I used to review student work digitally. I would type up notes, do tracked changes edits, and etc.
At some point last year I slowly switched to printing out student work and reviewing it by hand with a pen. I'm not sure why I changed my process but I did. Once I finish a review, I scan it in and send them the PDF plus leave the hard copy outside my office for them.
Students initially didn't like it because they had to interpret my handwriting.
But in the last few months, students have been quite happy because they know I'm not using AI to review their work. They can literally see my handwriting.
The students can (and often do) feed their work through AI to do a pre-review before sending it to me. I have other thoughts on the usefulness of AI in these cases but I allow the students a great deal of latitude in that regard as long as they disclose and document what they're doing with AI. They don't need me feeding their work through AI.
I suspect it'll become a differentiator between how I approach education and how some colleagues are now approaching it. If I'm not using my expertise, then why am I even employed when the students could use an LLM without a faculty member doing it for them?
Anyway... It turns out handwritten feedback once again has a place in education.
I've also gone back to paper and pencil in-person exams. Students are not entirely thrilled about it but some are starting to come around to the idea.
#academicChatter