Assess the path, not only the file.Assess only the file the path to it.

What process-based assessment means

You assess how a student reached the work as well as the work itself: the drafts, what changed between them, the questions they answered, and how they explain their choices. The final file still counts. It stops being the only evidence.

The aim is not to ban AI. It is to see enough of how students used it to assess fairly, and to talk with them about it.

Why the final file is not enough on its own

A polished essay, report or program can now be produced, or heavily edited, by AI. On its own, the file may show the tool’s fluency more than the student’s understanding. Grading only the file also gives students a reason to hide their AI use.

A more useful question than “Did AI write this?” is “Did this student work with the material, and can they explain it?”

To compare the final file alone with the path that led to it, see the replay on the methodology page.

What to look at

What counts as evidence depends on the subject, but most assignments share these:

• Drafts and what changed. Structural changes, not only swapped words.
• Answers to questions. How the student responded when someone, or something, challenged a claim.
• Checks. Claims tested against sources or course material.
• Explanation. The reasoning in the student’s own words, written or spoken.
• A declaration of how they worked. What help they used, and for what.

Set it up before the assignment

Most grading problems start when the task is set, not when it is handed in. Before the assignment goes out:

• Say, for each task, whether AI is allowed, allowed with a declaration, or not allowed.
• Name the process evidence students hand in: drafts, and a short declaration of how they worked.
• Plan one explanation step: a short oral check, a reflection, or an annotated walkthrough.
• Drop tasks that only ask students to retrieve information a model can supply.
• Brief teaching assistants on the rubric, not on detector dashboards.

One rule of thumb: if a criterion can be met without understanding the material, rewrite the criterion or the task. The AI-use policy guide turns these choices into a statement for students.

A rubric that still works when AI is present

An example to adapt. It describes evidence you can read; it is not a scoring scheme.

Where tools fit, and where they stop

No tool replaces your judgment. In Edudojo, students write in the Your draft editor, and the assigned teacher reads a read-only Replay after submission and sets the mark. Start with one assignment type before changing a whole course.