How Hypothesis Helps Preserve Academic Integrity in the Age of AI

By Catalina Santilli | 29 July, 2025

AI

Introduction: A New Integrity Crisis in Higher Ed

As generative AI tools like ChatGPT become more accessible, faculty are grappling with a new kind of academic integrity challenge. Students can now produce essays, discussion posts, and summaries with minimal effort—undermining the goals of authentic learning. While plagiarism detection software like Turnitin offers one layer of defense, it often arrives too late in the process to meaningfully influence student behavior.

What educators need isn’t just detection—it’s prevention. A shift from punitive policing to proactive pedagogy. That’s where Hypothesis comes in.

  1. Annotation Makes Thinking Visible

Hypothesis doesn’t just capture final products—it surfaces the process of thinking itself. When students annotate course readings directly in the margins, their intellectual engagement becomes visible: questions, reactions, moments of confusion, and emerging insights.

This kind of granular thinking is nearly impossible for AI to replicate convincingly. Annotation assignments require students to interact with specific passages in real time, demonstrating critical engagement and active reading.

“It’s harder to AI your way through an annotation assignment.”
— Merilee Madera, West Liberty University

 

You can see this in action in our case study, AI Isn’t the Enemy: Teaching Critical Thinking in the Age of ChatGPT, where instructors used Hypothesis to make student thinking transparent—and build habits that resist shortcutting.

  1. Originality Through Peer Response

Unlike traditional essays, annotation isn’t a solo act. Students read and respond to each other’s annotations, generating real-time conversations that are contextual, unique, and rooted in the text.

This interactivity creates a web of unscripted dialogue that’s difficult for generative AI to fabricate. Peer responses push students to engage more authentically—there’s no “one-size-fits-all” response when you’re replying to your classmate’s interpretation of a complex text.

“Hypothesis allows me to suggest the value of slow reading.”
— Nick LoLordo, University of Oklahoma

 

These authentic learning moments are also discussed in Five Ways to Use Social Annotation With—and Against—ChatGPT, which highlights practical examples of how to use AI to spark—not replace—student voice.

  1. AI as Topic, Not Crutch

Rather than ban AI entirely, faculty are finding ways to integrate it into learning. Annotation becomes a tool not just to resist generative content, but to critique and evaluate it.

At Missouri Southern State University, Diana Fordham asks future educators to generate AI responses using ChatGPT—then annotate them for bias, inaccuracies, and lack of nuance.

“I’m teaching educators how to use AI as an assistant—not a shortcut.”
— Diana Fordham, MSSU

 

At SUNY New Paltz, Rachel Rigolino’s students annotate AI-generated SWOT analyses or summaries, pinpointing flaws and improving comprehension in the process.

“This approach helps students see AI as a tool, not a crutch.”
— Rachel Rigolino, SUNY New Paltz

 

More ideas for bringing these kinds of assignments into your classroom are covered in the webinar Leveraging Social Annotation in the Age of AI, part of our Learning Lab series.

  1. From Policing to Promoting Integrity

Where traditional plagiarism detection tools create an atmosphere of mistrust, Hypothesis builds a culture of transparency and creativity. It moves the conversation from “how do we catch them?” to “how do we guide them?”

Assignments built on annotation promote intellectual ownership. They invite curiosity, collaboration, and critique—hallmarks of honest academic work. Instructors can model ethical AI use, structure clear expectations, and design coursework that rewards the process, not just the product.

With Hypothesis, faculty are helping students understand why originality matters—and giving them the tools to practice it.

Conclusion: Academic Integrity That Evolves with Technology

AI will continue to evolve, and so must the ways we teach. Banning technology rarely works—and it certainly doesn’t prepare students for the ethical decisions they’ll face in their careers.

Hypothesis gives faculty a way to meet this moment: a human-centered, flexible tool that encourages students to think for themselves, read with care, and participate in meaningful academic dialogue. Instead of fighting AI, it offers a pathway for using it wisely.

Want to see how other institutions are designing AI-resistant assignments with Hypothesis?


Share this article