Here’s the assignment: Analyze the causes of the American Revolution and evaluate which cause was most significant. Support your argument with evidence.

Here’s what the student writes:

"The most significant cause was taxation without representation because it violated fundamental democratic principles. Unlike the Boston Massacre, which was an isolated incident affecting few colonists, taxation impacted all colonial economic activity. The Tea Act of 1773 exemplifies this systematic oppression, creating widespread resentment that unified diverse colonial interests. While the Intolerable Acts were severe, they were reactive measures, whereas taxation represented proactive British policy designed to subordinate colonial autonomy..."

The teacher reads this product and is impressed. Excellent critical thinking, she thinks. Sarah demonstrates strong analysis, uses specific evidence, compares multiple causes, and presents a well-reasoned argument.

But here’s what actually happened. Sarah cleverly wrote this with generative AI.

Sarah's AI conversation:

Sarah received an A for critical thinking. She never engaged in critical thinking.

This scenario illustrates how AI use, particularly using ChatGPT’s study mode, can simulate critical thinking outcomes while bypassing the cognitive processes that build genuine analytical skills. Sarah was indeed skilled at directing AI's intelligence. While there is value in prompting, she failed to strengthen her own thinking process.

Many schools and universities have assessments that are structurally designed to evaluate final products rather than cognitive processes. This makes them inherently blind to AI assistance. Traditional rubrics assess observable outcomes — organization, evidence use, vocabulary sophistication, and argument structure — all of which AI can produce at or above grade level.

Since these evaluation methods focus on what students produce........

© Psychology Today