🧠💥 What does Fight Club have to do with AI policy in education? More than you’d think.
🎓📱 Imagine this scenario: You receive an essay that’s technically perfect, but something feels… off. You suspect AI helped write it. But before jumping to conclusions, consider:
Why would students turn to AI in the first place?
Two possibilities came to mind:
🕒 They believe the assignment is a waste of their time.
❓ They don’t understand why they’re doing the task.
And then I had to ask myself the tough question:
🪞 What am I not doing that has led them to these assumptions?
Let’s talk about something no one seems to want to talk about: AI in student work.
🧩 Thought Experiment: Why Is AI Use Considered Cheating?
🎓📱 Imagine this scenario: You receive an essay that’s technically perfect, but something feels… off. You suspect AI helped write it. But before jumping to conclusions, consider:
Why would students turn to AI in the first place?
Two possibilities came to mind:
🕒 They believe the assignment is a waste of their time.
❓ They don’t understand why they’re doing the task.
And then I had to ask myself the tough question:
🪞 What am I not doing that has led them to these assumptions?
👊 Back to Basics: My “No-AI” AI Policy
Here’s the twist—just like in Fight Club, I don’t start by talking about AI at all. I start with connection.
At the start of each term, I require a 1:1 student conference. This 5–10 minute chat sets the tone:
When a submission feels AI-generated, I don’t accuse. I simply say:
We meet. I ask questions. We talk about the assignment. I assess their understanding orally. Only after that do I bring up the AI question—non-accusatorially.
Once fear of punishment is removed, students are surprisingly honest. They talk about their process. We discuss tools, drafts, what they might do differently next time. I often end the meeting saying:
Here’s the twist—just like in Fight Club, I don’t start by talking about AI at all. I start with connection.
💬 Step 1: The One-on-One Meeting
At the start of each term, I require a 1:1 student conference. This 5–10 minute chat sets the tone:
- 👂 I get to know them—what they care about, what they’re juggling.
- 📚 I explain my expectations, including how we’ll handle questionable submissions.
- 🤝 I stress that I care more about their learning than perfect products.
🎙️ Step 2: Normalize the Conversation
When a submission feels AI-generated, I don’t accuse. I simply say:
- “Let’s grade this together.”
We meet. I ask questions. We talk about the assignment. I assess their understanding orally. Only after that do I bring up the AI question—non-accusatorially.
🧠 Step 3: Shift from Policing to Coaching
Once fear of punishment is removed, students are surprisingly honest. They talk about their process. We discuss tools, drafts, what they might do differently next time. I often end the meeting saying:
- “Thanks for being open. We both learned something today.”
🎯 Key Takeaways
- You don't need a surveillance state to address AI. You need trust.
- Students cheat when the why is missing or the workload feels meaningless.
- Conversations—not accusations—build a culture of integrity.
🛠️ Ideas You Can Try Tomorrow
- Schedule short 1:1s during the first two weeks of class.
- Add a “grade together” policy to your syllabus.
- Allow space in assignments for voice, flexibility, and revision.
- Frame AI conversations around learning, not discipline.
🧨 Final Thought: The Second Rule of Fight Club
“The second rule of Fight Club is: You DO NOT talk about Fight Club.”
We can’t afford to follow that rule.
Talk to your students about AI—even if it’s indirectly. Build policies around human connection, not suspicion.
That’s how we fight the real fight.
Comments
Post a Comment