“CAN you re-mark my paper? AI said it was good.” This is a sentence I’ve heard far too often lately.

Initially, I was surprised, but now I am genuinely concerned. I’ve noticed a consistent increase in the number of requests coming in. What I have realised, however, is that colleagues from other universities, locally and internationally, echoed similar experiences, and it became clear that my situation was not an anomaly. Students are relying on artificial intelligence (AI) tools to evaluate their academic writing and are placing more trust in these tools over the assessments of experienced educators. If students are outsourcing their judgment to machines, what happens to the role of human insight in learning?

We have to explore these implications. While AI certainly offers many benefits in education, the current trend begs the question: Has AI replaced teaching expertise? The short answer is no, but the longer answer demands a deeper conversation about how AI can support rather than supplant academic judgment.

The Allure of Artificial Intelligence

It’s not hard to see why students turn to AI for feedback. AI-powered tools are fast, readily accessible, and capable of generating coherent, structured responses. Tools like ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Claude, Microsoft Copilot, Jasper, and Writesonic offer interactive, conversational interfaces that allow students to pose questions, request rewrites, or even get feedback on drafts. They simulate intelligent dialogue, provide rationale for suggestions, and help students brainstorm, organise, or revise their academic work with ease.

When deadlines gather like storm clouds and students are caught in the downpour of assignments, AI can feel like a welcome umbrella, something to shield them as they push through the pressure. To their credit, many are showing initiative and curiosity, using whatever tools they can to strengthen their writing. It’s a sign of their determination to succeed. However, as with any tool, AI must be used responsibly and critically. The concern arises when students accept AI feedback without question, even when it contradicts human evaluations grounded in years, if not decades, of academic and pedagogical expertise.

The Rubric Isn’t the Issue, Interpretation Is

Interestingly, many students do use the grading rubric when reviewing their work. In fact, some proudly tell me that they compared their paper to the rubric and even asked ChatGPT to assess it based on those exact criteria. This shows they’re trying to be thorough and responsible. What they may not realise, however, is that while a rubric provides structure, it still requires expert interpretation. A rubric cannot grade a paper on its own; it is a guide that must be applied through the lens of academic and subject-specific understanding.

A paper might meet structural expectations: clear introduction, thesis, paragraphs, and conclusion, but lack critical depth, proper synthesis of sources, or discipline-specific conventions. These distinctions are often missed by AI and by students who are still developing their evaluative skills, and understandably so. This gap between surface-level alignment and deeper academic quality has been noted in recent studies, which acknowledged and emphasised that while AI tools assist with grading, the skills and judgment of teachers remain crucial, especially for more nuanced evaluations that require understanding each student’s unique context.

This disconnect can be genuinely confusing for students. It isn’t because students aren’t trying; they are trying to figure things out in a digital world that’s changing faster than ever. They’re using tools that sound like they know what they’re doing, and to a student still honing skills, that can be convincing. My concern isn’t about a lack of effort. In fact, I see many students working hard and taking real initiative. What I worry about is whether they’re getting the kind of feedback that actually helps them grow. It’s one thing to get a quick response from a chatbot, it’s another to sit with someone who can explain why something works, or doesn’t, and help build the skills that last. That’s the kind of support they really need.

Respecting the Role of the Educator

The role of educators should not be reduced to only that of a grader. We guide growth. We know our students, their voices, their effort, and the journey behind each submission. We don’t just see a paper, we see the person who wrote it. AI doesn’t. It doesn’t remember the research proposal or outlines, the class debate, or the breakthrough moment a student had in office hours. At times, AI tools do not flinch when a quote is misused or a source misrepresented. Many times, they don’t notice when a student’s writing suddenly sounds like someone or something else. So, for me, I am not handing over my red pen to a machine. No matter how polished the output, no algorithm can replace the feedback that helps students think better, write clearer, and grow more confident. Real learning comes from real interaction, and that’s something no chatbot, no matter how sophisticated, can fake.

Striking the Balance

So how do we move forward without losing what matters most?

First, students can start by treating AI like a writing assistant. Do not treat AI as a final examiner. Use it to generate ideas. Let it tidy up your grammar. But when it comes to meaning, depth, and voice, ask yourself: Would this make sense to someone who actually knows me and my work? Second, don’t just check the rubric, understand it. A perfect structure doesn’t guarantee a strong argument. That’s where trained eyes come in. AI can tick boxes. Teachers read between the lines. And here’s a radical idea: Ask a real person. Go to your tutor. Visit the writing centre. Send that e-mail. The best insights often come from a five-minute conversation.

Finally, remember this: Teachers aren’t here to set traps for you. We’re not feeding your essays to AI and comparing notes. We read. We reflect. We respond with your growth in mind. That’s more than just evaluation. We provide mentorship. If students truly want to thrive in this AI-shaped world, they’ll need more than fast feedback. They’ll need discernment, dialogue, and the courage to trust human guidance over machine confidence.

Today’s students must not only be information literate, they must also be AI literate. They should learn how AI works, what biases it might have, and when to question its feedback. Educators can help facilitate these discussions in the classroom.

A Call to Action for Institutions

Educational institutions must also play a proactive role. Universities need to provide guidance on responsible AI use, integrate digital ethics into the curriculum, and train both staff and students in interpreting AI-generated feedback. Rather than banning AI tools, we should teach students to use them wisely, balancing innovation with academic integrity.

At the same time, policies should reinforce the primacy of the instructor’s evaluation. Appeals based solely on AI feedback should be discouraged unless corroborated by human expertise. The goal is not to wage war on AI but to re-establish trust in human judgment.

AI is here to stay, and rightly so. When used responsibly, it can be an incredible asset to both students and teachers. But we must be clear-eyed about its limits. It does not and cannot replace the value of trained educators who understand not just the mechanics of writing but the deeper layers of meaning, growth, and learning. To the students who place their faith solely in AI: Know that we see your effort, your creativity, and your willingness to grow. Excellence comes not from shortcuts but from struggle, feedback, and authentic engagement with your learning journey. And to the teachers feeling sidelined by this technological wave: Take heart. Your voice still matters, perhaps now more than ever.

Let us guide our students, not away from AI, but through it, so that in learning to write well, they also learn to think deeply, critically, and wisely.

Dr Shalieka Burris is an academic literacy lecturer at the University of Technology, Jamaica. She is a leadership consultant specialising in teamwork development, emotional intelligence, and organisational growth. She is also a trained guidance counsellor. Send comments to the Jamaica Observer or Shalieka.Burris@utech.edu.jm.

Dr Shalieka Burris