Fourteen AI-Proof Assessment Methods for the Age of Generative Intelligence

How Dialogic Classrooms Challenge the Industrial Model of Higher Education

This post follows my standard early access schedule: paid subscribers today, free for everyone on December 2.

I just returned from the 18th annual International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation (ICERI2025) in Seville, Spain, where I observed something quite remarkable. In multiple academic sessions, I experienced a growing consensus among researchers concerning the future of assessment within the context of artificial intelligence. The conversation was no longer about whether generative AI needs to be controlled and policed in order to preserve our current approach to the assessment of learning. Instead, most educators were converging on what might replace our crumbling assessment infrastructure. The answer emerging from these discussions was both radical and ancient: dialogic forms of assessment represent our most promising path through the AI disruption.

This convergence felt particularly meaningful to me given my current work on “The Detection Deception,” which I’m serializing here on this Substack. In that book, I argue that educational institutions have been seduced into a surveillance arms race they cannot win. Each new generation of detection software promises to identify AI-generated work, yet these tools fundamentally misunderstand the problem. We’ve been trying to forensically analyze student-created products after the fact rather than addressing the broken chain of custody that makes traditional take-home assessments obsolete. As I have argued many times, the solution isn’t technological; it’s pedagogical. We need to shift our focus from policing outputs to observing processes, from analyzing artifacts to engaging in dialogue, and, most importantly, from what students produce in isolation to how they think in interaction.

The timing of this shift matters. As I walked through Seville’s medieval streets, past buildings that have weathered centuries of technological disruption, I kept thinking about permanence and change in education. The printing press didn’t destroy the university; it transformed it. The internet didn’t eliminate the classroom; it extended it. Now, generative AI arrives not as education’s executioner but as its most demanding reformer. It forces us to abandon what was always a convenient fiction—that a submitted essay definitively shows individual understanding—and return to what has always been education’s true foundation: the irreducibly human interaction between teacher and student and the situated learning that emerges from lived experience. We need to return to the understanding that true knowledge reveals itself only through dialogue.

What follows is a practical compendium of fourteen dialogic assessment methods that embody this shift. These aren’t experimental proposals or theoretical frameworks; they’re time-tested approaches already being deployed in classrooms from community colleges to research universities. Each method works because these assessments evaluate the essence of human learning: real-time reasoning, the integration of personal experience with academic knowledge, and the metacognitive awareness that allows humans to recognize and correct their own thinking as it unfolds.

Consider this article a recipe book for educators ready to move beyond the detection deception toward assessment practices that honor what makes human learning distinctive. And I realize that this post is longer than usual, but I felt it is important to keep everything in one piece.

1. Whiteboard Defense

The whiteboard defense transforms problem-solving from a private cognitive act into a public performance of reasoning. Most commonly deployed in STEM fields—particularly engineering and physics—this method requires students to work through complex problems at a whiteboard while articulating their thinking process to an instructor who serves as both audience and interlocutor. The assessment focuses not on reaching the correct answer but on demonstrating the cognitive journey: how students identify relevant principles, select problem-solving strategies, recognize dead ends, and pivot toward productive approaches. The instructor employs Socratic questioning throughout, asking students to justify their assumptions, explain their notation choices, and predict the implications of their emerging solution. This creates what researchers call “cognitive-process-verification.” The instructor directly observes reasoning as it occurs rather than attempting to infer it from a polished final product.

Implementing whiteboard defense requires thoughtful consideration of several factors. The individual attention necessary for Socratic facilitation means institutions must commit to smaller class sizes, particularly in upper-division courses. Instructors need training in balancing supportive guidance with evaluative rigor—a skill that develops through practice and mentorship. Some students may initially feel uncomfortable with public problem-solving, though most adapt quickly when the classroom culture emphasizes learning over performance. The key challenge lies in developing instructors’ ability to distinguish conceptual understanding from procedural memorization, a nuanced skill that represents the true art of dialogic assessment.

2. Mathematical Proof Discussion

Mathematical proof discussion elevates the traditional proof-writing exercise into a dynamic exchange about mathematical reasoning itself. Primarily used in pure mathematics courses like real analysis or abstract algebra, this method requires students not merely to construct proofs but to defend their logical architecture in real-time dialogue. Students present their proof strategy, explain their choice of proof technique (direct, contradiction, induction), and articulate why certain approaches fail while others succeed. The instructor probes the boundaries of the proof, asking students to identify where arguments might break down, which conditions are necessary versus sufficient, and how slight modifications to hypotheses would affect the conclusion. This transforms proof from a static artifact into a living argument that must withstand intellectual pressure.

Mathematical proof discussion demands sophisticated facilitation that challenges instructors to deepen their own practice. Faculty must develop the ability to recognize subtle logical gaps and formulate questions that probe conceptual foundations—skills that enhance their own mathematical thinking. While many students initially struggle with the transition from calculation to argumentation, this method helps bridge that gap by making the reasoning process explicit and collaborative. The time investment, often twenty to thirty minutes per student, pays dividends in developing the mathematical maturity that defines genuine understanding.

3. Experimental Design Defense

The oral defense of an experimental design shifts assessment from experimental results to experimental reasoning. Used extensively in chemistry, biology, and experimental physics courses, this method requires students to justify their design choices, defend their selection of controls and variables, and interpret unexpected data in real-time. Students must explain why they chose specific reagent concentrations, how they determined appropriate sample sizes, and what alternative methodologies they considered and rejected. When presented with anomalous results, which can either be their own or hypothetical ones posed by the instructor, students must generate plausible explanations and propose follow-up experiments. This assessment captures what written lab reports often obscure: whether students understand the logic of scientific inquiry or merely follow procedural recipes.

Successfully implementing an oral defense requires strategic resource allocation and training. Institutions can address scalability through well-trained teaching assistants who undergo calibration sessions to ensure consistent evaluation standards. While students from varied backgrounds may initially approach scientific discourse differently, the method’s emphasis on reasoning over vocabulary helps level the playing field when implemented thoughtfully. The requirement of actual laboratory experience becomes an opportunity to ensure all students gain hands-on research skills. The investment in this assessment method yields graduates who understand scientific thinking at a fundamental level, distinguishing those who grasp the logic of inquiry from those merely following procedures.

4. Studio Critique

The studio critique represents perhaps the oldest form of dialogic assessment, with roots stretching back to Renaissance artist workshops. In contemporary art, architecture, and design programs, the “crit” requires students to present their creative work to peers and instructors who provide immediate, often challenging feedback. But the assessment goes beyond evaluating the artifact itself. It examines students’ capacity to articulate their creative choices, respond to criticism constructively, and integrate multiple perspectives into their artistic vision. Students must explain not just what they created but why, discussing influences, techniques, conceptual frameworks, and the relationship between intention and execution. The public nature of the critique adds another layer: students learn to give feedback as well as receive it, developing the critical vocabulary essential to creative fields.

The studio critique’s success hinges on establishing a classroom culture that balances honest feedback with a supportive community. This is a skill instructors can develop through practice and peer observation. While aesthetic judgment varies among evaluators, this diversity enriches the learning experience when framed as multiple valid perspectives rather than conflicting authorities. Time requirements, though substantial, create space for deep engagement with creative work. Students from different cultural backgrounds bring valuable perspectives on criticism and creativity, enriching the dialogue when instructors create inclusive frameworks for participation. The method’s strength lies precisely in navigating these productive tensions, teaching students to defend creative choices while remaining open to growth.

5. Patient Consultation Performance

Patient consultation performance assessment immerses healthcare students in the complex dynamics of clinical interaction. Used throughout medical and nursing education, this method—often employing standardized patients (trained actors)—evaluates not just diagnostic accuracy but the full spectrum of clinical communication: taking patient histories, explaining conditions in accessible language, demonstrating empathy, and navigating difficult conversations about prognosis or treatment options. Students must integrate biomedical knowledge with interpersonal skills, adapting their communication style to patient backgrounds, emotional states, and health literacy levels. The assessment captures competencies that written exams cannot measure: reading nonverbal cues, managing time while being thorough, and maintaining professionalism under pressure.

Building a robust patient consultation assessment requires an institutional commitment that yields significant returns. Training standardized patients represents an investment in creating consistent, high-quality learning experiences that benefit multiple cohorts. Programs can enhance reliability through team-based evaluation and clear rubrics while reducing the individual faculty burden. And developing culturally diverse scenarios becomes an opportunity to prepare students for increasingly multicultural patient populations. While standardized encounters differ from actual clinical situations, they provide safe spaces for students to develop skills without risk to real patients. The method’s value multiplies as healthcare increasingly recognizes that effective care depends on communication skills developed through structured practice and feedback.

6. Field Research Presentation

Field research presentation assessment evaluates students’ ability to conduct, analyze, and defend empirical research in disciplines ranging from anthropology to ecology to urban planning. Students must present their research design, data collection methods, analytical approaches, and findings to an audience that challenges their methodological choices and interpretive conclusions. The assessment examines not just what students discovered but how they navigated the messy realities of field research: dealing with unexpected obstacles, adjusting methods mid-study, recognizing their own biases, and acknowledging the limitations of their data. Students must defend their sampling strategies, explain how they established rapport with research subjects or communities, and justify their analytical frameworks while remaining open to alternative interpretations.

Field research presentations reveal authentic research challenges that strengthen students’ adaptability and methodological sophistication. The assessment requires instructors with methodological expertise who can recognize creative problem-solving in students’ field adaptations. While resource requirements for fieldwork can be substantial, partnerships with community organizations and creative use of local sites can expand opportunities. Students from diverse backgrounds often bring unique advantages to different research settings, enriching collective understanding when their perspectives are valued. The time investment in supervision and evaluation produces researchers capable of transforming messy field observations into systematic knowledge, developing the intellectual independence essential for original scholarship.