Usewright is about judgment, including the judgment not to use AI

How it helps a no-AI course

• The rule is clear on every task. Set a task to “No AI” and students see it before they start. A plan that goes beyond the rule gets a plain warning.
• Students commit before the work, not after. Planning first, with a reason, makes the no-AI choice deliberate rather than a rule they discover at the end.
• The skill stays theirs. You name the protected competency, the part that must be the student's own, and Usewright keeps it in front of them.
• Understanding is checked without suspicion. Students explain their work in their own words, and revisit it a week later. The oral check kit gives you the same short questions for everyone if you want to hear it out loud.
• No detectors. Detectors make mistakes and turn learning into suspicion. Usewright never detects, monitors, or scores AI use.

Why bother, if AI is not allowed?

Your students meet AI in every other course and will meet it at work. A rule alone tells them what not to do here. Practicing the decision, and explaining why the work should stay theirs, builds the judgment they will need wherever the rule is different. Students who decline AI for a reason they can state are better placed than students who only followed a ban.

It is also quick: about 30 seconds to plan and a minute to reflect, on the three to five tasks you choose.

A no-AI statement you can use

Generative AI is not permitted for this work. The purpose of this work is to build skills you will need to show on your own, and AI would do part of that practice for you. Spelling and grammar checkers that only correct errors are fine. If you are unsure whether a tool counts, ask me before you use it. If AI use is part of an approved accommodation, that accommodation applies.

See it with the student guide, and the other levels