ATLANTA, Aug. 2 (Nationwide Times) — The debate over artificial intelligence in education is moving beyond whether students use AI to cheat. Educators are also asking a harder question: How can teachers tell what students understand when a computer can produce an essay, solve a problem or complete an assignment?
That question is leading some instructors to change how they teach and assess students. Their responses include closed-book exams, handwritten work, supervised testing and more open-ended assignments that require students to explain their thinking.
The goal is not always to ban AI. It is to make sure students build the knowledge and reasoning skills they will need without the technology.
What does the concern look like in practice?
Amy Bruckman, a Regents’ Professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology and senior associate chair in its School of Interactive Computing, said she believes students in her class appear to be splitting into two groups.
Bruckman told Fox News Digital that the bottom half of her students were “definitely losing their critical thinking skills.” She said another group continued to engage with the course material.
Her description is an observation, not a formal study. The available account does not identify the course, the number of students, the time period or a measurement used to assess critical-thinking skills.
Bruckman said some students use AI to avoid learning. To find out what students know, she uses closed-book, paper tests. Those exams can show whether students understand the material without help from an AI tool, she said.
“I think we have to redesign our assessments to be resistant to AI,” Bruckman said.
She also argued that universities should teach students how to use AI responsibly rather than prohibit it altogether. AI tools are likely to be present in many workplaces, she said, so banning them in college could leave students unprepared.
Why are educators looking beyond cheating?
Traditional discussions of AI in schools have often focused on plagiarism, unauthorized assistance and whether an assignment was written by a student. But an assignment can be technically original and still fail to show that the student learned the underlying ideas.
This is sometimes described as “cognitive offloading”: relying on a tool to perform mental work instead of doing that work independently. In education, the concern is that students may submit polished answers without developing the ability to recall information, evaluate evidence, solve problems or explain a conclusion.
A College Board report summarized by Education Week found that 89% of surveyed principals worried AI could make students dependent on technology for basic tasks. Eighty-seven percent worried it could limit the development of critical-thinking skills, and 82% worried it could interfere with deep engagement with course material.
A separate survey of 1,057 college faculty members by the American Association of Colleges and Universities and Elon University’s Imagining the Digital Future Center found that 90% believed AI would reduce students’ critical-thinking abilities. Ninety-five percent said it would make students overly reliant on AI.
Students have expressed similar concerns. Education Week reported that a RAND survey found 70% of college students surveyed worried that AI use could harm their critical-thinking skills.
These surveys involve different groups and methods. The percentages should not be treated as direct comparisons or proof that AI has caused a measured decline in learning.
How are assessments changing?
Assessment is the term educators use for the ways they measure learning. It includes tests, essays, presentations, projects, class discussions and other work.
When AI can produce a first draft or solve a problem, a take-home assignment may no longer reveal how much a student understands. Some educators are responding by bringing more work into the classroom, where students may be asked to write by hand, complete a timed exam or explain an answer under supervision.
Bruckman’s paper tests are one example. Other approaches emphasize authentic or performance-based work, such as projects connected to real problems, oral explanations, drafts that show the development of an idea and assignments requiring students to apply concepts in unfamiliar situations.
There is no single assessment policy described across the sources. Some educators favor controlled tests, while others recommend assignments that use AI openly but require students to show their reasoning and evaluate the tool’s output.
Rose Luckin, a researcher cited by the Financial Times, said educators need to verify what students have understood and how well they can use critical-thinking skills.
The common issue is evidence of learning. Teachers need ways to see not only the final answer but also the student’s reasoning, decisions and ability to work without assistance when that skill is being assessed.
Does this mean AI should be banned?
Not necessarily. Bruckman said banning AI at the university level would ignore the likelihood that students will encounter the technology at work. The alternative is to set clear rules for when AI is allowed, require students to disclose its use and design assignments that still demand independent judgment.
That approach creates a different responsibility for instructors. They must decide which skills students should perform without AI and which tasks can involve the technology. They also must explain those rules to students and apply them consistently.
For students, the change can mean fewer assignments judged only by a finished product. A paper, presentation or computer-generated answer may be paired with an in-class explanation, a reflection, a draft or a short oral check of understanding.
The larger question is not simply whether a student used AI. It is whether the student can understand the material, question an answer, make sound decisions and demonstrate those abilities without the tool when required.
The available research does not establish a Washington, D.C.-specific policy, school action or university rule. It does show why educators across the country are reconsidering how learning is measured as generative AI becomes easier to use.
