The AI Background in the Digital Portfolio

Ms. Chen should first separate two issues: whether AI use was allowed and whether Jonah misrepresented the process. The existing guideline says all work must be your own, but it does not define AI-generated imagery, so the rule is ambiguous. A fair response is to treat the undisclosed AI background as a documentation problem rather than a major cheating case, especially because Jonah admitted it when asked. She should ask him to submit the layered file, prompt history if available, and a short process statement identifying which parts he generated and which he painted. The image can be regraded only on the documented portions, or Jonah can replace it with a process-verified work by a short extension. Ms. Chen should apply the same standard to the other 23 students by asking for process evidence where files are ambiguous. The reasoning is consistency and proportionality: enforce honesty, do not invent a retroactive penalty for an undefined tool, and preserve the assessment's focus on demonstrated skills.

The portfolio should require process evidence alongside final images. Students could submit a project brief, at least two dated progress screenshots, a short reflection on decisions, and a disclosure statement listing any AI tools used and how. For one required image, the class could use a controlled process check: a layered file with named layers, an in-progress critique, and a brief oral defense of compositional choices. The rubric should separate concept, composition, technical execution, reflection, and ethical use. AI-assisted work could be permitted in a specified category if disclosed, while the process-verified category remains human-authored. This teaches critical AI literacy rather than pretending the tools do not exist. It also gives Ms. Chen evidence that is harder to fake than a single save file. The key is to define terms such as generate, edit, reference, and assist, so students know what must be disclosed.

The department should write a policy with clear categories: prohibited uses, permitted uses with disclosure, and required process evidence. It should define consequences that fit the severity and repeatability of the violation, and include an appeal or conversation step. Because students have unequal access to paid AI tools, the policy should not assume that everyone can use the same generators; assignments should offer a no-AI route that can earn full credit. The department should involve students in reviewing the language, pilot it in one unit, and collect feedback from teachers across digital and traditional media. Professional development should include examples of AI-assisted work and process documentation. Consistency also requires that all teachers use the same disclosure form and the same rubric language. The reasoning is that a policy is fair only if students can understand it in advance and if assessment does not penalize students for lacking tools they were never required to use.