What students should or shouldn’t do.
But the more interesting question is: what does understanding look like in an AI-assisted world?
Because the risk isn’t just misuse.
It’s passive dependence where work looks complete, but thinking hasn’t actually happened.
That’s why integrity frameworks need to shift from policing output to evaluating engagement.
Some useful signals of real learning:
• Can the student explain the reasoning without prompts?
• Can they rebuild the answer in a new context?
• Do they recognise why an answer works, not just what it is?
In this sense, AI becomes a kind of cognitive mirror.
It can reflect clarity or expose gaps very quickly.
Used well, it doesn’t reduce effort; it redirects it.
Instead of spending energy on producing text, students spend energy on understanding meaning.
That’s the real boundary line:
AI is fine when it supports thinking.
It becomes a problem when it replaces it entirely.