One of the missing elements in the broad discussion about artificial intelligence, teaching, and student work is “grading”.When students write or present an analysis, professors and instructors are usually looking for specific content based on the assignment brief. However, there is no single correct way to demonstrate reasoning, understanding, or judgement. This has always made grading more complex than simply checking whether students included the required points. In the age of generative AI, that complexity has become even more pronounced.I have been an adjunct professor at a large college for more than seven years. During that time, I have had the privilege of teaching several business management courses, ranging from 100-level introductory courses to 400-level capstone courses.Over the years, I have watched these courses evolve, and I have contributed to content revisions designed to meet changing academic and professional expectations. Course materials have been revised, and rubrics have been updated. Yet what has not evolved at the same pace is the way many instructors approach grading in an environment shaped by AI.From my experience, and from conversations with other instructors across various platforms, many of us were not fully prepared for the sudden presence of AI-generated writing in student papers. Some instructors have made significant progress in understanding this shift, while others are still trying to get their arms around it.There are now many resources available to help educators understand AI. However, few of them clearly explain how an instructor should read and evaluate papers that sound nearly identical, appear almost word for word the same, and may have been produced with support from the same generative AI tools. The challenge is not only identifying AI-assisted writing. The harder task is determining how to grade such work fairly and distinctively.When I first encountered this challenge about two years ago, I did not immediately realise that students had begun using AI to write their papers. At first, I thought I was seeing the familiar problem of paid college paper writers, which had been a concern long before the widespread use of generative AI.I began setting aside papers with very similar responses to see whether I could identify distinctions among the writers. I struggled with this. The papers were often well organised and sounded polished, but something was always niggling and tugging at me as I graded.How can two students sound exactly the same if they copied from each other?Since then, my approach has evolved. I have become more attentive to what separates one student’s work from another, even when students are writing about the same company, using the same assignment prompt, and relying on similar generative AI tools.One thing that has helped me is recognising the patterns of general, generic, and overly polished statements that AI often produces. These statements can sound professional and businesslike, such as “strategic improvements of collective consumer sentiments”. I made up that phrase, but it resembles the kind of language I often see. It sounds impressive at first, yet when you probe it, the meaning is unclear unless the student breaks it down and connects it to the assignment, the evidence, or the course concepts.Related NewsNo qualified Nigerian will miss higher education over poverty, says FGUniAbuja targets 10,000 students in distance learning driveRelease ₦2.53bn TETFund allocation now, SSANU tells FGWhen I encounter this kind of language in student papers, my comment is often simple: “This means what exactly?” Some students understand the concern and provide clarification. When they do, their revised work begins to answer the question more directly and address the argument more effectively.Students who use generative AI successfully do more than cut and paste. They use AI as a support for writing, not as a replacement for thinking. In my view, AI can assist with expression, organisation, and refinement, but it cannot replace the reasoning required in college-level writing. This is especially true in business management courses, where students are expected to analyse problems, apply concepts, develop well-reasoned arguments, and support their claims with data and credible sources.My advice to students, therefore, is not to avoid AI. In fact, I strongly encourage students to learn how to use it well. But I advise them to begin by thinking carefully about what the paper is asking them to do. Instead of feeding the assignment instructions into a generative AI tool and submitting whatever it produces, students should first determine the direction of their argument. Then they can use AI to help organise, test, revise, and refine their thinking until the final response reflects what they believe the paper should say. Recently, I have begun including this advice in my feedback on student papers.I believe this process is what makes the difference between students who use AI effectively and those who still struggle, even with AI assistance. A student may have access to a powerful writing tool, but that does not guarantee a strong paper. The quality of the work still depends on the student’s ability to understand the assignment, make decisions, apply course concepts, and explain the reasoning behind the response.I also believe this will improve over time. As students become more skilled at using AI, they may learn to move beyond surface-level responses and use these tools to develop more thoughtful, accurate, and personalised work.Still, one question I continue to think about is this: What happens when most students are able to produce A-level papers? What happens if every student can use AI well enough to submit polished, well-structured and well-reasoned work?Perhaps what will distinguish students in the future will not be the paper alone, but what they can do with the knowledge behind it. Their ability to explain, apply, defend, and transfer learning may become even more important than the written product itself. This may be why some people argue that college education, at least in its current form, may not be as necessary in the near future.I am not ready to make that conclusion. However, I do believe AI is forcing higher education to ask a deeper question: If writing can be assisted by technology, what exactly should we be grading?The answer, I believe, must be the student’s thinking, judgement, application, and ability to make meaning from what the tool helps them produce. That line is increasingly blurry, but it is precisely the line educators must learn to examine more carefully.Emuwa, PhD, is an adjunct professor When students write or present an analysis, professors and instructors are usually looking for specific content based on the assignment brief. However, there is no single correct way to demonstrate reasoning, understanding, or judgement. This has always made grading more complex than simply checking whether students included the required points. In the age of generative AI, that complexity has become even more pronounced.I have been an adjunct professor at a large college for more than seven years. During that time, I have had the privilege of teaching several business management courses, ranging from 100-level introductory courses to 400-level capstone courses.Over the years, I have watched these courses evolve, and I have contributed to content revisions designed to meet changing academic and professional expectations. Course materials have been revised, and rubrics have been updated. Yet what has not evolved at the same pace is the way many instructors approach grading in an environment shaped by AI.From my experience, and from conversations with other instructors across various platforms, many of us were not fully prepared for the sudden presence of AI-generated writing in student papers. Some instructors have made significant progress in understanding this shift, while others are still trying to get their arms around it.There are now many resources available to help educators understand AI. However, few of them clearly explain how an instructor should read and evaluate papers that sound nearly identical, appear almost word for word the same, and may have been produced with support from the same generative AI tools. The challenge is not only identifying AI-assisted writing. The harder task is determining how to grade such work fairly and distinctively.When I first encountered this challenge about two years ago, I did not immediately realise that students had begun using AI to write their papers. At first, I thought I was seeing the familiar problem of paid college paper writers, which had been a concern long before the widespread use of generative AI.I began setting aside papers with very similar responses to see whether I could identify distinctions among the writers. I struggled with this. The papers were often well organised and sounded polished, but something was always niggling and tugging at me as I graded.How can two students sound exactly the same if they copied from each other?Since then, my approach has evolved. I have become more attentive to what separates one student’s work from another, even when students are writing about the same company, using the same assignment prompt, and relying on similar generative AI tools.One thing that has helped me is recognising the patterns of general, generic, and overly polished statements that AI often produces. These statements can sound professional and businesslike, such as “strategic improvements of collective consumer sentiments”. I made up that phrase, but it resembles the kind of language I often see. It sounds impressive at first, yet when you probe it, the meaning is unclear unless the student breaks it down and connects it to the assignment, the evidence, or the course concepts.Related NewsNo qualified Nigerian will miss higher education over poverty, says FGUniAbuja targets 10,000 students in distance learning driveRelease ₦2.53bn TETFund allocation now, SSANU tells FGWhen I encounter this kind of language in student papers, my comment is often simple: “This means what exactly?” Some students understand the concern and provide clarification. When they do, their revised work begins to answer the question more directly and address the argument more effectively.Students who use generative AI successfully do more than cut and paste. They use AI as a support for writing, not as a replacement for thinking. In my view, AI can assist with expression, organisation, and refinement, but it cannot replace the reasoning required in college-level writing. This is especially true in business management courses, where students are expected to analyse problems, apply concepts, develop well-reasoned arguments, and support their claims with data and credible sources.My advice to students, therefore, is not to avoid AI. In fact, I strongly encourage students to learn how to use it well. But I advise them to begin by thinking carefully about what the paper is asking them to do. Instead of feeding the assignment instructions into a generative AI tool and submitting whatever it produces, students should first determine the direction of their argument. Then they can use AI to help organise, test, revise, and refine their thinking until the final response reflects what they believe the paper should say. Recently, I have begun including this advice in my feedback on student papers.I believe this process is what makes the difference between students who use AI effectively and those who still struggle, even with AI assistance. A student may have access to a powerful writing tool, but that does not guarantee a strong paper. The quality of the work still depends on the student’s ability to understand the assignment, make decisions, apply course concepts, and explain the reasoning behind the response.I also believe this will improve over time. As students become more skilled at using AI, they may learn to move beyond surface-level responses and use these tools to develop more thoughtful, accurate, and personalised work.Still, one question I continue to think about is this: What happens when most students are able to produce A-level papers? What happens if every student can use AI well enough to submit polished, well-structured and well-reasoned work?Perhaps what will distinguish students in the future will not be the paper alone, but what they can do with the knowledge behind it. Their ability to explain, apply, defend, and transfer learning may become even more important than the written product itself. This may be why some people argue that college education, at least in its current form, may not be as necessary in the near future.I am not ready to make that conclusion. However, I do believe AI is forcing higher education to ask a deeper question: If writing can be assisted by technology, what exactly should we be grading?The answer, I believe, must be the student’s thinking, judgement, application, and ability to make meaning from what the tool helps them produce. That line is increasingly blurry, but it is precisely the line educators must learn to examine more carefully.Emuwa, PhD, is an adjunct professor I have been an adjunct professor at a large college for more than seven years. During that time, I have had the privilege of teaching several business management courses, ranging from 100-level introductory courses to 400-level capstone courses.Over the years, I have watched these courses evolve, and I have contributed to content revisions designed to meet changing academic and professional expectations. Course materials have been revised, and rubrics have been updated. Yet what has not evolved at the same pace is the way many instructors approach grading in an environment shaped by AI.From my experience, and from conversations with other instructors across various platforms, many of us were not fully prepared for the sudden presence of AI-generated writing in student papers. Some instructors have made significant progress in understanding this shift, while others are still trying to get their arms around it.There are now many resources available to help educators understand AI. However, few of them clearly explain how an instructor should read and evaluate papers that sound nearly identical, appear almost word for word the same, and may have been produced with support from the same generative AI tools. The challenge is not only identifying AI-assisted writing. The harder task is determining how to grade such work fairly and distinctively.When I first encountered this challenge about two years ago, I did not immediately realise that students had begun using AI to write their papers. At first, I thought I was seeing the familiar problem of paid college paper writers, which had been a concern long before the widespread use of generative AI.I began setting aside papers with very similar responses to see whether I could identify distinctions among the writers. I struggled with this. The papers were often well organised and sounded polished, but something was always niggling and tugging at me as I graded.How can two students sound exactly the same if they copied from each other?Since then, my approach has evolved. I have become more attentive to what separates one student’s work from another, even when students are writing about the same company, using the same assignment prompt, and relying on similar generative AI tools.One thing that has helped me is recognising the patterns of general, generic, and overly polished statements that AI often produces. These statements can sound professional and businesslike, such as “strategic improvements of collective consumer sentiments”. I made up that phrase, but it resembles the kind of language I often see. It sounds impressive at first, yet when you probe it, the meaning is unclear unless the student breaks it down and connects it to the assignment, the evidence, or the course concepts.Related NewsNo qualified Nigerian will miss higher education over poverty, says FGUniAbuja targets 10,000 students in distance learning driveRelease ₦2.53bn TETFund allocation now, SSANU tells FGWhen I encounter this kind of language in student papers, my comment is often simple: “This means what exactly?” Some students understand the concern and provide clarification. When they do, their revised work begins to answer the question more directly and address the argument more effectively.Students who use generative AI successfully do more than cut and paste. They use AI as a support for writing, not as a replacement for thinking. In my view, AI can assist with expression, organisation, and refinement, but it cannot replace the reasoning required in college-level writing. This is especially true in business management courses, where students are expected to analyse problems, apply concepts, develop well-reasoned arguments, and support their claims with data and credible sources.My advice to students, therefore, is not to avoid AI. In fact, I strongly encourage students to learn how to use it well. But I advise them to begin by thinking carefully about what the paper is asking them to do. Instead of feeding the assignment instructions into a generative AI tool and submitting whatever it produces, students should first determine the direction of their argument. Then they can use AI to help organise, test, revise, and refine their thinking until the final response reflects what they believe the paper should say. Recently, I have begun including this advice in my feedback on student papers.I believe this process is what makes the difference between students who use AI effectively and those who still struggle, even with AI assistance. A student may have access to a powerful writing tool, but that does not guarantee a strong paper. The quality of the work still depends on the student’s ability to understand the assignment, make decisions, apply course concepts, and explain the reasoning behind the response.I also believe this will improve over time. As students become more skilled at using AI, they may learn to move beyond surface-level responses and use these tools to develop more thoughtful, accurate, and personalised work.Still, one question I continue to think about is this: What happens when most students are able to produce A-level papers? What happens if every student can use AI well enough to submit polished, well-structured and well-reasoned work?Perhaps what will distinguish students in the future will not be the paper alone, but what they can do with the knowledge behind it. Their ability to explain, apply, defend, and transfer learning may become even more important than the written product itself. This may be why some people argue that college education, at least in its current form, may not be as necessary in the near future.I am not ready to make that conclusion. However, I do believe AI is forcing higher education to ask a deeper question: If writing can be assisted by technology, what exactly should we be grading?The answer, I believe, must be the student’s thinking, judgement, application, and ability to make meaning from what the tool helps them produce. That line is increasingly blurry, but it is precisely the line educators must learn to examine more carefully.Emuwa, PhD, is an adjunct professor Over the years, I have watched these courses evolve, and I have contributed to content revisions designed to meet changing academic and professional expectations. Course materials have been revised, and rubrics have been updated. Yet what has not evolved at the same pace is the way many instructors approach grading in an environment shaped by AI.From my experience, and from conversations with other instructors across various platforms, many of us were not fully prepared for the sudden presence of AI-generated writing in student papers. Some instructors have made significant progress in understanding this shift, while others are still trying to get their arms around it.There are now many resources available to help educators understand AI. However, few of them clearly explain how an instructor should read and evaluate papers that sound nearly identical, appear almost word for word the same, and may have been produced with support from the same generative AI tools. The challenge is not only identifying AI-assisted writing. The harder task is determining how to grade such work fairly and distinctively.When I first encountered this challenge about two years ago, I did not immediately realise that students had begun using AI to write their papers. At first, I thought I was seeing the familiar problem of paid college paper writers, which had been a concern long before the widespread use of generative AI.I began setting aside papers with very similar responses to see whether I could identify distinctions among the writers. I struggled with this. The papers were often well organised and sounded polished, but something was always niggling and tugging at me as I graded.How can two students sound exactly the same if they copied from each other?Since then, my approach has evolved. I have become more attentive to what separates one student’s work from another, even when students are writing about the same company, using the same assignment prompt, and relying on similar generative AI tools.One thing that has helped me is recognising the patterns of general, generic, and overly polished statements that AI often produces. These statements can sound professional and businesslike, such as “strategic improvements of collective consumer sentiments”. I made up that phrase, but it resembles the kind of language I often see. It sounds impressive at first, yet when you probe it, the meaning is unclear unless the student breaks it down and connects it to the assignment, the evidence, or the course concepts.Related NewsNo qualified Nigerian will miss higher education over poverty, says FGUniAbuja targets 10,000 students in distance learning driveRelease ₦2.53bn TETFund allocation now, SSANU tells FGWhen I encounter this kind of language in student papers, my comment is often simple: “This means what exactly?” Some students understand the concern and provide clarification. When they do, their revised work begins to answer the question more directly and address the argument more effectively.Students who use generative AI successfully do more than cut and paste. They use AI as a support for writing, not as a replacement for thinking. In my view, AI can assist with expression, organisation, and refinement, but it cannot replace the reasoning required in college-level writing. This is especially true in business management courses, where students are expected to analyse problems, apply concepts, develop well-reasoned arguments, and support their claims with data and credible sources.My advice to students, therefore, is not to avoid AI. In fact, I strongly encourage students to learn how to use it well. But I advise them to begin by thinking carefully about what the paper is asking them to do. Instead of feeding the assignment instructions into a generative AI tool and submitting whatever it produces, students should first determine the direction of their argument. Then they can use AI to help organise, test, revise, and refine their thinking until the final response reflects what they believe the paper should say. Recently, I have begun including this advice in my feedback on student papers.I believe this process is what makes the difference between students who use AI effectively and those who still struggle, even with AI assistance. A student may have access to a powerful writing tool, but that does not guarantee a strong paper. The quality of the work still depends on the student’s ability to understand the assignment, make decisions, apply course concepts, and explain the reasoning behind the response.I also believe this will improve over time. As students become more skilled at using AI, they may learn to move beyond surface-level responses and use these tools to develop more thoughtful, accurate, and personalised work.Still, one question I continue to think about is this: What happens when most students are able to produce A-level papers? What happens if every student can use AI well enough to submit polished, well-structured and well-reasoned work?Perhaps what will distinguish students in the future will not be the paper alone, but what they can do with the knowledge behind it. Their ability to explain, apply, defend, and transfer learning may become even more important than the written product itself. This may be why some people argue that college education, at least in its current form, may not be as necessary in the near future.I am not ready to make that conclusion. However, I do believe AI is forcing higher education to ask a deeper question: If writing can be assisted by technology, what exactly should we be grading?The answer, I believe, must be the student’s thinking, judgement, application, and ability to make meaning from what the tool helps them produce. That line is increasingly blurry, but it is precisely the line educators must learn to examine more carefully.Emuwa, PhD, is an adjunct professor From my experience, and from conversations with other instructors across various platforms, many of us were not fully prepared for the sudden presence of AI-generated writing in student papers. Some instructors have made significant progress in understanding this shift, while others are still trying to get their arms around it.There are now many resources available to help educators understand AI. However, few of them clearly explain how an instructor should read and evaluate papers that sound nearly identical, appear almost word for word the same, and may have been produced with support from the same generative AI tools. The challenge is not only identifying AI-assisted writing. The harder task is determining how to grade such work fairly and distinctively.When I first encountered this challenge about two years ago, I did not immediately realise that students had begun using AI to write their papers. At first, I thought I was seeing the familiar problem of paid college paper writers, which had been a concern long before the widespread use of generative AI.I began setting aside papers with very similar responses to see whether I could identify distinctions among the writers. I struggled with this. The papers were often well organised and sounded polished, but something was always niggling and tugging at me as I graded.How can two students sound exactly the same if they copied from each other?Since then, my approach has evolved. I have become more attentive to what separates one student’s work from another, even when students are writing about the same company, using the same assignment prompt, and relying on similar generative AI tools.One thing that has helped me is recognising the patterns of general, generic, and overly polished statements that AI often produces. These statements can sound professional and businesslike, such as “strategic improvements of collective consumer sentiments”. I made up that phrase, but it resembles the kind of language I often see. It sounds impressive at first, yet when you probe it, the meaning is unclear unless the student breaks it down and connects it to the assignment, the evidence, or the course concepts.Related NewsNo qualified Nigerian will miss higher education over poverty, says FGUniAbuja targets 10,000 students in distance learning driveRelease ₦2.53bn TETFund allocation now, SSANU tells FGWhen I encounter this kind of language in student papers, my comment is often simple: “This means what exactly?” Some students understand the concern and provide clarification. When they do, their revised work begins to answer the question more directly and address the argument more effectively.Students who use generative AI successfully do more than cut and paste. They use AI as a support for writing, not as a replacement for thinking. In my view, AI can assist with expression, organisation, and refinement, but it cannot replace the reasoning required in college-level writing. This is especially true in business management courses, where students are expected to analyse problems, apply concepts, develop well-reasoned arguments, and support their claims with data and credible sources.My advice to students, therefore, is not to avoid AI. In fact, I strongly encourage students to learn how to use it well. But I advise them to begin by thinking carefully about what the paper is asking them to do. Instead of feeding the assignment instructions into a generative AI tool and submitting whatever it produces, students should first determine the direction of their argument. Then they can use AI to help organise, test, revise, and refine their thinking until the final response reflects what they believe the paper should say. Recently, I have begun including this advice in my feedback on student papers.I believe this process is what makes the difference between students who use AI effectively and those who still struggle, even with AI assistance. A student may have access to a powerful writing tool, but that does not guarantee a strong paper. The quality of the work still depends on the student’s ability to understand the assignment, make decisions, apply course concepts, and explain the reasoning behind the response.I also believe this will improve over time. As students become more skilled at using AI, they may learn to move beyond surface-level responses and use these tools to develop more thoughtful, accurate, and personalised work.Still, one question I continue to think about is this: What happens when most students are able to produce A-level papers? What happens if every student can use AI well enough to submit polished, well-structured and well-reasoned work?Perhaps what will distinguish students in the future will not be the paper alone, but what they can do with the knowledge behind it. Their ability to explain, apply, defend, and transfer learning may become even more important than the written product itself. This may be why some people argue that college education, at least in its current form, may not be as necessary in the near future.I am not ready to make that conclusion. However, I do believe AI is forcing higher education to ask a deeper question: If writing can be assisted by technology, what exactly should we be grading?The answer, I believe, must be the student’s thinking, judgement, application, and ability to make meaning from what the tool helps them produce. That line is increasingly blurry, but it is precisely the line educators must learn to examine more carefully.Emuwa, PhD, is an adjunct professor There are now many resources available to help educators understand AI. However, few of them clearly explain how an instructor should read and evaluate papers that sound nearly identical, appear almost word for word the same, and may have been produced with support from the same generative AI tools. The challenge is not only identifying AI-assisted writing. The harder task is determining how to grade such work fairly and distinctively.When I first encountered this challenge about two years ago, I did not immediately realise that students had begun using AI to write their papers. At first, I thought I was seeing the familiar problem of paid college paper writers, which had been a concern long before the widespread use of generative AI.I began setting aside papers with very similar responses to see whether I could identify distinctions among the writers. I struggled with this. The papers were often well organised and sounded polished, but something was always niggling and tugging at me as I graded.How can two students sound exactly the same if they copied from each other?Since then, my approach has evolved. I have become more attentive to what separates one student’s work from another, even when students are writing about the same company, using the same assignment prompt, and relying on similar generative AI tools.One thing that has helped me is recognising the patterns of general, generic, and overly polished statements that AI often produces. These statements can sound professional and businesslike, such as “strategic improvements of collective consumer sentiments”. I made up that phrase, but it resembles the kind of language I often see. It sounds impressive at first, yet when you probe it, the meaning is unclear unless the student breaks it down and connects it to the assignment, the evidence, or the course concepts.Related NewsNo qualified Nigerian will miss higher education over poverty, says FGUniAbuja targets 10,000 students in distance learning driveRelease ₦2.53bn TETFund allocation now, SSANU tells FGWhen I encounter this kind of language in student papers, my comment is often simple: “This means what exactly?” Some students understand the concern and provide clarification. When they do, their revised work begins to answer the question more directly and address the argument more effectively.Students who use generative AI successfully do more than cut and paste. They use AI as a support for writing, not as a replacement for thinking. In my view, AI can assist with expression, organisation, and refinement, but it cannot replace the reasoning required in college-level writing. This is especially true in business management courses, where students are expected to analyse problems, apply concepts, develop well-reasoned arguments, and support their claims with data and credible sources.My advice to students, therefore, is not to avoid AI. In fact, I strongly encourage students to learn how to use it well. But I advise them to begin by thinking carefully about what the paper is asking them to do. Instead of feeding the assignment instructions into a generative AI tool and submitting whatever it produces, students should first determine the direction of their argument. Then they can use AI to help organise, test, revise, and refine their thinking until the final response reflects what they believe the paper should say. Recently, I have begun including this advice in my feedback on student papers.I believe this process is what makes the difference between students who use AI effectively and those who still struggle, even with AI assistance. A student may have access to a powerful writing tool, but that does not guarantee a strong paper. The quality of the work still depends on the student’s ability to understand the assignment, make decisions, apply course concepts, and explain the reasoning behind the response.I also believe this will improve over time. As students become more skilled at using AI, they may learn to move beyond surface-level responses and use these tools to develop more thoughtful, accurate, and personalised work.Still, one question I continue to think about is this: What happens when most students are able to produce A-level papers? What happens if every student can use AI well enough to submit polished, well-structured and well-reasoned work?Perhaps what will distinguish students in the future will not be the paper alone, but what they can do with the knowledge behind it. Their ability to explain, apply, defend, and transfer learning may become even more important than the written product itself. This may be why some people argue that college education, at least in its current form, may not be as necessary in the near future.I am not ready to make that conclusion. However, I do believe AI is forcing higher education to ask a deeper question: If writing can be assisted by technology, what exactly should we be grading?The answer, I believe, must be the student’s thinking, judgement, application, and ability to make meaning from what the tool helps them produce. That line is increasingly blurry, but it is precisely the line educators must learn to examine more carefully.Emuwa, PhD, is an adjunct professor When I first encountered this challenge about two years ago, I did not immediately realise that students had begun using AI to write their papers. At first, I thought I was seeing the familiar problem of paid college paper writers, which had been a concern long before the widespread use of generative AI.I began setting aside papers with very similar responses to see whether I could identify distinctions among the writers. I struggled with this. The papers were often well organised and sounded polished, but something was always niggling and tugging at me as I graded.How can two students sound exactly the same if they copied from each other?Since then, my approach has evolved. I have become more attentive to what separates one student’s work from another, even when students are writing about the same company, using the same assignment prompt, and relying on similar generative AI tools.One thing that has helped me is recognising the patterns of general, generic, and overly polished statements that AI often produces. These statements can sound professional and businesslike, such as “strategic improvements of collective consumer sentiments”. I made up that phrase, but it resembles the kind of language I often see. It sounds impressive at first, yet when you probe it, the meaning is unclear unless the student breaks it down and connects it to the assignment, the evidence, or the course concepts.Related NewsNo qualified Nigerian will miss higher education over poverty, says FGUniAbuja targets 10,000 students in distance learning driveRelease ₦2.53bn TETFund allocation now, SSANU tells FGWhen I encounter this kind of language in student papers, my comment is often simple: “This means what exactly?” Some students understand the concern and provide clarification. When they do, their revised work begins to answer the question more directly and address the argument more effectively.Students who use generative AI successfully do more than cut and paste. They use AI as a support for writing, not as a replacement for thinking. In my view, AI can assist with expression, organisation, and refinement, but it cannot replace the reasoning required in college-level writing. This is especially true in business management courses, where students are expected to analyse problems, apply concepts, develop well-reasoned arguments, and support their claims with data and credible sources.My advice to students, therefore, is not to avoid AI. In fact, I strongly encourage students to learn how to use it well. But I advise them to begin by thinking carefully about what the paper is asking them to do. Instead of feeding the assignment instructions into a generative AI tool and submitting whatever it produces, students should first determine the direction of their argument. Then they can use AI to help organise, test, revise, and refine their thinking until the final response reflects what they believe the paper should say. Recently, I have begun including this advice in my feedback on student papers.I believe this process is what makes the difference between students who use AI effectively and those who still struggle, even with AI assistance. A student may have access to a powerful writing tool, but that does not guarantee a strong paper. The quality of the work still depends on the student’s ability to understand the assignment, make decisions, apply course concepts, and explain the reasoning behind the response.I also believe this will improve over time. As students become more skilled at using AI, they may learn to move beyond surface-level responses and use these tools to develop more thoughtful, accurate, and personalised work.Still, one question I continue to think about is this: What happens when most students are able to produce A-level papers? What happens if every student can use AI well enough to submit polished, well-structured and well-reasoned work?Perhaps what will distinguish students in the future will not be the paper alone, but what they can do with the knowledge behind it. Their ability to explain, apply, defend, and transfer learning may become even more important than the written product itself. This may be why some people argue that college education, at least in its current form, may not be as necessary in the near future.I am not ready to make that conclusion. However, I do believe AI is forcing higher education to ask a deeper question: If writing can be assisted by technology, what exactly should we be grading?The answer, I believe, must be the student’s thinking, judgement, application, and ability to make meaning from what the tool helps them produce. That line is increasingly blurry, but it is precisely the line educators must learn to examine more carefully.Emuwa, PhD, is an adjunct professor I began setting aside papers with very similar responses to see whether I could identify distinctions among the writers. I struggled with this. The papers were often well organised and sounded polished, but something was always niggling and tugging at me as I graded.How can two students sound exactly the same if they copied from each other?Since then, my approach has evolved. I have become more attentive to what separates one student’s work from another, even when students are writing about the same company, using the same assignment prompt, and relying on similar generative AI tools.One thing that has helped me is recognising the patterns of general, generic, and overly polished statements that AI often produces. These statements can sound professional and businesslike, such as “strategic improvements of collective consumer sentiments”. I made up that phrase, but it resembles the kind of language I often see. It sounds impressive at first, yet when you probe it, the meaning is unclear unless the student breaks it down and connects it to the assignment, the evidence, or the course concepts.Related NewsNo qualified Nigerian will miss higher education over poverty, says FGUniAbuja targets 10,000 students in distance learning driveRelease ₦2.53bn TETFund allocation now, SSANU tells FGWhen I encounter this kind of language in student papers, my comment is often simple: “This means what exactly?” Some students understand the concern and provide clarification. When they do, their revised work begins to answer the question more directly and address the argument more effectively.Students who use generative AI successfully do more than cut and paste. They use AI as a support for writing, not as a replacement for thinking. In my view, AI can assist with expression, organisation, and refinement, but it cannot replace the reasoning required in college-level writing. This is especially true in business management courses, where students are expected to analyse problems, apply concepts, develop well-reasoned arguments, and support their claims with data and credible sources.My advice to students, therefore, is not to avoid AI. In fact, I strongly encourage students to learn how to use it well. But I advise them to begin by thinking carefully about what the paper is asking them to do. Instead of feeding the assignment instructions into a generative AI tool and submitting whatever it produces, students should first determine the direction of their argument. Then they can use AI to help organise, test, revise, and refine their thinking until the final response reflects what they believe the paper should say. Recently, I have begun including this advice in my feedback on student papers.I believe this process is what makes the difference between students who use AI effectively and those who still struggle, even with AI assistance. A student may have access to a powerful writing tool, but that does not guarantee a strong paper. The quality of the work still depends on the student’s ability to understand the assignment, make decisions, apply course concepts, and explain the reasoning behind the response.I also believe this will improve over time. As students become more skilled at using AI, they may learn to move beyond surface-level responses and use these tools to develop more thoughtful, accurate, and personalised work.Still, one question I continue to think about is this: What happens when most students are able to produce A-level papers? What happens if every student can use AI well enough to submit polished, well-structured and well-reasoned work?Perhaps what will distinguish students in the future will not be the paper alone, but what they can do with the knowledge behind it. Their ability to explain, apply, defend, and transfer learning may become even more important than the written product itself. This may be why some people argue that college education, at least in its current form, may not be as necessary in the near future.I am not ready to make that conclusion. However, I do believe AI is forcing higher education to ask a deeper question: If writing can be assisted by technology, what exactly should we be grading?The answer, I believe, must be the student’s thinking, judgement, application, and ability to make meaning from what the tool helps them produce. That line is increasingly blurry, but it is precisely the line educators must learn to examine more carefully.Emuwa, PhD, is an adjunct professor How can two students sound exactly the same if they copied from each other?Since then, my approach has evolved. I have become more attentive to what separates one student’s work from another, even when students are writing about the same company, using the same assignment prompt, and relying on similar generative AI tools.One thing that has helped me is recognising the patterns of general, generic, and overly polished statements that AI often produces. These statements can sound professional and businesslike, such as “strategic improvements of collective consumer sentiments”. I made up that phrase, but it resembles the kind of language I often see. It sounds impressive at first, yet when you probe it, the meaning is unclear unless the student breaks it down and connects it to the assignment, the evidence, or the course concepts.Related NewsNo qualified Nigerian will miss higher education over poverty, says FGUniAbuja targets 10,000 students in distance learning driveRelease ₦2.53bn TETFund allocation now, SSANU tells FGWhen I encounter this kind of language in student papers, my comment is often simple: “This means what exactly?” Some students understand the concern and provide clarification. When they do, their revised work begins to answer the question more directly and address the argument more effectively.Students who use generative AI successfully do more than cut and paste. They use AI as a support for writing, not as a replacement for thinking. In my view, AI can assist with expression, organisation, and refinement, but it cannot replace the reasoning required in college-level writing. This is especially true in business management courses, where students are expected to analyse problems, apply concepts, develop well-reasoned arguments, and support their claims with data and credible sources.My advice to students, therefore, is not to avoid AI. In fact, I strongly encourage students to learn how to use it well. But I advise them to begin by thinking carefully about what the paper is asking them to do. Instead of feeding the assignment instructions into a generative AI tool and submitting whatever it produces, students should first determine the direction of their argument. Then they can use AI to help organise, test, revise, and refine their thinking until the final response reflects what they believe the paper should say. Recently, I have begun including this advice in my feedback on student papers.I believe this process is what makes the difference between students who use AI effectively and those who still struggle, even with AI assistance. A student may have access to a powerful writing tool, but that does not guarantee a strong paper. The quality of the work still depends on the student’s ability to understand the assignment, make decisions, apply course concepts, and explain the reasoning behind the response.I also believe this will improve over time. As students become more skilled at using AI, they may learn to move beyond surface-level responses and use these tools to develop more thoughtful, accurate, and personalised work.Still, one question I continue to think about is this: What happens when most students are able to produce A-level papers? What happens if every student can use AI well enough to submit polished, well-structured and well-reasoned work?Perhaps what will distinguish students in the future will not be the paper alone, but what they can do with the knowledge behind it. Their ability to explain, apply, defend, and transfer learning may become even more important than the written product itself. This may be why some people argue that college education, at least in its current form, may not be as necessary in the near future.I am not ready to make that conclusion. However, I do believe AI is forcing higher education to ask a deeper question: If writing can be assisted by technology, what exactly should we be grading?The answer, I believe, must be the student’s thinking, judgement, application, and ability to make meaning from what the tool helps them produce. That line is increasingly blurry, but it is precisely the line educators must learn to examine more carefully.Emuwa, PhD, is an adjunct professor Since then, my approach has evolved. I have become more attentive to what separates one student’s work from another, even when students are writing about the same company, using the same assignment prompt, and relying on similar generative AI tools.One thing that has helped me is recognising the patterns of general, generic, and overly polished statements that AI often produces. These statements can sound professional and businesslike, such as “strategic improvements of collective consumer sentiments”. I made up that phrase, but it resembles the kind of language I often see. It sounds impressive at first, yet when you probe it, the meaning is unclear unless the student breaks it down and connects it to the assignment, the evidence, or the course concepts.Related NewsNo qualified Nigerian will miss higher education over poverty, says FGUniAbuja targets 10,000 students in distance learning driveRelease ₦2.53bn TETFund allocation now, SSANU tells FGWhen I encounter this kind of language in student papers, my comment is often simple: “This means what exactly?” Some students understand the concern and provide clarification. When they do, their revised work begins to answer the question more directly and address the argument more effectively.Students who use generative AI successfully do more than cut and paste. They use AI as a support for writing, not as a replacement for thinking. In my view, AI can assist with expression, organisation, and refinement, but it cannot replace the reasoning required in college-level writing. This is especially true in business management courses, where students are expected to analyse problems, apply concepts, develop well-reasoned arguments, and support their claims with data and credible sources.My advice to students, therefore, is not to avoid AI. In fact, I strongly encourage students to learn how to use it well. But I advise them to begin by thinking carefully about what the paper is asking them to do. Instead of feeding the assignment instructions into a generative AI tool and submitting whatever it produces, students should first determine the direction of their argument. Then they can use AI to help organise, test, revise, and refine their thinking until the final response reflects what they believe the paper should say. Recently, I have begun including this advice in my feedback on student papers.I believe this process is what makes the difference between students who use AI effectively and those who still struggle, even with AI assistance. A student may have access to a powerful writing tool, but that does not guarantee a strong paper. The quality of the work still depends on the student’s ability to understand the assignment, make decisions, apply course concepts, and explain the reasoning behind the response.I also believe this will improve over time. As students become more skilled at using AI, they may learn to move beyond surface-level responses and use these tools to develop more thoughtful, accurate, and personalised work.Still, one question I continue to think about is this: What happens when most students are able to produce A-level papers? What happens if every student can use AI well enough to submit polished, well-structured and well-reasoned work?Perhaps what will distinguish students in the future will not be the paper alone, but what they can do with the knowledge behind it. Their ability to explain, apply, defend, and transfer learning may become even more important than the written product itself. This may be why some people argue that college education, at least in its current form, may not be as necessary in the near future.I am not ready to make that conclusion. However, I do believe AI is forcing higher education to ask a deeper question: If writing can be assisted by technology, what exactly should we be grading?The answer, I believe, must be the student’s thinking, judgement, application, and ability to make meaning from what the tool helps them produce. That line is increasingly blurry, but it is precisely the line educators must learn to examine more carefully.Emuwa, PhD, is an adjunct professor One thing that has helped me is recognising the patterns of general, generic, and overly polished statements that AI often produces. These statements can sound professional and businesslike, such as “strategic improvements of collective consumer sentiments”. I made up that phrase, but it resembles the kind of language I often see. It sounds impressive at first, yet when you probe it, the meaning is unclear unless the student breaks it down and connects it to the assignment, the evidence, or the course concepts.Related NewsNo qualified Nigerian will miss higher education over poverty, says FGUniAbuja targets 10,000 students in distance learning driveRelease ₦2.53bn TETFund allocation now, SSANU tells FGWhen I encounter this kind of language in student papers, my comment is often simple: “This means what exactly?” Some students understand the concern and provide clarification. When they do, their revised work begins to answer the question more directly and address the argument more effectively.Students who use generative AI successfully do more than cut and paste. They use AI as a support for writing, not as a replacement for thinking. In my view, AI can assist with expression, organisation, and refinement, but it cannot replace the reasoning required in college-level writing. This is especially true in business management courses, where students are expected to analyse problems, apply concepts, develop well-reasoned arguments, and support their claims with data and credible sources.My advice to students, therefore, is not to avoid AI. In fact, I strongly encourage students to learn how to use it well. But I advise them to begin by thinking carefully about what the paper is asking them to do. Instead of feeding the assignment instructions into a generative AI tool and submitting whatever it produces, students should first determine the direction of their argument. Then they can use AI to help organise, test, revise, and refine their thinking until the final response reflects what they believe the paper should say. Recently, I have begun including this advice in my feedback on student papers.I believe this process is what makes the difference between students who use AI effectively and those who still struggle, even with AI assistance. A student may have access to a powerful writing tool, but that does not guarantee a strong paper. The quality of the work still depends on the student’s ability to understand the assignment, make decisions, apply course concepts, and explain the reasoning behind the response.I also believe this will improve over time. As students become more skilled at using AI, they may learn to move beyond surface-level responses and use these tools to develop more thoughtful, accurate, and personalised work.Still, one question I continue to think about is this: What happens when most students are able to produce A-level papers? What happens if every student can use AI well enough to submit polished, well-structured and well-reasoned work?Perhaps what will distinguish students in the future will not be the paper alone, but what they can do with the knowledge behind it. Their ability to explain, apply, defend, and transfer learning may become even more important than the written product itself. This may be why some people argue that college education, at least in its current form, may not be as necessary in the near future.I am not ready to make that conclusion. However, I do believe AI is forcing higher education to ask a deeper question: If writing can be assisted by technology, what exactly should we be grading?The answer, I believe, must be the student’s thinking, judgement, application, and ability to make meaning from what the tool helps them produce. That line is increasingly blurry, but it is precisely the line educators must learn to examine more carefully.Emuwa, PhD, is an adjunct professor When I encounter this kind of language in student papers, my comment is often simple: “This means what exactly?” Some students understand the concern and provide clarification. When they do, their revised work begins to answer the question more directly and address the argument more effectively.Students who use generative AI successfully do more than cut and paste. They use AI as a support for writing, not as a replacement for thinking. In my view, AI can assist with expression, organisation, and refinement, but it cannot replace the reasoning required in college-level writing. This is especially true in business management courses, where students are expected to analyse problems, apply concepts, develop well-reasoned arguments, and support their claims with data and credible sources.My advice to students, therefore, is not to avoid AI. In fact, I strongly encourage students to learn how to use it well. But I advise them to begin by thinking carefully about what the paper is asking them to do. Instead of feeding the assignment instructions into a generative AI tool and submitting whatever it produces, students should first determine the direction of their argument. Then they can use AI to help organise, test, revise, and refine their thinking until the final response reflects what they believe the paper should say. Recently, I have begun including this advice in my feedback on student papers.I believe this process is what makes the difference between students who use AI effectively and those who still struggle, even with AI assistance. A student may have access to a powerful writing tool, but that does not guarantee a strong paper. The quality of the work still depends on the student’s ability to understand the assignment, make decisions, apply course concepts, and explain the reasoning behind the response.I also believe this will improve over time. As students become more skilled at using AI, they may learn to move beyond surface-level responses and use these tools to develop more thoughtful, accurate, and personalised work.Still, one question I continue to think about is this: What happens when most students are able to produce A-level papers? What happens if every student can use AI well enough to submit polished, well-structured and well-reasoned work?Perhaps what will distinguish students in the future will not be the paper alone, but what they can do with the knowledge behind it. Their ability to explain, apply, defend, and transfer learning may become even more important than the written product itself. This may be why some people argue that college education, at least in its current form, may not be as necessary in the near future.I am not ready to make that conclusion. However, I do believe AI is forcing higher education to ask a deeper question: If writing can be assisted by technology, what exactly should we be grading?The answer, I believe, must be the student’s thinking, judgement, application, and ability to make meaning from what the tool helps them produce. That line is increasingly blurry, but it is precisely the line educators must learn to examine more carefully.Emuwa, PhD, is an adjunct professor Students who use generative AI successfully do more than cut and paste. They use AI as a support for writing, not as a replacement for thinking. In my view, AI can assist with expression, organisation, and refinement, but it cannot replace the reasoning required in college-level writing. This is especially true in business management courses, where students are expected to analyse problems, apply concepts, develop well-reasoned arguments, and support their claims with data and credible sources.My advice to students, therefore, is not to avoid AI. In fact, I strongly encourage students to learn how to use it well. But I advise them to begin by thinking carefully about what the paper is asking them to do. Instead of feeding the assignment instructions into a generative AI tool and submitting whatever it produces, students should first determine the direction of their argument. Then they can use AI to help organise, test, revise, and refine their thinking until the final response reflects what they believe the paper should say. Recently, I have begun including this advice in my feedback on student papers.I believe this process is what makes the difference between students who use AI effectively and those who still struggle, even with AI assistance. A student may have access to a powerful writing tool, but that does not guarantee a strong paper. The quality of the work still depends on the student’s ability to understand the assignment, make decisions, apply course concepts, and explain the reasoning behind the response.I also believe this will improve over time. As students become more skilled at using AI, they may learn to move beyond surface-level responses and use these tools to develop more thoughtful, accurate, and personalised work.Still, one question I continue to think about is this: What happens when most students are able to produce A-level papers? What happens if every student can use AI well enough to submit polished, well-structured and well-reasoned work?Perhaps what will distinguish students in the future will not be the paper alone, but what they can do with the knowledge behind it. Their ability to explain, apply, defend, and transfer learning may become even more important than the written product itself. This may be why some people argue that college education, at least in its current form, may not be as necessary in the near future.I am not ready to make that conclusion. However, I do believe AI is forcing higher education to ask a deeper question: If writing can be assisted by technology, what exactly should we be grading?The answer, I believe, must be the student’s thinking, judgement, application, and ability to make meaning from what the tool helps them produce. That line is increasingly blurry, but it is precisely the line educators must learn to examine more carefully.Emuwa, PhD, is an adjunct professor My advice to students, therefore, is not to avoid AI. In fact, I strongly encourage students to learn how to use it well. But I advise them to begin by thinking carefully about what the paper is asking them to do. Instead of feeding the assignment instructions into a generative AI tool and submitting whatever it produces, students should first determine the direction of their argument. Then they can use AI to help organise, test, revise, and refine their thinking until the final response reflects what they believe the paper should say. Recently, I have begun including this advice in my feedback on student papers.I believe this process is what makes the difference between students who use AI effectively and those who still struggle, even with AI assistance. A student may have access to a powerful writing tool, but that does not guarantee a strong paper. The quality of the work still depends on the student’s ability to understand the assignment, make decisions, apply course concepts, and explain the reasoning behind the response.I also believe this will improve over time. As students become more skilled at using AI, they may learn to move beyond surface-level responses and use these tools to develop more thoughtful, accurate, and personalised work.Still, one question I continue to think about is this: What happens when most students are able to produce A-level papers? What happens if every student can use AI well enough to submit polished, well-structured and well-reasoned work?Perhaps what will distinguish students in the future will not be the paper alone, but what they can do with the knowledge behind it. Their ability to explain, apply, defend, and transfer learning may become even more important than the written product itself. This may be why some people argue that college education, at least in its current form, may not be as necessary in the near future.I am not ready to make that conclusion. However, I do believe AI is forcing higher education to ask a deeper question: If writing can be assisted by technology, what exactly should we be grading?The answer, I believe, must be the student’s thinking, judgement, application, and ability to make meaning from what the tool helps them produce. That line is increasingly blurry, but it is precisely the line educators must learn to examine more carefully.Emuwa, PhD, is an adjunct professor I believe this process is what makes the difference between students who use AI effectively and those who still struggle, even with AI assistance. A student may have access to a powerful writing tool, but that does not guarantee a strong paper. The quality of the work still depends on the student’s ability to understand the assignment, make decisions, apply course concepts, and explain the reasoning behind the response.I also believe this will improve over time. As students become more skilled at using AI, they may learn to move beyond surface-level responses and use these tools to develop more thoughtful, accurate, and personalised work.Still, one question I continue to think about is this: What happens when most students are able to produce A-level papers? What happens if every student can use AI well enough to submit polished, well-structured and well-reasoned work?Perhaps what will distinguish students in the future will not be the paper alone, but what they can do with the knowledge behind it. Their ability to explain, apply, defend, and transfer learning may become even more important than the written product itself. This may be why some people argue that college education, at least in its current form, may not be as necessary in the near future.I am not ready to make that conclusion. However, I do believe AI is forcing higher education to ask a deeper question: If writing can be assisted by technology, what exactly should we be grading?The answer, I believe, must be the student’s thinking, judgement, application, and ability to make meaning from what the tool helps them produce. That line is increasingly blurry, but it is precisely the line educators must learn to examine more carefully.Emuwa, PhD, is an adjunct professor I also believe this will improve over time. As students become more skilled at using AI, they may learn to move beyond surface-level responses and use these tools to develop more thoughtful, accurate, and personalised work.Still, one question I continue to think about is this: What happens when most students are able to produce A-level papers? What happens if every student can use AI well enough to submit polished, well-structured and well-reasoned work?Perhaps what will distinguish students in the future will not be the paper alone, but what they can do with the knowledge behind it. Their ability to explain, apply, defend, and transfer learning may become even more important than the written product itself. This may be why some people argue that college education, at least in its current form, may not be as necessary in the near future.I am not ready to make that conclusion. However, I do believe AI is forcing higher education to ask a deeper question: If writing can be assisted by technology, what exactly should we be grading?The answer, I believe, must be the student’s thinking, judgement, application, and ability to make meaning from what the tool helps them produce. That line is increasingly blurry, but it is precisely the line educators must learn to examine more carefully.Emuwa, PhD, is an adjunct professor Still, one question I continue to think about is this: What happens when most students are able to produce A-level papers? What happens if every student can use AI well enough to submit polished, well-structured and well-reasoned work?Perhaps what will distinguish students in the future will not be the paper alone, but what they can do with the knowledge behind it. Their ability to explain, apply, defend, and transfer learning may become even more important than the written product itself. This may be why some people argue that college education, at least in its current form, may not be as necessary in the near future.I am not ready to make that conclusion. However, I do believe AI is forcing higher education to ask a deeper question: If writing can be assisted by technology, what exactly should we be grading?The answer, I believe, must be the student’s thinking, judgement, application, and ability to make meaning from what the tool helps them produce. That line is increasingly blurry, but it is precisely the line educators must learn to examine more carefully.Emuwa, PhD, is an adjunct professor Perhaps what will distinguish students in the future will not be the paper alone, but what they can do with the knowledge behind it. Their ability to explain, apply, defend, and transfer learning may become even more important than the written product itself. This may be why some people argue that college education, at least in its current form, may not be as necessary in the near future.I am not ready to make that conclusion. However, I do believe AI is forcing higher education to ask a deeper question: If writing can be assisted by technology, what exactly should we be grading?The answer, I believe, must be the student’s thinking, judgement, application, and ability to make meaning from what the tool helps them produce. That line is increasingly blurry, but it is precisely the line educators must learn to examine more carefully.Emuwa, PhD, is an adjunct professor I am not ready to make that conclusion. However, I do believe AI is forcing higher education to ask a deeper question: If writing can be assisted by technology, what exactly should we be grading?The answer, I believe, must be the student’s thinking, judgement, application, and ability to make meaning from what the tool helps them produce. That line is increasingly blurry, but it is precisely the line educators must learn to examine more carefully.Emuwa, PhD, is an adjunct professor The answer, I believe, must be the student’s thinking, judgement, application, and ability to make meaning from what the tool helps them produce. That line is increasingly blurry, but it is precisely the line educators must learn to examine more carefully.Emuwa, PhD, is an adjunct professor Emuwa, PhD, is an adjunct professor