10-Rep Learning ~ Teague's Tech Treks

Learning Technology & Tech Observations by Dr. Helen Teague

By

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Rubric: Personalized Learning with AI

     Higher Ed faculty spend a significant portion of their workload on assessment. Time on assessment often ranges from 11% to over 35% of their weekly hours, mostly on grading and providing feedback for paper-based assignments. Studies suggest this averages roughly 5 to 15 hours per week for undergraduates (Hardison, 2022). The time commitment varies heavily based on undergraduate or graduate coursework, assignment type; grading papers can take 20–60 minutes per student, while 80, 3-page papers might take over 80 hours total with intensive writing courses or large classes leading to much higher, sometimes unsustainable, grading loads (Mason, 2023). 

     The critical thinking churn of both assessment and written artifacts can become repetitively mundane for both faculty and their students. As undergraduate and graduate students confront the reading and writing demands of course work, there is a temptation to use shortcuts which tamper with authentic writing, critical thinking, concept acquisition, and personal transparency with their teachers. Sometimes the problem is not the AI use ~ it is the avoidance of personal reflection and the prioritization of time for critical thinking. Many papers, especially in graduate courses, require students to connect philosophy, policy, or research to their own teaching and learning.  AI is unable to do this work with authenticity. Students who outsource the critical thinking churn and accountability work skip the actual intellectual mental and reflective exercise the assignments are designed to create. The shortcut practice of using AI shortcuts occurs even when faculty build a fair and transparent AI policy.

     A new complicating factor for students who use of artificial affordances in place of their authentic voice is a new characteristic of AI usage known as ‘Double Flag’ Attribution Flip is alerting on university detechtion software checking for plagiarism and AI usage.

AI Match and ‘Double Flag’ Attribution Flip:
      In an interesting new development, when students reuse AI generated text in other assignments, there is a resulting higher attribution percentage. When the ‘source’ text being quoted was also AI-generated, the Copyleaks report will flag it as a misattribution or ‘source match.’ Essentially, you cannot ‘own’ an AI output by quoting it. Quoting a machine, for example AI, and labeling the resulting text as your own present or previous writing is misleading (Campbellsville University Libguides, 2026; Library and Learning Center, 2026) and objectively goes against most course requirements for an authentic human voice (Sharpe, 2025; Tufts University, 2026).

     However, if that earlier work was AI-generated, the AI-generated content creates a technical “double flag” in the attribution software such as TurnItIn and Copyleaks (De Amicis, 2026). The system recognizes the underlying machine patterns in the text (Campbellsville University Libguides, 2026) and can flag as both AI and traditional plagiarism. 

As a connecting reference, here are general AI tips and ideas from my recent AI presentation for the LOPES conference.

                                                                  References

Copyleaks, (2026) AI Detection. https://help.copyleaks.com/s/article/WhatdoestheAIdetectionpercentageindicatormean681cd2ccaabfe

De Amicis, A. (2026).  Self-plagiarism definition: Can you plagiarize yourself using AI?
TurnItIn blog. https://www.turnitin.com/blog/self-plagiarism-definition-can-you-plagiarize-yourself-using-ai

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Library (2026). Artificial Intelligence (AI) & Plagiarism. San Jose
State University.
https://library.sjsu.edu/plagiarism/ai-andplagiarism#:~:text=A%20growing%20concern%20is%20the,considered%20a%20form%20of%20plagiarism.
Archived Link: https://web.archive.org/web/20260207035140/https://library.sjsu.edu/plagiarism/ai-and-plagiarism

GPTZero Team, (2024). How to Avoid the Trap of Self-Plagiarism.
https://gptzero.me/news/avoid-self-plagiarism/

Hardison, H. (2022). How teachers spend their time: A breakdown. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/how-teachers-spend-their-time-a-breakdown/2022/04

Library and Learning Center (2026). Student guide to generative artificial intelligence.
Modesto Junior College. https://libguides.mjc.edu/chatgpt

Mason, B. (2023). Are you spending too much time on grading as a new professor? https://beccamason.com/gradingtips/

Montgomery Library, (2026). AI, plagiarism, and writing with integrity: Video on 7 types of
plagiarism. Campbellsville University Libguides.
https://campbellsville.libguides.com/ai-plagiarism-writing-integrity/video

Sharpe, A. (2025). Conestoga College of Teaching and Learning (Canada).

Email Templates Responding to Suspected Student Use of AI 

Tufts University, (2026). Center for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching.

Developing Syllabus Statements for AI

To cite this post: Teague, H. (2026). A funny thing happened on the way to the rubric. Edublogs.

Note: Post originally published April 21, 2025. Updated April 16, 2026 with updated resources and references.

By

Teague’s Going Forward Assessment

Going Forward Assessment

Going Forward Assessment

     Going Forward Assessment is my formative and summative assessment strategy. Going Forward assessment means that, during Week 1, I will advise mhy students of items that are not matching the rubric, or that need to be corrected Going Forward to earn full points on an assignment. Assessment is my classes is aligned to a posted rubric. The rubrics are posted at the beginning of each course. The rubrics often contain the same categories of Content, Mechanics, and APA Documentation in addition to specific assignment sections. For the first assessment cycle, my students are advised to look for the words “Going Forward” in my assessment comments. 

     For me, I often learned what should have been done or included with an assignment, after it was assessed. By then, full points had been deducted and there was no way to redo the assignment and earn back the points. This is why I decided to create a slightly different assessment model called Going Forward assessment. 

     My Going Forward assessment messages explain repetitive or procedural things that students need to do “Going Forward” to continue to earn full points in the rubric categories. In other words, students may have received full points during Week 1 for good-faith attempts at assignment completion, but may lose those points going forward, if rubric-related performance indicators are not addressed and corrected. 

     It is quite possible that students may see a high assessment score but will lose that high score Going Forward if they do not correct items that are not matching the rubric. So please read my assessment comments even if you receive full points for an assignment. 

     For example, in essay assignments, students sometimes choose to write a lengthy post emphasizing mainly their opinion with a scant reference to the weekly class resources. In this case, a Going Forward message might read, “to keep full points/almost full points, please continue to reference the weekly Class Resources even more in your initial post.” In futur weeks, points will be deducted because after a course policy video, references to rubrics and policy, time for questions and answers, it is time for implementation.

     In another example, a student may have articulated important points during a whole class discussion, but in their enthusiasm, they interrupted other students. A Going Forward message might note minimal points deduction with a reminder about courtesy discussion with a note to correct the behavior in the future so that full points rubric points will not be deducted. 

     Going Forward assessment benefits students by decentralizing the attempted completion aspect of student-created work from the criterion-referenced aspect of rubric assessment. Going Forward suggests an iterative, continuing, and progressive movement. Going Forward assessment promotes Mastery Learning instead of Mystery Assessment. 

Consider adapting the Going Forward assessment strategy with your classes.

 

~Helen Teague

First Published April 1, 2014
Last Update: January 5, 2026

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shirkey’s premise that the “sustaining force of political will” has the potential to bring the two circles together seems plausible. As a bi-product, it may also usher in a new form of arguing but as they say in the South, “For every dark road, there’s someone behind you with a flashlight.”

Skip to toolbar