What Are Guardrails in the Classroom?
What Are Guardrails in the Classroom?
Guardrails are systems and boundaries put in place to ensure students stay on a safe, productive path. They protect students from "falling off a cliff" by keeping them from accessing unsafe, inappropriate, or academically dishonest opportunities. Guardrails might protect student data, ensure safety, shield them from material that isn’t developmentally appropriate, or prevent cheating and plagiarism. The goal is to create a safe, fair environment for learning that supports student growth.
We must be clear and consistent in setting expectations for both writing and AI use throughout the learning process. If we fail to explicitly communicate, "No AI use," or if we do not model appropriate practices and monitor progress, we cannot justly blame students for using AI when they may not realize it constitutes cheating. Students operate within the boundaries we establish, and it is our responsibility to ensure those boundaries are clear. Assumptions have no place in education—clarity is essential. Expectations must be thoroughly communicated, documented, and reinforced with language that students understand, rather than jargon designed to satisfy institutional norms. When policies are clearly defined and shared, educators are empowered to hold students accountable while fostering a learning environment built on trust, transparency, and growth.
When setting up guardrails for AI and technology in education, applying principles from Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) and Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) is critical. Both emphasize fostering independent growth while providing appropriate levels of support. Vygotsky's ZPD highlights the importance of learners developing skills through problem-solving, with assistance gradually removed as they progress. Over-reliance on tools—whether it's AI or other technology—risks undermining that developmental process. Similarly, LRE encourages environments where students engage with peers and learning tools without unnecessary restrictions, promoting participation and autonomy (Psychology) (Understood) (Cambridge University Press & Assessment).
AI tools, like writing assistants or research bots, are powerful resources, but they should not replace the cognitive effort necessary for meaningful learning. Guardrails can ensure students use these tools to enhance—not substitute—their thinking. For example, educators might require students to submit drafts that demonstrate their own ideas before refining them with AI. This aligns with Vygotsky’s notion that “the distance between the actual developmental level and the level of potential development” is bridged through careful guidance, not by doing the work for the learner (Verywell Mind).
By designing guardrails that guide students toward self-sufficiency, educators can leverage AI as a scaffold rather than a crutch. This process ensures that technology complements student learning without diminishing personal engagement. Properly constructed, these guardrails give students the freedom to explore ideas and use technology meaningfully, while keeping the focus on skill-building and independent problem-solving (IRIS) (Understood).
Requiring students to complete sentence-by-sentence paragraph outlines can be too rigid. While it may seem helpful to give students a structure, it can limit their ability to think creatively and express themselves. Instead of engaging with the material, students might focus solely on filling in the blanks to meet the assignment requirements, leading to surface-level learning and disengagement.
Giving students free access to AI tools without any process accountability can lead to over-reliance. If students aren’t required to submit drafts or show how they used the tool, they might bypass key learning stages. This removes the opportunity for them to develop their own thinking and problem-solving skills, leaving them unprepared for future tasks that demand independent work.
Assigning a final project or paper without providing checkpoints or feedback along the way can leave students confused about expectations. Without examples, models, or interim feedback, they may struggle to meet the standards set for the final product. This can result in frustration or disengagement, as students feel unsupported in their efforts to improve and succeed.
Offering students notes with fill-in-the-blank spaces to copy directly from a lecture may seem helpful, but it often encourages passive listening. Students become focused on writing down exactly what the teacher says rather than processing and understanding the information. While the notes might look complete, the student has not actively engaged with the content. This approach prioritizes having a perfect set of notes over developing note-taking strategies, critical thinking, and comprehension skills.
Sentence frames, verb lists, and broad outlines provide students with just enough structure to get started without restricting their creativity. For instance, a sentence frame might prompt, “The author elevates the theme of uncertainty through...suggesting...” leaving room for the student’s original thought. These tools scaffold the learning process without dictating the final product, ensuring that students can develop their skills and voice independently while still benefiting from support.
Modeling is a powerful way to teach students how to engage with content and processes. Whether it’s walking through a math problem step-by-step or writing a sample introduction to an essay, modeling gives students a clear example to follow. The key is to show, not tell—letting students observe the process in real time before trying it themselves. This method reduces confusion and provides a template for students to build on while still allowing them the flexibility to make the work their own.
Checklists are an effective tool—students might first confirm formatting details like double-spacing and font size, submitting the completed checklist with their draft. The next checklist could focus on evidence integration in body paragraphs, followed by one for the conclusion. Teachers simply approve these checklists, ensuring students take ownership without micromanagement. Using these as exit tickets encourages accountability and consistent engagement, helping students refine their work gradually and reducing last-minute pressure.
Students could submit multiple versions of their paper throughout the process: an initial draft written by hand in class, a second version typed and revised independently, and a final submission that incorporates AI-assisted revisions. Each version would show clear progress, with students reflecting on how AI shaped their ideas and revisions. This guardrail ensures students engage with their work at every stage, using AI as a scaffold rather than a shortcut. Additionally, it teaches valuable digital literacy skills while prioritizing student privacy by enforcing safety precautions when interacting with these tools.
"Collaboration is welcome in certain assignments, but students must clearly document each participant’s contributions. For group work, all members must submit a reflection on their individual roles and responsibilities. Any assistance from outside sources, including peers or online tools, must be disclosed and appropriately cited."
This policy teaches the value of honest collaboration while reinforcing academic integrity. By requiring clear documentation and individual accountability, it ensures that students learn to work responsibly, whether with peers or external resources.
"It is the student's responsibility to not only complete the work but complete the work as designed. Students have a burden of proof: they must show how they completed the work by submitting paper trails, outlines, cited sources, and visible documentation of their process. Process over outcome, always."
This statement emphasizes the importance of the process and empowers educators to give zero scores if students fail to show their work, outlines, or timestamps on digital documents. This approach reinforces a valuable life lesson: the learning process matters just as much—if not more—than the final outcome.
DOs
Introduce AI as a Tool for Support: Emphasize AI's role in guiding and structuring, not replacing thought.
Model, Model, Model: If you offer AI as a support tool, model appropriate use and show clear examples that emphasize how it is supposed to be used.
Require Documentation of the Process: Ask for outlines, drafts, and notes showing how AI was used.
Encourage Transparency: Students should disclose when and how they use AI tools. Students writing "According to ChatGPT" is a good thing! And if you don't want ChatGPT or AI use, it is your responsibility to disclose and clarify it.
Focus on Growth and Learning: Use AI to enhance learning opportunities, not as a shortcut to avoid effort.
Set Clear Guidelines for Ethical Use: Explain what appropriate use of AI looks like (e.g., brainstorming, research assistance).
DON'Ts
Don’t Ban AI Use Entirely: Focus on teaching responsible use rather than restricting access.
Don’t Let AI Replace Critical Thinking: Remind students that AI is a supplement, not a substitute, for their ideas.
Don’t Assume Students Know How to Use AI Well: Provide training and resources to guide effective use. Many may not even understand why it could be dangerous or how it could be misused.
Avoid Punishing Curiosity: Students exploring AI tools should be encouraged to learn rather than fear consequences.
Be Emotionally Aware: From my experience, many teachers have an immediately harsh and defensive reaction to any AI use. This can prevent both the student and you from growing as an educator.