Fears of a widespread academic crisis fueled by generative AI have not materialized across university campuses this fall. Instead of succumbing to a wave of automated cheating, many educators, particularly in the humanities, are successfully adapting their teaching methods by emphasizing human interaction and traditional academic practices.
This strategic shift involves a return to in-class, handwritten exams, a greater focus on the writing process rather than just the final paper, and a renewed commitment to fostering engaging, device-free classroom communities. The result has been a surprising increase in student engagement, challenging the narrative that AI would spell the end of original thought in higher education.
Key Takeaways
- Humanities professors are countering AI's influence by adopting "AI-resistant" teaching strategies that prioritize human-centric learning.
- Methods include a resurgence of pen-and-paper exams, in-class writing, and detailed process-based paper assignments to ensure students do their own work.
- Many educators are banning laptops and phones in class to create more focused, interactive learning environments, which students report as a welcome respite from technology.
- The focus is shifting from simply grading a final product to guiding and evaluating the student's entire intellectual journey, from initial ideas to final revisions.
- Rather than an academic apocalypse, the rise of AI has prompted a re-evaluation and reinforcement of the core values of a humanities education.
The Predicted Crisis That Wasn't
When generative AI tools became widely accessible, a sense of panic rippled through academia. Many predicted the end of the college essay and an insurmountable cheating problem. However, several months into the new academic year, that forecast appears to have been premature.
Educators who spent the summer redesigning their courses report that the feared implosion has not occurred. Stuart Selber, who directs the writing program for 18,000 students at Penn State, noted that while challenges exist, the situation is far from the catastrophe many envisioned. "We have not imploded," Selber said. "It feels like the panic is settling down, too."
Instead of turning to technological solutions like AI-detection software, which has proven unreliable, professors are looking inward. They are revamping their courses to make the learning process itself the central objective, making AI shortcuts less appealing and less effective.
A Return to Analog Assessment
One of the most direct responses to the AI challenge has been a deliberate step back from digital assignments. Many instructors are reintroducing traditional assessment methods that are inherently resistant to AI interference.
The Comeback of Pen and Paper
The blue book exam, long considered a relic of a bygone era, is making a comeback. By requiring students to write essays and answer questions by hand in a supervised setting, educators can ensure the work is their own. These exams are not just about rote memorization; they are designed to assess a student's command of course material and their ability to form substantive interpretations based on in-class discussions.
Short, frequent quizzes are also being used to hold students accountable for their reading. Scott Saul, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, has implemented five-minute, pen-and-paper quizzes that focus on specific details from texts, a technique inspired by Vladimir Nabokov. "All of the bigger forces in our culture are pulling people away from deeply attentive reading," Saul explained. These quizzes reward students for engaging with the material on a granular level, something an AI summary cannot replicate.
The Value of Process
To verify that students are doing their own reading, some professors ask them to submit scans of their physical books, complete with underlines and marginal notes. This provides a window into the student's thought process as they engage with the text.
Teaching Writing as a Process, Not a Product
For take-home essays, the strategy has shifted from simply assigning a paper to actively teaching the writing process. This method, known as "scaffolding," breaks down a large assignment into smaller, manageable steps that the instructor can monitor.
These steps might include:
- Brief weekly writing exercises based on readings.
- Submission of an initial thesis statement and outline.
- A first draft that receives feedback.
- Peer review sessions with classmates.
- A final, revised paper.
Maia McAleavey, a professor at Boston College, emphasized the importance of this approach. "Pay them attention that counts while they’re still working on their papers, rather than when the paper’s done and they don’t care anymore," she advises. This continuous engagement not only helps students develop their skills but also makes it much easier for an instructor to spot work that is inconsistent with a student's known abilities and voice.
"Just as the point of a gym is not for the weights to go up and down but for you to move them, the objective of assigning papers is for students to think, not to fill the world with papers."
Another tactic involves making assignments more personal. Mark Edmundson, a professor at the University of Virginia, asks students in his poetry course to write on topics like, "Are you a Whitmanian?" This requires students to blend textual analysis with personal reflection. While a student could theoretically use AI, Edmundson notes they would first have to feed the bot extensive personal details, a step many are reluctant to take. "Students are still reluctant to have their personality, character, identity usurped by a machine," he said.
The Power of the Human-Centered Classroom
Perhaps the most significant change has been the renewed emphasis on the classroom itself as a unique and valuable space for human interaction. Educators argue that students are paying for the curated community of peers and instructors, an experience that cannot be replicated online.
Fostering a Device-Free Zone
A growing number of professors are implementing strict bans on laptops and phones in class. The policy is designed to eliminate distractions and foster a more present and engaged community. Reports indicate that students and instructors alike find these device-free classrooms to be a welcome respite, allowing for deeper focus and more meaningful conversation.
The goal is to make class time an indispensable part of learning. By turning discussions into collaborative problem-solving sessions, instructors highlight skills that AI cannot teach: active listening, reasoned debate, and building on the ideas of others. Participation is often a mandatory component of the final grade, requiring students to be active contributors, not passive recipients of information.
Cognitive neuroscientist Maryanne Wolf of U.C.L.A. supports this approach, warning of the cognitive atrophy that can result from over-reliance on technology. She explained that effortful thinking builds crucial skills like inference, perspective-taking, and truth evaluation. "The oldest platitude in neuroscience is ‘Use it or lose it,’" she stated.
Ultimately, the rise of AI is forcing higher education to articulate its value more clearly. By focusing on critical thinking, adaptability, and the irreplaceable dynamics of human community, educators are not just creating an AI-resistant classroom; they are reinforcing the essential purpose of a liberal arts education in an increasingly automated world.