof doesn't mean impossible to assist with. It means structuring tasks so that AI help is limited or visible. Examples:

Timed in-class problems that require handwritten work. Oral defenses where students explain choices from their written work. Case-based assignments that require local data or fieldwork AI cannot retrieve.

Create meta-assignments about model behavior

Give students a short task: ask an AI to produce a claim about your field, then trace its sources and evaluate bias. The deliverable is both the analysis and a lesson: the student must teach a peer how that AI reasoning failed or succeeded.

Rubric example: Research Memo (excerpt)

Criterion 90-100 70-89 <70 Argumentation Clear thesis, logical sequence, evidence linked to claims Thesis present but links occasionally weak No coherent thesis or unsupported claims Process Evidence Includes annotated drafts, source log, and revision memo Some process artifacts, missing one element No process artifacts AI Disclosure & Evaluation Full disclosure with critical assessment of AI contributions Disclosure present, superficial evaluation No disclosure or misleading statement

Thought experiments to assign or use in faculty workshops

Imagine an AI that writes perfect student essays. What must a university degree now certify? List three skills that remain uniquely human, and design a 90-minute assessment to test each. Suppose every student in your course uses AI to draft code. What changes to your programming assignments would force genuine learning? Sketch a single assignment and explain why it resists automation.

When AI Derails a Class: Fixing Common Teaching and Assessment Problems

Even with planning, things go wrong. Here are pragmatic fixes you can apply quickly when you spot trouble.

Problem: Students submit AI-written essays with disclosure omitted

Response: Ask for a short oral follow-up where each student explains their argument and methods for five minutes. If the student cannot do this, move to the syllabus escalation: resubmission with process artifacts or academic integrity review. Communicate that disclosure reduces penalties if honest.

Problem: Mass use of AI for code or homework answers

Response: Replace one take-home problem with a short in-class practical that builds from the same concept but requires local data or real-time reasoning. Use pair programming timed sessions to see thought process.

Problem: Student over-reliance on AI for citation and sourcing

Response: Require students to submit a "source audit" appendix for any work that cites external material. The appendix lists how each source was found, why it was chosen, and what sections it supports. Grade the audit as part of the assignment.

Problem: Students claim AI hallucinated and ask for grade leniency

Response: Treat hallucinations as a teachable moment. Have students produce a short correction memo that identifies the error, explains why it occurred, and shows the corrected evidence. Offer partial remediation when the response demonstrates understanding.

Problem: Faculty feel overwhelmed or under-resourced

Response: Start small. Pilot one redesigned assignment rather than overhauling an entire course. Use shared departmental materials to reduce individual workload. Encourage peer observation and rapid sharing of what worked.

Is the issue a policy failure, an assignment design failure, or a student behavior problem? Can the student fix the problem by producing process evidence or a short oral explanation? Does the syllabus make consequences and remediation steps clear? Have you documented the incident for departmental learning?

Teaching in an era of generative AI forces instructors to be clearer about what we value in student work. Some will reflexively ban, some will ignore the change, and some will try to co-opt AI as a shortcut to old assessments. A practical middle path uses transparency, process-focused assessment, and targeted in-class checks to maintain academic standards while equipping students with the critical skills they will need.

Change will feel uncomfortable at first. You will find yourself rewriting prompts, adding rubrics, and occasionally holding awkward conversations about disclosure. The payoff is worth it: students who can articulate where an AI failed and why are practicing the very judgment we teach. That judgment is what a university credential should stand for.

If you'd like, I can draft a syllabus paragraph, a disclosure form template, and a sample two-week assignment sequence tailored to your discipline—share your course title and level, and I'll create specific language and rubrics you can drop into your materials.

Edit

Pub: 22 Nov 2025 19:44 UTC

Views: 1