Integrevise for The Citadel

Turn AI guidance into evidence of understanding.

Integrevise adds a short adaptive oral check after submission. Questions use the existing brief, rubric and student work, giving faculty reviewable evidence of what each learner can explain while academic judgement remains with The Citadel.

Compare assessment priorities See how it works ↓

One practical evidence layer

Support course-level AI policies without adding a live viva to every submission.

Integrevise works from materials teaching teams already use. It creates a structured opportunity for explanation without replacing faculty judgement or adding further surveillance.

For The Citadel

Make evidence of understanding visible.

Extend red, yellow and green course policies with direct evidence of what each student can explain, justify and defend.

For faculty

Keep the brief, rubric and judgement.

Review structured evidence from a work-grounded discussion instead of scheduling every conversation manually.

For students

Explain choices and demonstrate ownership.

Give learners a transparent opportunity to show what they understand and critically evaluate how AI supported their work.

Peer-reviewed pilot2026One university setting

Early evidence, clearly bounded

A practical approach with preliminary university evidence.

A repeated, multi-cycle pilot at one private US liberal arts college offers preliminary qualitative evidence that post-submission oral verification can surface comprehension gaps and implementation issues. It does not establish broad efficacy or scalability.

Read the peer-reviewed study

The Citadel policy → practical evidence

The standard is already clear. Students should demonstrate understanding.

The Citadel’s green-light policy says final submitted work should clearly demonstrate the student’s understanding and ability to synthesize information. Its campuswide guidance says AI should enhance the thought process rather than replace it. Integrevise complements those standards with a short, work-grounded oral discussion. It does not detect AI use or make misconduct decisions.

A focused first conversation

Compare priorities before designing anything.

Twenty minutes is enough to compare CEITL&DE’s priorities for responsible AI, online assessment, faculty workload and evidence of learning, then decide whether the approach deserves a closer look.

Book a 20-minute conversation No module selection, pilot design or assessment redesign required.