Module 2 Board: Share your existing practice or your future plan for addressing ethical

use of GenAI tools with students.

1. Consider including examples of how you might:

1. Define acceptable and unacceptable uses of AI in your course.
2. Help students understand issues of privacy, data protection, and
attribution.
3. Model bias awareness or fact-checking strategies when using AI-
generated content.
4. Integrate disclosure or citation language for AI-assisted work.
5. Promote critical reflection on when and why to use (or not use) AI.
 Currently this is what I have on my syllabus that is borrowed from the
Arti Joshi TCNJ's CETL website: " Policy on use of AI: (adapted from Temple
University, Center for Advancement of Teaching) use of generative AI
tools (e.g. ChatGPT, Dall-e, etc.) is permitted in this course for the
following activities ONLY:
● Brainstorming and refining your ideas;
● Fine tuning your research questions;
● Finding information on your topic;
● Drafting an outline to organize your thoughts; and
● Checking grammar and style.
The use of generative AI tools is not permitted in this course for the
following activities:
● Impersonating you in classroom contexts, such as by using the
tool to compose discussion board prompts assigned to you or
content that you put into a Zoom chat.
● Writing a draft of a writing assignment.
● Writing entire sentences, paragraphs or papers to complete
class assignments.
You are responsible for the information you submit based on an AI query
(for instance, that it does not violate intellectual property laws, or contain
misinformation or unethical content). Your use of AI tools must be
properly documented and cited in order to stay within TCNJ’s policies on
academic honesty. For example, [ See resources for APA guidance, and
for other citation formats.]. When you do use AI, please use the
declaration form (found on CANVAS) to disclose how and in what
way AI was used. Any assignment that is found to have used generative
AI tools in unauthorized ways [will result in either loss of grade for that
assignment or other penalties as outlined in TCNJ’s academic integrity
policy- see below*]. When in doubt about permitted usage, please ask for
clarification."
However, based on the readings/discussions, I would add the following:
In this class, our main goal is to help you build your critical thinking skills
and grow into a thoughtful, professional educator. You’re welcome to use
AI tools when you need help brainstorming ideas or organizing your
thoughts. However, it’s important to develop your own viewpoints about
child development and learning—something AI can’t do for you. Keep in
mind that AI tools aren’t always accurate or free from bias. Also, anything
you type into them might be saved or used to improve the tool, which
could affect your privacy. Always double-check the information you get
from AI to make sure it’s accurate, authentic (from other sources like
scholarly data bases, checking on references provided) and unbiased.
Most importantly make sure that the output truly reflects your own
voice/perspective and understanding. It is important that you avoid using
any identifiable data or information that might violate privacy rights (your
own or others). If you have any questions or doubt about when to use AI
and/or how the information might be useful/accurate, please feel free to
get in touch with me.
(This content was reworded using CHATGPT- to make it more student
friendly. Subsequently It was edited and formatted for accuracy)
 I write detailed instructions for my writing assignments that emphasize
Rebecca the importance of applying theoretical ideas to either personal
Li experiences or statistical data extracted from datasets based on
measurement articulated in academic publications or interview and
observation data. I explain to students that these assignments are
designed for them to develop critical thinking skills that include the
application of abstract concepts to concrete examples and/or empirical
data and it requires them to follow the instructions closely to learn how to
do it. Using AI tools in the process will deprive them of the opportunity to
develop these skills.
Next semester, I plan to articulate more explicitly in my syllabi how
engaging with the readings without assistance from AI tools will help
them develop the crucial reading comprehension skills needed to develop
their critical thinking skills. Strong reading comprehension skill will be
essential for reviewing sources used by AI to check if the information and
analyses provided by AI tools are sound. As more texts are generated by
AI, critical reading of source materials will be an increasingly important
skill.

In my courses, I have been trying to intentionally redesign the majority of

Michele my assignments so they rely on students’ original thinking, their personal
Coulombe experience, and their creativity. These tasks are AI-free spaces and
students should not use generative tools for brainstorming, drafting, or
creating because the purpose is to help them develop their own voice,
their knowledge base, and to reflect and engage in authentic creative
work.
However, there are other contexts in which AI may be used ethically and
productively in my classes, such as gathering preliminary information on
an author or illustrator, formatting bibliographies, or creating rubrics.
Moving forward, I need to address these differences in assignments, and
my expectations when AI is acceptable. I need to incorporate more
explicit guidance around when and how AI can be used in these cases. I
am seeing great examples in this Discussion Board so far and from the
resources that were provided. My guidelines will revolve around
accuracy, bias, and disclosure.

Currently in my courses I do not allow use of gen AI except in the

Zakiya instance of creating scholarly bibliographies. When students use gen AI
Adair to create their scholarly bibliographies I require that they document and
cite gen AI and they are also required to provide an annotation on each
source that documents that they have reviewed the source to ensure that
i meets the scholarly expectations of the course.
I am thinking about creating one assignment in my spring 2026 film
course that ask students to use gen AI to write a film report and the
student =s would then have to write a process essay where they explain
the components of the essay that work and discuss if there are any
components that do not work. I believe that it is of utmost importance to
require students to cite their use of AI to avoid plagiarism and to avoid
other unethical use.
 Although it’s a learning environment that’s different from most other
John courses at TCNJ, IDS 102 course (“Information Literacy Proficiency”)
Oliver potentially raises some interesting questions worth considering.
In terms of acceptable conduct for students completing IDS 102, I’m
inclined to allow students to use AI to whatever degree they like.
Because of the size of the course (eg ~1,900 students enrolled in fall
2025), the course has for decades been conducted entirely online and
asynchronously, with students receiving their grades based on a series of
multiple choice questions. The work they’d need to do to locate correct
answers to the quizzes/exams would arguably be richer (at least more
conversational and personalized) than reading and re-reading the
webpages where they’re meant to find answers. The potential
environmental impacts, however, take my breath away. Since EVERY
incoming TCNJ undergrad completes this course, that could amount to
millions of GenAI queries each semester. Considering this environmental
factor alone, I lean toward prohibiting the use of GenAI tools. (As an
alternative, perhaps I would consider setting up and directing attention to
a site-specific search tool that could provide a similar question-asking
functionality).

In terms of course content, I have long imagined that AI literacy has a

natural home in a course like IDS 102, whose stated purpose is to
“increase students’ knowledge, skills, and comfort level in locating,
evaluating, and using information for college-level academic research.”
Learning activities related to AI have not already been added to the
course because of the college’s existing policies and practices around
GenAI and academic integrity. I’ve met repeatedly with relevant campus
leaders to consider this question (does AI literacy belong in IDS 102?),
and the consensus thus far has been No. In the end, IDS102 must take
its cues from the broader TCNJ curriculum ecosystem, and I think it
would be irresponsible of me to add AI literacy to IDS 102 as long as A)
TCNJ continues to omit any specific mention of GenAI in its academic
integrity policy and/or B) TCNJ continues to give each course instructor
fully unrestricted autonomy over acceptable AI use in their courses. I’m
sure I can thread the needle before those two factors are addressed, but
it’s not entirely straightforward how that module would look.

I used the Stanford Center for Teaching and Learning worksheet to help
Maureen me develop a policy. See below:
Connolly
💡 Generative AI Policy: Enhancing Your Learning
A key goal of this course is for you to develop your own authentic voice
and style. I want to know what you think, and to help you become a
critical user of AI. That said, I recognize that Generative AI tools (like
ChatGPT, Claude, etc.) are powerful and rapidly evolving. In this course,
at times, I will provide you with an option to use these tools thoughtfully to
support your learning, not to replace your own thinking or creative voice.

Key Guidelines for Using AI in This Course

1. Critical Responsibility: You are fully responsible for the
content you submit. You must:
○ Verify all facts, sources, and arguments.
○ Check for and correct any inaccurate, biased, or
problematic AI-generated content.
○ Ensure that any concepts or ideas are properly
attributed to their original scholars.
○ Submitting AI-generated content without proper
citation will be considered plagiarism.
2. Full Disclosure and Reflection: When you use an AI tool,
you must disclose this use in your assignment. This includes:
○ Citing the system(s) used and date(s) of use.
○ Describing the specific prompts or methods you
used.
○ Including a metacognitive reflection section
○ Links to an external site.
○ that discusses how you used the tool, and its impact
on your learning.

Support and Alternatives

I understand that you may have ethical, privacy, or security concerns
about using AI tools. Your use of AI is entirely optional, and equivalent
alternatives are available for every student.

My door is always open. I welcome you to reach out to me via email or

office hours to discuss how AI might fit into your work, or if you require
any accommodations. I am here to support your success.
This statement was drafted with assistance from Gemini (October
2025). The content was reviewed and edited for accuracy and
context.

NOTE: I really appreciate the way you modeled an AI statement in

Section 5. It made it easy to do the same above.
I also like the simple question posed by CSU: "Would I be comfortable
explaining how I used AI to my instructor or peers?" It seems like a good
way to help students consider whether or not AI use is appropriate.
 In general I encourage students to use generative AI in an ethical and
Yutong responsible way. I have the following in the syllabus and reiterate in
Xie class.
Purpose: GenAI can be a powerful tutor, editor, and coding assistant. In
this course you may use GenAI to learn, not to delegate your graded
work. All use must follow TCNJ’s Academic Integrity policy.
● I encourage (with disclosure): brainstorm, outlines, concept
checks, grammar/style, coding debug hints, docstring
generation, plotting suggestions.
● I require caution (with disclosure): summarizing readings;
generating starter code; drafting email/client memos;
proposing model specs.
● I prohibit: writing graded answers; uploading assessments;
generating citations/data you didn’t verify; any use on
quizzes/exams; bypassing paywalls/terms.
Privacy & data protection (before you paste anything into a tool)
● Assume prompts/uploads may be stored by the provider. Do
not upload personal information (names, emails, IDs), client
information, or proprietary case materials.
● Use anonymized examples (e.g., “Firm A”) and sample rows
for debugging.
● Prefer institutionally provided tools or local modes when
possible; review a tool’s terms of use and data retention policy.
Required disclosure & citation: Include an AI Use Statement in every
submission where GenAI helped, and keep a transcript/screenshot in an
appendix or repo folder.
What students can critically reflect the use of AI:
● Why did you use AI here, and what value did it add?
● What did you verify, and how?
● Where could bias or error creep in?
● What did you change after the AI suggestion?
● Could you have done this without AI? Why/why not?

Sample GenAI Policy for SED 399

Jonathan
Davis
Acceptable Use Policy for Generative AI in SED 399
This course is focused on preparing you to be an effective educator in the
Secondary classroom while also better understanding the needs of your
future students. With the ever-increasing use of Generative AI (GenAI) in
the work and our educational spaces, it is important to learn as both a
teacher and student how to appropriately and effectively use GenAI (like
Gemini or ChatGPT) as a meaningful TOOL to enhance the work we are
doing rather than as a means to replace our (and our future students')
thinking and work. Below, you will find more explicit guidance on how we
will navigate GenAI use in our classroom.
● When can GenAI be used in this course (Acceptable Use)?

○ Brainstorming: Sometimes you have lots of great

ideas and you aren't sure where to take them. If you
are feeling stuck, GenAI can be a tool for you to
input your ideas to look for themes or ideas you
might have missed. This cannot be to replace your
thinking and idea generation; rather, it is to help you
process your own thoughts in a new way. Note, you
must cite the use of GenAI when using this
approach.
○ Materials Creation: Creating materials from scratch
can be time consuming and more laborious than unit
and lesson planning. Therefore, GenAI can be used
to create slides, worksheets, etc. where you provide
all of the inputs and then modify the materials once
they are generated. Note, you must cite the use of
GenAI when using this approach.
○ Rubric Generation: Like with materials creation,
rubrics can be challenging to make from scratch and
take enormous amounts of time. You can use
GenAI to input all of your requirements and the type
of rubric you want to use (see Planning for Teaching
Success chapter on rubrics for ideas) to help design
and produce your desired rubrics. Note, you must
cite the use of GenAI when using this approach.
● When can GenAI NOT be used in this course (Unacceptable
Use)?
○ Unit and Lesson Planning: All unit and lesson
planning should be done without the use of GenAI.
The only time you can use it would be to check if
your unit's or lesson's big ideas and objectives are
meeting the required state standards or to generally
brainstorm some ideas (like noted above), but not
for the final plans.
 ○ Assessments: All assessments -- formative and
summative -- should be of your own creation.
Rubrics (noted above) can be assisted by the use of
GenAI, but the assessments themselves must your
original work.
● How do I account for Privacy, Data Protection, and
Attribution?
○ Privacy and Data Protection: Use TCNJ-approved
secure tools (Gemini, Notebook LM, Copilot), which
protect user data under institutional licensing.
○ Attribution: Be transparent with all GenAI use and
provide a statement at the bottom of every
document/use of GenAI where you clearly state that
your work was produced with the assistance of a
GenAI tool.
● How do I check for bias and use fact-checking strategies
when using AI-generated content?
○ Bias: Carefully read through all of your GenAI
products by looking at both the content as well as
the sources used to produce that content and
determine what bias might exist within the output. If
you notice significant bias, you can try alternative
inputs to produce more balanced products; however,
if you notice consistent bias, you should not use any
of the GenAI outputs.
○ Fact-Checking: EVERY time you use GenAI, you
must thoroughly check the outputs/products for
accuracy. To do this, start by evaluating the sources
used and then look at every statement to double
check its accuracy (from the sources and your prior
knowledge on the topic). You MUST correct all
errors and consider scrapping any outputs/products
that are riddled with errors.
● What disclosure or citation language for AI-assisted work
should I use?
○ Whenever Using GenAI: Add the following statement
at the bottom of ANY GenAI output/product: "This
_______ was drafted with assistance from [GenAI
Tool] (DATE). The content was reviewed and edited
by the author for accuracy and context.*
● How can I be critically reflective on when and why I decide to
use (or not use) AI?
○ Before Using GenAI: Before you decide to use any
GenAI tool, ask yourself whether it is necessary for
you to use it in order to produce the best
 outputs/products. Look at the acceptable use policy
above and determine whether GenAI would be
beneficial in helping you enhance your own ideas as
a TOOL (not to replace your thinking). If the answer
is yes, evaluate the best way to use the GenAI tool
to produce the best/desired results.
○ After Using GenAI: Once you have used your
selected GenAI tool, evaluated the output/product,
and made all of the necessary edits and revisions,
reflect on whether the tool in fact made the
output/product better and saved you time? Then
determine whether you should use this same tool in
the future for similar work.
○
●
 This is the statement that I included in my SOC385 Introduction to
Liz Applied Sociology course this semester
Borland
Generative AI Use Policy
As generative AI tools become more widely used in professional,
academic, and nonprofit settings, it is increasingly important for students
to understand how they work, how to use them effectively, and what their
limitations and risks. In this course, you may choose to use generative AI
tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini) to support your learning and professional
development. These tools can assist with brainstorming, revising,
formatting, and refining materials. However, AI use is never required,
and you are encouraged to make thoughtful choices about when, how,
and whether to use these tools.

What You MAY Do with Generative AI:

● Use AI tools to rephrase, refine, or format documents when
permitted (e.g. resume, press release).
● Ask AI for examples, templates, or ways to structure your ideas
—after you’ve developed your own content (e.g. a table of
contents or executive summary based on a report draft).
● Get help revising your own drafts [for permitted assignments],
especially to improve clarity.
● Use AI to brainstorm ideas, but only as a starting point, not a
substitute for your own thinking.

What You MAY NOT Do with Generative AI:

● Use AI to write reflective, values-based, or personal
assignments (e.g., statements on your goals, ethics reflections,
or professional values exercises). These must be entirely your
own work.
● Submit AI-generated content as your own, whether or not you
edited it slightly.
● Use AI to avoid engaging with course concepts, readings, or
experiential learning assignments.

Transparency Required! If you use AI tools in any assignment, you

must document your use in a footnote or note at the end of the
assignment. Include:
 ● Tool name
● Prompt(s) used
● Date of use
● What part of your work was influenced
Example footnote: ChatGPT, response to “Reword this résumé bullet to
emphasize impact: ‘Helped plan community events,’” OpenAI, August 15,
2025, [Link]
AI helped me rewrite bullet points in my résumé for clearer language
about skills associated with this part of the resume.

Please Avoid These Common Pitfalls:

1. Don’t Let AI Replace Your Thinking
Always start with your own ideas. Using AI too early can limit
your creativity and learning.
2. Don’t Confuse Polish with Quality
A professional-looking product is not the same as strong
content. Your grade reflects your analysis, originality, and
understanding—not how well AI cleaned up your writing.
3. Don’t Guess the Rules—Check Each Assignment
I’ll clearly indicate on each assignment whether AI use is:
○ ✅ Allowed (with documentation)
○ ⚠️Limited (ask before using)
○ ❌ Not allowed (especially personal/reflective
work, such as the Memos)
4. Don’t Hide Your AI Use
Failure to disclose AI involvement is an academic integrity
problem (see policy above). Be specific about how and when
you used it. Communicate with your team about AI use in any
shared assignments.
5. Don’t Bypass Reflection or Ethics
AI can’t speak for your lived experience. Assignments that ask
for your opinions, values, or reflections must be your own:
human-written by you and authentic.
6. Don’t Trust AI without Question
AI can be biased, inaccurate, or misleading. You are
responsible for what you submit so use critical judgment and
ask if you are unsure. This is particularly essential for the
TVCP!
Environmental and Ethical Considerations
Generative AI tools are powerful, but they are not neutral. They raise
important ethical issues—including labor practices, data privacy, and the
reproduction of bias—as well as significant environmental costs,
especially in terms of energy and water usage and carbon emissions.
You are not required to use AI in this course. In fact, choosing not to use
AI can be an intentional and thoughtful decision.

We Will Learn This Together

Because AI is rapidly evolving, we will discuss its use throughout the
semester. Part of learning applied sociology is engaging critically with
technologies and making intentional choices about their role in society
and in our own work.
 After careful consideration, I do not think that ethical use of GenAI is
Jose possible in my disciplines, Music theory and composition, and Jazz
Bevia piano. Therefore, I had to come up with a GenAI usage policy to be
included in my syllabi starting next semester. This is the first draft of it:
GenAI Use Policy:
The use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools including, but not limited to,
ChatGPT, notation generators, and automated composition programs, is
strictly prohibited in this course. Music theory requires the personal
engagement of each student in analyzing, composing, singing, and
understanding the structural and architectural elements of music.
Submitting work generated or substantially assisted by AI compromises
the authenticity of your learning process and violates the College’s
academic integrity policy. All written assignments, sight singing, exams,
and composition projects must represent your own original creative voice,
supported only by approved course materials and instructor guidance.

Rationale for the Policy:

As future music educators, performers, and composers, it is essential
that you develop a deep and personal command of music theory that
extends beyond the capabilities of automated tools. True musicianship
depends on your ability to hear, analyze, sing, and explain music
independently. These skills cannot be replaced by AI. Relying on AI will
undermine your ability to think critically, make informed artistic decisions,
and communicate theoretical concepts effectively to your own students,
colleagues, and audiences. Mastery of music theory through your own
work will ensure that you can carry forward the discipline’s ethical,
creative, and pedagogical standards with integrity and confidence.

AI Policy for PHL 100 (template example)

Consuelo
Preti
Philosophy requires careful thinking, precise argumentation, and
authentic engagement with ideas. This policy treats LLMs as a tool that
can support—but never replace—your philosophical work. The goal is to
develop your capacity for independent critical thinking and learn how to
use LLMs ethically.
Acceptable Uses of LLMs
● Research assistance – Finding relevant sources, thinkers, or
 concepts (which you must then verify and read independently)
Required disclosure: When AI assists with any assignment, include a
brief note at the end describing how you used it (e.g., "I used LLM to
discover the following research sources”)
Unacceptable Uses of AI
AI may NOT be used for:
● Generating your core arguments or thesis: (this is the learning
goal in a philosophy class)
● Brainstorming (this is necessary work in coming up with your
own thesis/arguments)
● Writing full paragraphs or essays (Submitting LLM-generated
text as your own work constitutes
misrepresentation/plagiarism)
● Replacing assigned readings: (reading, understanding, and
analyzing is the learning goal in philosophy class)
● Completing take-home exams or assessments
Privacy and Data Protection
● Never share personal information with LLM tools (your own or
others')
● Be cautious with your work. Understand that inputs to LLM
systems may be stored or used for training
● Avoid uploading sensitive content . Don't submit other
students' work or copyrighted materials without permission
Citation and Attribution
Cite approved uses of LLMs as you would any other source:
In-text disclosure: "With assistance from ChatGPT, I identified three
research articles (link to PDFs)”
Bibliography format: OpenAI. (2024). ChatGPT (Version GPT-4) [Large
language model]. [Link]
Bias Awareness and Fact-Checking
AI systems have significant limitations in philosophical work:
● Anything generated through conversation with LLMs requires
your critical evaluation and development.
● Verification requirement. Fact-check claims about
philosophers, arguments, or historical information. AI can
confidently state false information. Your responsibility is to note
 if that happens.
● Bias awareness. LLMs reflect biases in training data and may
overrepresent Western philosophy or mainstream positions.
Actively seek diverse philosophical perspectives.
● Citation checking. LLM invent non-existent books, articles, or
quotes. Verify every source before citing it.
● Philosophical depth. LLMs o provides superficial analyses. The
real philosophical work (analysis, interpretation, careful
argumentation, original synthesis).
Meta-Cognitive Skills: Deciding When to Use (or Not Use) an LLM
When an LLM might help:
● Am I stuck and need a nudge to get started?
● Do I want to test whether my argument is clear to an outside
reader?
● Am I looking for additional perspectives I haven't considered?
When to avoid an LLM
● Am I using it because I haven't done the assigned reading?
● Am I asking it to do my thinking rather than support my
thinking?
● Am I relying on it for understanding I should develop through
class discussion and independent study?
The philosophical question: What is lost when we outsource our thinking?
Philosophy develops capacities—careful reading, logical analysis,
conceptual creativity, intellectual humility—that only emerge through
genuine struggle with ideas. AI can support this process but cannot and
does not create philosophical understanding for you.

Academic Integrity
Using an LLM in unacceptable ways or failing to disclose assistance
when required violates academic integrity policies and will be treated as
misrepresentation/plagiarism. When in doubt, ask before submitting your
work.
When integrating LLMs into course assignments, it is essential to ensure
equitable learning opportunities while promoting responsible use. For
students who are unwilling or unable to use GenAI tools—whether due to
privacy concerns, technological limitations, philosophical objections, or
accessibility issues—I will provide alternative pathways to complete
assignments that meet the same learning objectives without penalty. This
might include offering traditional research methods, different assignment
formats, or one-on-one consultation to design equivalent tasks.
Regarding safe and responsible use, I will provide explicit instruction
through a dedicated course module covering several key areas:
understanding the limitations and potential biases of GenAI outputs, the
importance of fact-checking and verifying all AI-generated content, proper
citation and disclosure practices when using AI assistance, protecting
personal and sensitive information by never inputting confidential data
into AI systems, and maintaining academic integrity by using GenAI as a
tool for learning rather than substitution of critical thinking. Students will
be given clear guidelines about which aspects of assignments may
incorporate AI assistance and which must represent independent work,
along with examples of appropriate versus inappropriate use cases.
Regular class discussions will reinforce these principles and create space
for students to share concerns, ask questions, and develop their own
ethical frameworks for engaging with these evolving technologies.
 Below is what I currently have in my syllabus
Raquel
Sosa The following AI policy was created using Trust’s (n.d.) resource (citation
below):

Trust, T. (n.d.). AI syllabus policy statement. Retrieved August 21, 2025,

from
[Link]
k8z0ZA2J12SwLhtU/edit?tab=t.0

Note on Artificial Intelligence Use in This Class

Unless otherwise noted during class activities, you may only use
ChatGPT or any other AI technologies (Grammarly, Google Gemini,
CoPilot, etc.) to help with writing and learning; but not to replace or
subvert it. See the table below for some examples of allowable and non-
allowable uses of GenAI technologies in this class (NOTE: This is not an
exhaustive list of examples).

Example of an Allowable Why is this Allowed? Things to Keep in

Use Mind

Using AI technologies for AI writing Make sure to get

writing support (e.g., technologies, like your thoughts
providing feedback to help ChatGPT, can provide written down first
you improve writing ideas for how to revise
quality, clarity, and a sentence or word, Links to an external
expression). suggest ways to begin site.
a paragraph, offer rather than asking
feedback on how to GenAI technologies
express your thinking to write the first draft.
more clearly in writing, Writing and thinking
review your writing for are interconnected
grammar and spelling processes, if you
errors, and help you prompt GenAI
match your writing technologies to write
style to a specific tone the first draft for you,
or audience. Used in you are not actively
this way, GenAI
 technologies might engaging in thinking
support the about the material.
development of your
communication skills.
NOTE: We also have
a wonderful Writing
Lab on Campus
Links to an external
site.
. Use it!

Using AI and GenAI GenAI technologies If you have a self-

technologies can be used to make identified or
recommended due to learning more registered disability,
disability. accessible, for consider how GenAI
disabled individuals tools might aid your
(e.g., transcripts of thinking,
recorded audio, communication, and
closed captions for learning. You might
videos, alt text to consider discussing
describe images for ways to use AI to aid
blind/visually impaired your learning with
individuals, the Accessibility
interpretations of Resource Center
complex visual data). staff
Links to an external
site.
on campus.

If you do use AI for any of the above reasons you are required to
cite this in APA style in your references section of your
assignments.

Example of a Non- Why is this NOT Allowed?

Allowable Use
Using an AI tool to From TCNJ’s Violations of Academic Integrity
generate a paper instead page: This is a violation of TCNJ’s Academic
of writing it yourself. Integrity policy. Relying on AI in this way will
also prevent you from being able to articulate
your own writing and prevent your learning in
the course.

Using an AI tool to This defeats the purpose of these

complete your MindTap assignments as these are meant to provide
assignments. accountability for readings. Additionally, this
behavior will not result in success on exams.
Also please consider the environmental
impact of AI use.

Prompting GenAI Psychology is the study of human behavior

technologies to generate and most times ideas are generated from our
ideas for a class personal lives or experiences. Additionally,
assignment. generating ideas is part of developing your
own creativity and thinking. If you need help
coming up with an idea, I encourage you to
come to my student support hours listed at
the top of this document to talk with me. I am
more than happy to brainstorm ideas with
you.

Using GenAI technologies We will be using time in class to review for

as a study or exams.
assignment aid.

Prompting GenAI Academia is all about making mistakes and

technologies to help learning from them. If we rely on AI to help us
make information easier make sense of concepts we can lose the
to understand (e.g., ability to help us understand these concepts
explaining technical or and adjust to academia. I encourage you to
academic jargon, make mistakes and discuss your confusion
providing concrete with me or in class discussions.
examples of an abstract
idea).

Prompting a GenAI Discussion prompts are meant to incorporate

technology to respond to your voice and your thoughts. Participating in
a discussion forum discussions is about building community and
prompt for you. relationships as well as actively engaging in
your own thinking and learning to
communicate with others. Using GenAI
technologies for this activity subverts both the
social and learning goals of the activity.

Using a GenAI Designing a presentation requires you to

technology (e.g., actively engage in thinking and learning
Slidesgo) to design a about the material and consider how best to
class presentation for communicate that information to an
you. audience. Prompting GenAI technologies to
do this work for you subverts your learning
and the opportunity to develop your creative
communication skills.

Modifying AI-generated Making minor adjustments to AI-generated

work slightly to make it work only supports surface-level learning,
appear as if you created rather than deep learning (learn more
it.
Links to an external site.
), because the focus is on minor adjustments
rather than truly understanding the material.

Prompting a GenAI Used in this way, you are basically asking a

technology to GenAI technology to “read for you.” This
automatically offloads your thinking, learning, and the
summarize a complex productive struggle of understanding and
academic article instead critically examining the author’s ideas (read:
of reading and No One is Talking About AI's Impact on
summarizing it yourself. Reading
Links to an external site.
).

You are also relying on the GenAI technology

to do the work of analyzing and making
sense of a text; even though these tools are
predictability machines
Links to an external site.
that do not have any real understanding of
 the text (read “The Fundamental Limitations
of LLMs
Links to an external site.
”).

Also, consider that uploading a copyrighted

text (e.g., book chapter, article) to a GenAI
technology might be considered copyright
infringement since you are giving away
copyrighted data to a GenAI technology
without permission from the author.

Prompting GenAI Using GenAI technologies to provide

technologies to analyze solutions for you (in this case, provide data
data for you and analysis output for you) prevents you from
submitting the data actively engaging with, and learning, the
analysis as your own. material (read “5 Times Not to Use AI
Links to an external site.
.”)

Additionally, GenAI tools are not calculators

or math machines, they are predictability
machines
Links to an external site.
(they guess which words go together to
make the most plausible human-sounding
response).

Copying AI-generated Please read “The Case For Not Citing

text word for word into Chatbots As Information Sources
your written work, but
citing it as written by AI. Links to an external site.
” and “Good models borrow, great models
steal: intellectual property rights and
generative AI
Links to an external site.
 “ and, instead, find an original source to cite.
When you put in the effort to find an original
source to cite, you are deepening your
thinking and learning about that topic and you
are giving credit to human authors/artists.

However, if you prompt a GenAI technology

to create an original source of text or media –
something that cannot be traced back to an
original source (e.g., a Taylor Swift rendition
of the Declaration of Independence) – you
can write “This text was generated by
ChatGPT [or insert another GenAI
technology] in a footnote.”

Using a GenAI Considering that GenAI technologies that

technology to create produce images, audio, video, and other
media (e.g., images, forms of media are built on media stolen from
audio, video) for a class artists without their permission
project if a similar media
exists already (e.g., Links to an external site.
Creative Commons AND that generating media with AI is an
images). energy intensive process
Links to an external site.
, which negatively impacts the environment,
you are strongly encouraged to look for
media that already exists (e.g., Pixabay
Links to an external site.
images/video; YouTube audio library
Links to an external site.
songs and sound effects; OpenVerse
Links to an external site.
for a variety of media) as Creative Commons
or in the Public Domain to include in your
class projects.
If you find yourself turning to GenAI technologies to do your work for you,
consider setting up a meeting with me to discuss how class activities and
assignments can be adapted to support your learning (e.g., if you do not
have enough time to complete the class activities and are turning to AI to
do the work for you, you could meet with me to discuss flexible deadlines
or alternative activities). Additionally, when using ChatGPT and other AI
writing technologies, which are notorious for producing misinformation
and fabricating information, it is your responsibility to verify the credibility,
accuracy, and trustworthiness of any information you use from these
technologies.

Consequences of Misuse of AI: If I suspect that you may have misused

AI for an assignment, I will review this policy in class again and allow you
to withdraw your submission as a one-time option only. If I suspect that
you have submitted AI-generated work from thereafter, I will ask you to
meet in-person or on Zoom, to discuss the work in question. I will not be
using an AI text detector to identify AI-generated work because these
tools are notoriously unreliable and especially problematic for non-native
English speakers. Instead, I will be using a list of indicators
Links to an external site.
to identify the potential for AI-generated content. If you are asked to
meet with me to discuss your work, and the potential use of AI, you are
welcome to provide evidence that your work is your own, but you will also
be expected to demonstrate your thinking and learning related to the
work through a conversation (e.g., if your discussion forum post about
depression is suspected to be AI-generated, I will ask you to respond to
some additional prompts about depression in real time during the
meeting, either orally or in text). Any assignment that is found to have
used generative AI tools in unauthorized ways may be reported as a
suspected violation of TCNJ’s Academic Integrity Policy. When in doubt
about permitted and appropriate usage, please ask me for clarification.

I drafted the above policy before my class started this semester. After
learning from this module I am considering requiring that students hand
in answers of completed questions about their use of AI
Links to an external site.
when they use AI for allowable use.
This is also aside from my AI policy but related to it: For assignments I
am interested in students' writing process so I am also considering
including aspects from this resource that was provided in the module
Links to an external site.
so students can practice being more reflective, which is also an essential
practice in the field of psychology.
 In this course, you may use AI tools such as ChatGPT or Gemini to
Avery brainstorm ideas, review key concepts, or improve the clarity of your
Faigenbau writing, but not to write full assignments, invent data, or create exercise
m or health advice that has not been verified with credible scientific
sources. Because AI tools can sometimes produce biased or inaccurate
information, you are expected to fact-check every claim by comparing it
with peer-reviewed research, course readings, or other reliable academic
sources. No identifying personal health information should ever be
entered into AI tools to protect your privacy and confidentiality.
Students are encouraged to reflect on when and why to use (or not use)
AI in the context of kinesiology. Ask yourself the following question: Does
this assignment require me to apply my own professional reasoning,
analyze human movement data, or interpret client exercise needs based
on evidence and ethical judgment? Am I using AI to deepen my
understanding of human performance and behavior, or to skip the critical
thinking process that builds real professional competence? In
kinesiology, where decisions affect people’s health and safety, thoughtful
reflection ensures that AI supports your growth as a future health and
fitness professional by enhancing, not replacing, your scientific reasoning
and creativity. This course will help you learn to use AI responsibly, think
critically, check facts, recognize bias, and apply technology to support
your own learning and professional judgment.
If you use AI in this course, you must clearly disclose it on your cover
page using simple language such as “This work was supported by
ChatGPT to help organize ideas and improve clarity. All content was
verified and revised by the student.”

Currently we have an AI policy that all students review prior to beginning

Sandy the program. This includes passing a 'no stakes' quiz verifying their
Gibson understanding of the policy. The acceptable use is related to use in
research, suggesting outlines, verifying appropriate use of citations, and
proofreading. I don't think we go far enough with helping students to
understand privacy, data protection and attribution. We are going to have
to revisit this. Fortunately I have other faculty in our department taking
this course! We do introduce bias awareness in our training, but I like
some of the examples and readings you have in here and would like to
share them in ours as well. We don't include the disclosure/citation
language, because students are not allowed to use it for actual writing.
Perhaps we should consider adding more about this, perhaps a
discussion post? Students pass a quiz, which we use as 'evidence' that
they understand in advance of beginning the program. As I progress
through your course now our approach seems more of a CYA than it
does useful in terms of having students reflect on it.
 Below is the language I'm using in my Fall courses and below that a
Joseph reflection on it. I adopted this language from other TCNJ professors
Haddock teaching the same / similar Finance courses.
Acceptable and Unacceptable Use of AI: The use of generative AI
tools (e.g. ChatGPT, Dall-e,
etc.) may be permitted in this course for the following activities:
• Brainstorming and refining your ideas
• Finding information on a topic
• Drafting an outline to organize your thoughts
• Checking grammar and style.
The use of generative AI tools is not permitted in this course for the
following activities:
• Answering quiz or exam questions
• For any assignments, or aspects of assignments which you are
specifically instructed
not to use AI for
• Writing entire sentences, paragraphs or papers to complete class
assignments
A student using unacknowledged content generated by artificial
intelligence within an
assignment as though it is their own work constitutes academic
misconduct, unless
explicitly stated otherwise in the assignment instructions. You are
responsible for the
information you submit based on an AI query (for instance, that it does
not violate
intellectual property laws, or contain misinformation or unethical content).
Your use of AI
tools must be properly documented and cited in order to stay within
college policies on
academic integrity.
Post exercise reflection:
This language and approach seems to be working so far. I've been
explicit about when and if AI can be used as well as having them submit
their prompts for certain exercises. I plan to update it at the end of the
semester following student feedback, department feedback and the
perspective gained through this AI-Enhanced Pedagogies Institute
course.

Reply from Nicholas A. Nesh

Nicholas
Nash 🤖 Generative AI Policy and Your Learning Success
In this calculus-based introductory physics course, we are focused on
helping you master foundational skills and content that are essential
for your future studies. For this reason, you must first complete all
assignments and problems using your own effort.
Generative AI tools like chatbots are part of the modern world, and they
can be valuable learning aids when used responsibly:
● ✅ Appropriate Use: You may use AI tools to seek an
explanation of a concept, understand the procedure used to
solve a problem, or to check your final answer after you have
already solved the problem yourself.
● 🚫 Inappropriate Use: You must never ask an AI to solve a
homework problem or assignment for you, use it during any
examination, or submit AI-generated content without critically
checking it for inaccuracies.
Your well-being and success are valued. It is completely natural to feel
pressure in a challenging course like this. If you are struggling or feel
overwhelmed, please do not resort to chatbots as a shortcut. Instead,
I encourage you to use the dedicated support resources available: reach
out to the walk-in physics tutors, the TCNJ Tutoring Center, or me. I am
open to discussing reasonable due date extensions to fit your situation.
Fairness is key to a positive learning environment. Thoughtful and
responsible use of generative AI technology applies to everyone in this
course.
 Below is a working template I plan to use in my 300 and 400-level
Adaurenn courses.
aya
Onyewuen Course Policy on the Ethical Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence
yi (GenAI)
In this course, we approach the use of generative artificial intelligence
(GenAI) tools, such as ChatGPT, Claude, DALL·E, or other text, image,
or data-generating systems,with critical awareness and ethical
responsibility. While GenAI tools can support learning by helping
students brainstorm ideas, clarify complex concepts, or refine writing,
their use also raises important ethical and equity-related concerns that
are particularly relevant in psychology, education, and diversity science.
Ethical Considerations
GenAI technologies are trained on large datasets that often reproduce
systemic biases, including anti-Blackness, gender discrimination, and
colonial logics. These tools may also obscure intellectual labor, privilege
dominant linguistic and cultural norms, and contribute to misinformation.
In a field concerned with social inequities, it is crucial that we use such
technologies critically, understanding both their potential benefits and
their risks to marginalized communities.
Guidelines for Use
Students may use GenAI tools for idea generation (e.g., brainstorming),
summarizing readings, or editing support only when explicitly permitted in
the assignment guidelines.
Any use of GenAI must be transparently acknowledged. Students should
include a brief statement describing how they used AI (e.g., “I used
ChatGPT to brainstorm initial ideas for this essay”).
Students may not use GenAI to generate full drafts, analyze data, or
substitute for their own critical engagement with course materials. Doing
so undermines the learning goals of this course.
Students are encouraged to critically reflect on how GenAI influences
their thinking, including what perspectives or biases might be embedded
in the outputs they receive.
Mitigating Harm and Promoting Learning
This course will engage in ongoing discussions about the ethical and
social implications of AI, emphasizing how its design and use intersect
with issues of race, class, and power. We will explore frameworks for
evaluating when and how technology supports equitable learning versus
when it risks reinforcing systemic inequities. By integrating structured
reflection and transparency into assignments, students will develop both
digital literacy and ethical reasoning skills essential for navigating
emerging technologies in socially responsible ways.
 I used the Stanford worksheet and its prompts to develop this policy
Jean
Brechman Links to an external site.
for my advertising course. I'm glad to have something formal to include
in my syllabus that provides base guidelines, sample language for how to
"cite" its use. Even the asterisk/disclosure that the AI policy itself was
developed with Gemini consultation works to foster transparency and
open lines of communication.
I include 2-3 workshop days in my Advertising class in which we explore
how various prompts can help us not only synthesize company/industry
data, but also push AI to "think creatively." We do this together, iteratively
and I keep a running list of prompts that have stimulated interesting
group discussions. It's been really entertaining - to hear students,
sometimes under their breath, say things like "I can't believe we're being
encouraged to go on ChatGPT" or to see how thought-provoking prompts
"in" lead to unexpected, "out of the box" content "out."
Previously, I only thought of using an AI too to spit back summary data,
literature reviews. But together with my students we've had much
success in strategizing for campaigns with prompts like "What are some
cliches in advertising of [the product category]?" "Where does [the brand]
sit amongst its peers? Could you give me a schoolyard analogy?" "Act
like Tina Fey and write me 10 one-liners about [product]." "List ten
r/showerthoughts about [product]." I think taking the time to show (and/or
have them show me!) how we can incorporate AI into our lessons and
assignments promotes give and take, models expectations and
(hopefully) positions students to embrace the tools in a responsible
manner.

My current AI policy reads:

Yachao
Coffey-Li “In addition to traditional forms of academic dishonesty, this course also
addresses the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools, a practice known as
‘AIgiarism.’ Using AI to produce content that appears to be your own
work but does not reflect your personal effort or understanding is
considered a form of academic dishonesty. While AI tools may seem like
a convenient shortcut, they ultimately undermine your learning process
and misrepresent your abilities to instructors, peers, and potential
employers. Unless explicitly permitted, all submitted work is expected to
be your own, not generated by AI tools. Misrepresenting AI-generated
content as your own will be treated as a violation of academic integrity,
equivalent to plagiarism. Be aware that AI-detecting software may be
used to analyze your submissions. If there are concerns about the source
of your work, you may be required to meet with me to explain your ideas
and writing process.”

Self-Reflection
My policy clearly prohibits using AI to generate content passed off as
one’s own work. However, it doesn’t explicitly define what constitutes
“using AI” - does running a grammar checker count? What about using AI
for brainstorming? The line between “produced content” and “assisted
content” remains unclear. The phrase “unless explicitly permitted”
suggests there might be acceptable uses with disclosure, but this isn’t
developed further. There’s no guidance on how to cite or disclose AI
assistance if/when it is permitted.
In addition, this policy doesn’t carve out any legitimate, pedagogically
sound uses of AI. It doesn’t acknowledge that AI can produce biased,
inaccurate, or fabricated content. This is a missed teaching opportunity
here. Moreover, there’s no mention of the risks students face when
uploading their work or personal information to AI tools, or guidance
about which tools might be safer than others. Finally, While the policy
explains why AI undermines learning, it doesn’t encourage students to
think critically about when AI might be appropriate in academic or
professional contexts.
With the assistance of Gemini and based on my own self-reflection and
the learning outcomes of my courses, here is an updated AI use policy
Links to an external site.
. I welcome your thoughts and comments.
 Here is a draft of a statement that I might include on the syllabus for an
John upcoming 400-level course:
Ruscio
Responsible Use of Generative AI Tools
In this capstone course, we will explore how generative AI (GenAI) tools
such as Gemini and ChatGPT can assist at many stages of the writing
process. Just as calculators replaced manual arithmetic and statistical
software replaced the need to compute variances or correlations by
hand, GenAI can help brainstorm ideas, organize arguments, draft text
from an outline, or identify ways to strengthen a paper. As with any tool,
however, the principle of “garbage in, garbage out” applies: the
usefulness of the output depends on the user’s input, understanding, and
critical judgment.
Students are encouraged to experiment thoughtfully with GenAI as a
partner in the writing process, while maintaining full responsibility for the
integrity and quality of their work. Any AI-generated text or ideas
incorporated into an assignment must be carefully reviewed, fact-
checked, and revised to ensure accuracy, clarity, and originality. When
GenAI plays a meaningful role in shaping a portion of your work, please
include a brief note at the end of the document explaining how you used
it.
To protect your privacy, never enter personal information, unpublished
data, or confidential material into GenAI tools. Throughout the course, we
will practice responsible AI use through guided exercises and
demonstrations, with an emphasis on critical reflection—learning not only
how to use AI effectively, but also when and why its use is or is not
appropriate.

For the purpose of this discussion, here is my rationale for the syllabus
statement: This approach treats GenAI as a natural extension of the
intellectual tools that have long enhanced scholarship. Just as statistical
software allows researchers to devote more effort to interpretation than
computation, GenAI can free students to focus on conceptual clarity,
logical organization, and effective communication. However, responsible
use requires understanding both the promise and the limitations of these
tools.
The statement aims to:
1. Define acceptable use — Students may use GenAI to support,
not substitute for, their own intellectual work.
2. Emphasize privacy and data ethics — Students must
safeguard personal and research information when interacting
 with AI tools.
3. Model transparency and accountability — Disclosure of
meaningful AI assistance fosters academic integrity and
demystifies responsible use.
4. Promote critical reflection — Students will be asked to evaluate
AI outputs, detect bias or inaccuracies, and consider when
human reasoning should take precedence.
By integrating these elements into a writing-intensive, research-based
course, students will learn to approach GenAI not as a shortcut, but as a
cognitive aid that demands discernment, ethical judgment, and continual
human oversight.
[this post was drafted with the assistance of ChatGPT]
 At this point in time, I have a 'No AI' policy in all of my courses; within
Brett each course syllabus is the statement "Use of ChatGPT, or other
Busha generative AI software, is not permitted in this course." I am hoping that
in the near future we will have our own AI/Generative AI/Machine
learning course within the School of Engineering, which will have some
strong parallels with what I have seen so far in this course. After the
students are as close to 'on common ground' as possible with generative
AI, I will intend to slowly integrate the TCNJ-supported AI tools into my
courses.

In my current role, I do not teach courses or collect assignments from

Rachel students that would allow for AI usage (they submit medical documents,
Townley state documents, etc. as clearances for entering public school districts).
However, I could use their resume submissions as an opportunity to
support them in using AI to refine their documents and further develop
their resume writing skills.
I would provide example prompts for them to use, along with example
outputs to compare so that they could see the difference. This could
include reworking a section to better address the field they’re entering. It
could also include using AI as a brainstorming partner, prompting it to ask
questions and help draw out potential skills and experiences that the
student isn’t thinking about or deeming relevant and showcasing how it
could bolster their resume effectively and appropriately. I would also,
however, include examples where AI incorrectly made assumptions,
hallucinated information, and exaggerated skills and experience, to help
demonstrate the need for critical review and checking for accuracy and
appropriateness.
At a recent conference, a speaker was discussing the importance of
examples when helping students (and children) understand the benefits
and pitfalls of AI. Examples can help students see concretely how AI
makes mistakes and why, as well as be introduced to examples of
possible usages. When students just think of AI as a tool used to
complete assignments quickly, find answers, etc, then they tend to do
more of that. But when they see additional possibilities and how AI can
be a learning to tool to help them grow and expand, then their usage can
shift too.
 In the courses I teach, I am working with future teachers who are learning
Matt Hall HOW to teach reading and writing to younger children. So I’m quite
conflicted about any AI use for assignments. In my view, the habits of
mind that come from researching teaching strategies, sequencing the
learning experience, and considering data to differentiate your instruction
are the most important skills that can be developed in a teacher. And I
want to instill those habits of mind in a deep way so that when our
students are K-12 teachers, they can quickly and easily adapt lessons as
they work with their students. I have seen TCNJ students try to outsource
all of these skills to AI, thinking the product is good. But because they
haven’t developed the skills yet, they typically don’t do well critiquing and
revising the AI generated products. It is similar when my students try to
go to websites like teachers-pay-teachers where there are pre-made
worksheets and activities for purchase. They will embed these activities
into their own lessons and use them uncritically or without any revision.
So I typically lean toward no Generative AI use in my classes.
But in the spirit of trying things out here is an attempt at a policy for
GenAI use. Hat tip to John Nardini – this is a remix of his policy that he
shared. I’ll be sure to cite you in my syllabus. I quite liked the policy on
how to handle unacceptable AI use. I will continue to work on adapting
that for my context.

Use of AI: Using GenAI to outsource lesson planning and instructional

planning de-professionalizes the work of a teacher. As a teacher, you are
responsible for creating the learning experience - including offering
several pathways to learning that can be used with students who have
different learning needs. However, GenAI can be a useful tool for
teachers when used appropriately. In this course, when you are creating
instructional plans for students, you are permitted to use GenAI tools to:
1. Enhance your own online searches for information,
2. Give you feedback on grammar, structure, and clarity in your
writing,
3. Gather feedback on the included components of your
instructional plans.

Permitted Example of Possible Prohibited Use

Use of Permitted Use Drawbacks to of GenAI
GenAI GenAI Use

Enhance Instead of GenAI will likely give Having AI choose

your own performing a you the instructional the instructional
online google search strategies the appear strategy you will
searches and combing most often in its data include in your
for through the set - but these are lesson. YOU
information ideas yourself, not necessarily should be
use GenAI to vetted as the most choosing from the
gather multiple impactful or ethical list generated by
instructional strategies. AI and you should
strategies for have a rationale
you to choose for that choice
from when that was not
preparing your generated by AI
lesson

Give you Use GenAI to GenAI may You may not use
feedback read through recommend AI to generate the
on your lesson plan grammatical or text of your lesson
grammar, and give your structural changes plan. You should
structure, options for that fundamentally be writing the
and clarity correcting any alter what you were lesson plan and
in your grammar or trying to you should be
writing structural issues. communicate. making decisions
Choose from the Additionally, certain about instructional
options to make portions of your materials, order of
sure you are lessons (e.g. where the lesson,
expressing your you include state pacing, and
ideas clearly standards) should not specific steps of
be reworded or your lesson
“fixed”

Gather Share your You will need to give You are not
feedback lesson draft with the AI careful permitted to have
on the GenAI and ask it parameters for this the AI rewrite any
included to give you kind of feedback as it portions of your
component feedback on the will evaluate your lesson based on
s of your components of work based on the feedback you
instruction your lesson plan information that is receive. You
al plans and what might freely accessible on should use the
be missing. the web and not feedback to make
educational research your own
that is behind revisions if you
paywalls. The deem the
feedback it gives may feedback useful.
not be the most
 sound or useful

If you are ever unsure about the appropriateness of using AI for an

assignment, please feel free to contact me.
In addition, if you use GenAI to enhance your work, then you must
include a write up of how you used GenAI. This write up should
include your prompt and the output you received. If at any point, you use
words directly from the AI, highlight the words (similar to how you would
“quote” from an article) though this is highly discouraged. If you had
multiple interactions with GenAI, then you can paste them one after the
other. Students who use AI are responsible for checking the
accuracy of any AI-generated information, data, or facts.
 This assignment was different for me because as a librarian I don't teach
Amanda full semester courses, only one or two shot information literacy instruction
Cowell sessions in other people's courses. So I have never created academic
policy for a class and when I do teach the instructor of record is the one
who makes these decisions.
However, I thought about how I would allow AI tools in the instances
where I do teach, and how I hope that would lead students to use it for
the research projects I am helping them prepare for it.
The language I used "While AI tools, like Wikipedia and other web tools
can be a great place to start your research to identify key words and
topics to research, final in-depth research should be conducted through
databases and other tools provided by the library. The quality of sources,
and the location they were retrieved from should reflect that. It is
important to always know where your sources come from, to ensure that
the author is appropriately cited and that the material was obtained
legally and with the authors permission. Students should be able to
describe how they found all cited. sources."

Teaching in a fully online program, we encounter AI use quite a bit. We

Lisa don't forbid it - Rather, we're trying to teach the students ethical vs.
Cardello unethical use.
Beyond the students' roles as "students," there are some unique and
important considerations for AI use as aspiring mental health counselors.
The ACA Code of Ethics includes several sections directly related to the
ethical use of technology particularly regarding confidentiality, privacy,
and professional responsibility. For example, entering identifiable client
information or case details into an AI platform would constitute a breach
of confidentiality and violate ethical codes around client privacy. So in our
CMHC courses, we are having different types of conversations with
students about AI - about the ethics and parameters of using it as a
student, but also implications for using it as a mental health counselor.
During one of my courses, the class engaged in an evaluation of AI-
generated content related to counseling. We talked about how responses
may contain inaccuracies or cultural bias. We also talk about how future
clients may be using AI to self-treat, and how they might navigate this as
a future counselor. Interestingly, when AI was asked to describe “typical
client presentations,” we saw bias and assumptions surface. We spend a
great deal of time in our Intro course and other courses talking about how
to verify information against peer-reviewed literature, the ACA Code of
Ethics, and counseling theory texts, so that they can become critical
users of AI.
All of these efforts are a work in progress. Admittedly, we are still seeing
students use AI to respond to discussion posts and other assignments,
despite outlining ethical use guidelines. The questionable reliability of AI
detectors makes it difficult to address this directly with students. Moving
forward, I hope we can continue creating learning spaces where students
can openly discuss and reflect on their use of AI rather than hide it.
 In my early childhood curriculum class, I included an AI use statement for
Jody the first time this semester. I borrowed it from a colleague and tweaked it
Eberly to fit my course. In my statement, I have included acceptable use
(brainstorming, refining ideas, using AI to generate an outline to organize
thoughts, and checking grammar) and unacceptable use (using AI to
impersonate you in your assignments or on a discussion board; writing a
draft of an assignment; and writing entire sentences, paragraphs or
papers to complete assignments). I also note that students are ultimately
responsible for any information that they submit as an AI prompt (e.g.,
ensuring that it doesn't violate intellectual property laws) and for the
accuracy of any information they submit to me that was generated by AI.
If they opt to use AI (when it is allowed), they are required to complete
and submit an AI Declaration Form and I use the University of Cambridge
School of Humanities and Social Sciences declaration form (the one
included in this module). I note that if they have questions about AI use,
they should ask me for clarification.
For one of the major assignments, designing an inquiry curriculum
project, they are allowed to use AI as a tool. I explained that teachers find
and develop their curriculum from many different sources (books, articles,
web searches, colleagues, etc.) and that AI is one more tool at their
disposal. I reminded them, though, that a lot of early childhood curriculum
that they find on the Internet is of very low quality and to be wary of "cute,
but empty" curriculum and explained that one of the goals of this course
is developing a discerning eye for what constitutes quality curriculum. For
another assignment based on their emerging teaching philosophy, I am
not allowing AI use, explaining that this should be a very personal
reflection based on their own experiences and developing knowledge. In
an attempt to discourage AI use, I required that they include personal
examples from working with children or in classrooms (this class has a
field component). I realize AI could still create this for them, but I'm
hoping it's easier for them to draw from their real lived experiences
instead.
I was surprised when one student asked if AI use was required because
since she learned of the negative environmental aspects, she said she
vowed never to use it. I did not expect this response from a student, but I
assured her that AI use was a choice, not a requirement in my course.

Defining Acceptable and Unacceptable Uses:

Ziyue
Huang In my database management and analytics courses, students frequently
use programming languages such as SQL, R, and Python. To support
learning while maintaining academic integrity, I will clearly define
acceptable and unacceptable uses of GenAI tools.
Acceptable uses include:
Using AI tools to get conceptual explanations of code or syntax.
Asking for debugging guidance when encountering errors.
Generating template code or example snippets as references for
learning.
Exploring alternative approaches or optimization suggestions for existing
code.
Unacceptable uses include:
Submitting AI-generated code as one’s own without understanding or
modifying it.
Using AI to complete entire assignments without manual implementation
or reflection.
Letting AI generate datasets, outputs, or analyses that were not
genuinely computed.
I will emphasize that AI should be a tutor or assistant, not a substitute for
hands-on practice and learning.

Addressing Privacy and Data Protection:

Students will be reminded never to upload private datasets, client data, or
institutional information to public AI platforms.
In assignments, students will also practice assessing whether a dataset
or query can be safely shared with an external tool.

Modeling Bias Awareness and Fact-Checking:

AI-generated code or statistical advice may be syntactically correct but
methodologically or ethically flawed.
To develop critical coding skills, I will demonstrate:
How to verify AI-generated code by running it, checking logic, and
comparing results.
How to inspect AI-suggested models (e.g., regression or text-mining
methods) for misuse or overfitting.
How to identify bias in training data or algorithms, particularly in text-
mining or predictive analytics.
In class exercises, we might compare AI-generated analyses with
manually written ones to spot errors or questionable assumptions.

Disclosure and Citation of AI Use:

Students will be required to include a short AI use statement in all
programming assignments.
Example disclosure:
“Gemini was used to help debug an SQL query and improve code
readability. All final code, analysis, and interpretation were verified and
written by the author.”

Encouraging Critical Reflection on AI Use:

I will ask students to reflect briefly on their experience using AI tools in
their coding workflow.
Possible reflection prompts:
How did the AI’s suggestions compare to what you learned in class?
Did using AI improve your understanding or just your output speed?
How would you validate AI-generated results in a research setting?
 I have decided to allow AI use on some student assignments, subject to
Kevin express limitations. AI is an important tool that will be used by students in
Michels their careers, and we would do well to explore with students how to use
the tools properly. Moreover, as the module notes, the plagiarism-
detective tools are less than fully reliable.
My approach to AI use depends on the assignment. On papers, I often
allow AI use subject to express limitations and require citation when
used. On other papers, I have students compose the first draft in class,
and allow use of AI in the at-home revision process (and the grade is
based on both efforts).
I allow students to create a "class participation portfolio" over the course
of the semester, which consists of regular out-of-class homework
assignments that prompt students to reflect in writing for a page or more
on core questions and problems that we are exploring that week. The
assignments helps them focus their reading outside of class, and readies
them for an in-class discussion of the issues. My syllabus states:
AI tools (such as ChatGPT, Copilot, Claude, Gemini, and so on) are
neither necessary nor required in preparing written assignments. Each
homework assignment can be answered with your own deep thinking,
and — when helpful — ideas from the textbook as well as class notes
and discussion. The group project paper will also require outside
research into scholarly and other articles but will not require AI tools.
Although they are not necessary, you may use AI tools for background
research on written assignments or simply to learn more about a topic
you have read about in the textbook, or we have discussed in class. You
may not, however, copy and paste the text or answers from AI tools into
your paper. Your written work must be your own. Your submissions must
be written in your own words, and be the product of your deep reflection
on the materials. If you have used an AI tool in preparing your
assignment, you should provide a citation to that AI tool just as you would
any other source relied on in your writing.
If you use AI tools at all, you should be mindful of the risks, which
include:
■ Failure to engage
with the questions on
your own, and a
reduction in
understanding that
comes from the hard
work of thinking
about the question
 and developing and
revising answers on
your own. Exams are
in-class and closed
book, and the
homework portfolio
will help you prepare
for those exams. You
will also understand
the class discussion
of the problem in
class better if you
have independently
engaged with the
problem beforehand
and not relied on AI
to do the work for
you.
■ Mediocre answers,
stemming from the
fact that these AI
tools are not original
thinkers, but are
simply predicting
words based on large
data sets.
■ Answers that are
unrelated to ideas we
have developed in
class, and that may
miss key ideas and
arguments that your
own critical thinking
would address. And,
■ Errors stemming from
AI’s hallucination
problem, that is,
sometimes it makes
up facts that are false
and sources that do
not exist.
To summarize, AI tools are neither required nor necessary for the course.
You may use them for the limited background purposes described above,
but you should never copy AI answers into your work, your submissions
should be in your own words and be the product of your own deep
reflection, you should cite AI if you rely on it, and you should be mindful
of the risks of relying on AI in your work.
In our class discussions, we explore other challenges with AI outputs,
and in some courses have read books on the subject, exploring bias,
confidentiality, copyright concerns re model training, environmental
implications, future job markets, and an array of other concerns posed by
the tools.
On some assignments, I require the deep integration of and citation to
course reading materials and class discussions, which limits the extent to
which AI will be helpful.
 Here is my AI policy for this current semester:
John
Nardini
Use of AI: In this course you are permitted to use Generative AI for
planning, organizing, outlining, and brainstorming your work for
assignments, except in-class quizzes and exams. However, you are not
permitted to directly ask the algorithm to answer the asked assignment,
nor can you directly copy the outputs from Generative AI for your final
submitted responses to questions. The final product that you turn in
should:
1. have been written by you;
2. be completely understood by you; and
3. made up of your own ideas or ideas that Generative
AI helped you brainstorm and understand.
See the end of this syllabus for some examples of
acceptable/unacceptable AI use. If you are ever unsure about the
appropriateness of using AI for an assignment, please feel free to contact
me.

In addition, if you use generative AI to assist in a class assignment, then

you must disclose this use at the beginning of your submitted
response. You may do this by including your entire interaction with an AI
algorithm into a word document (and then converting it into a pdf) at the
beginning of your assignment. If you had multiple interactions for multiple
questions, then you can paste them one after the other.

If you choose to use Generative AI tools for a class assignment, then you
should keep in mind that there are current limitations on the abilities of
Generative AI and it can provide misleading or inaccurate responses.
Therefore, you are responsible for verifying any information it
produces. Students who use AI are responsible for the accuracy of any
AI-generated information, data, or facts.

Process of suspected unacceptable AI use policy: My goal with AI in this

course is to help you learn responsibly while also keeping the class fair.
If I notice something in your work that makes me think AI may have been
used in an inappropriate manner, here’s what will happen:
1. Conversation first: I’ll reach out to you by email
and invite you to meet with me to talk through how
 you used AI. This is a chance for you to explain your
process to me, and for us to make sure you fully
understand the material and are using AI
appropriately.
2. First-time issues: If we agree that AI was used in a
way that goes against course expectations, the
assignment will receive a zero. The point of this step
is not to punish, but to reinforce that your submitted
work needs to be your own understanding.
3. Repeated issues: If inappropriate AI use continues
multiple times, I may determine the need to escalate
the matter to the Office of Academic Integrity,
following college policy. I will alert you by email if I
make such a case.
Please remember that using AI is allowed (and even encouraged, to
some extent) for brainstorming, organizing, or checking your approach.
But, your final submission must be your own work, written in your own
words, and something you can fully explain. If you’re ever unsure
whether your AI use is appropriate, just ask me. I’d much rather clarify
ahead of time than address it afterwards

Overall, I've had mixed results, where I see some students using AI
appropriately (and even helping their learning) but I am seeing a more
noticeable using it inappropriately. In particular, students are not
disclosing AI use (but then I can tell that it was used from their response),
or they will disclose use but not include any example prompts. I think I
will keep a similar policy moving forward, but I am trying to think deeper
about how to get them to actually disclose that they have used it! I
appreciated somewhere in Module 1 or 2 that there was some text about
us instructors disclosing AI use does help build trust, so that may be one
way to go in the future.
 In one of my writing intensive courses, I have seen that many students
Shengbin attempted to use AI in their homework (most of my writing assignments
Wang were case analyses). Very few students would double check the contents
written by GenAI or make modifications in their response. In fact, most
students did not even bother checking them. They simply copied and
pasted the answers generated by AI, and submitted them. This has
bothered me a lot in the past years. Then, I had to include the following
paragraph in my syllabus.
"Please be advised that the utilization of artificial intelligence (AI) tools,
such as ChatGPT and Grammarly, is prohibited in all written assignments
for this course. To ensure academic integrity, the following AI detection
tools will be employed to verify the authenticity of submissions.
1. [Link]
2. [Link]
3. [Link]
4. [Link]
5. [Link]
6. [Link]
If two or more of the aforementioned tools indicate that more than 30% of
your submitted written work is likely generated by AI, you will
automatically receive half of the total grade for that assignment."
Although this statement is far from ideal, it did successfully reduce the
number of those "simply copy and paste" submissions. They needed to at
least read the AI-generated contents and re-write them in their
homework.
In the research project, however, I did allow the students to use GenAI
tools to collect information and facts. I have clear guidance of how they
should use proper citations for the references. I have seen a clear
improvement in their academic performance. However, this doesn't seem
to be the best way. The main reason is that the tools (or websites) I used
to check their AI contents are not always credible. I am looking for some
alternatives or suggestions here.

I have an AI policy in my syllabus that is adapted from Temple University,

Sarah which I've shared below. We discuss AI use on the first day of class and
Monaco again when we discuss each assignment. This year, when access to
Gemini and Notebook was announced, we did an activity in class using
Notebook to review two course readings that were previously assigned.
We talked about the accuracy of the output and what they gained/lost in
the process. Students seemed relieved to talk openly about these tools
that they are already using.

Policy in syllabus:
Acceptable and Unacceptable Use of AI: (modified from Temple
University)
The use of generative AI tools (e.g. ChatGPT, Perplexity, etc.) is
permitted in this course for the following activities:
● Brainstorming and refining your ideas;
● Fine-tuning your research questions;
● Clarifying concepts/ideas when studying;
● Drafting an outline to organize your thoughts; and
● Checking grammar and style.
The use of generative AI tools is not permitted in this course for the
following activities:
● Impersonating you in classroom contexts, such as by using the
tool to compose discussion board
prompts assigned to you or content that you put into a Zoom chat.
● Completing group work that your group has assigned to you,
unless it is mutually agreed upon
that you may utilize the tool.
● Writing a draft of a writing assignment.
● Writing entire sentences, paragraphs, or papers to complete
class assignments.

You are responsible for the information you submit based on an AI query
(for instance, that it does not
violate intellectual property laws, or contain misinformation or unethical
content). Your use of AI tools
must be properly documented and cited in order to stay within
university policies on academic honesty.
For example, this website
Links to an external site.
gives guidance on how to cite AI using APA formatting. Any assignment
that is found to have used generative AI tools in unauthorized ways will
be in violation of TCNJ’s academic integrity policy. When in doubt about
permitted usage, please ask for clarification.

●
 I have had an AI policy on my syllabi for the past two years and always
Sylvia start off on the first day with a discussion of around AI use. I ask how
Twersky student might have used AI in the past and talk about an experiment I did
that asked AI to do a literature review based on a class assignment and
the problems that I ran into with hallucinations- papers that were cited
that did not exist; papers that were cited as supporting a specific point
when they did not- as a "cautionary tale" around double checking facts
and information. I also give use cases where AI can be helpful and how I
expect it to be cited. I think that I can do a better job with helping students
use citations; students don't often provide a citation even when it is clear
that AI was used. This is the text that I have in my syllabus-
Use of ChatGPT or other AI tools- The current generation of these
tools are very limited, sometimes in ways that are not obvious. For
example, when I tried as an experiment to use ChatGPT to generate a lit
review it provided both imaginary sources and real sources but with
made up information. In short, it was all incorrect, even though at first
glance it seemed like a reasonable job. These tools produce information
that is often incorrect or biased. However, AI tools can be good resources
for helping to organize ideas, develop graphics, etc… This use of AI is
helping you develop and organize your own ideas and creativity, rather
than attempting to have AI do your work for you-which cheats you out of
a learning and skill building opportunity. If you choose to use advanced
automated tools such as ChatGPT on assignments in this course that
use must be properly documented and credited. For example, text
generated using ChatGPT should include a citation such as: “Chat-GPT.
(YYYY, Month DD of query). “Text of your query.” Generated using
OpenAI. [Link] .With the citation you must also include
a brief (1-2 sentences) description of how you used the tool in the
assignment. If you do not follow these guidelines when using AI it will be
considered an academic integrity violation.

I started incorporating the AI usage policy in my syllabus since about two

Jinsil Kim years ago. I also give extensive talks in class about it, explaining that AI
should be a tool, not a master, and also share from my experience of
using AI in my research.
Here is what I include in my syllabus:
Use of AI in class: The use of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) tools
such as ChatGPT is encouraged for all assignments and assessments,
for the purpose of generating ideas and brainstorming. However,
students should note that such tools may provide inaccurate, incomplete,
or otherwise problematic information, and it is each student’s
responsibility to assess the validity and applicability of any GAI output
that is submitted. Use of such tools must be appropriately acknowledged
and cited. For more thoughts and information about the use of GAI in
strategy classes, read [Link]
embracing-ai-teach-strategy-undergraduates-trevis-certo-mihef/
Use the tools to think smarter, but work with Integrity. AI can make you
faster. But it’s your thinking, your knowledge, and your ethics that make
you valuable.”

What’s Allowed
Depending on the assignment, some use of AI may be permitted,
provided that it is disclosed. Look for AI usage guidance on each
assignment. When permitted:
- You may use AI to brainstorm ideas or revise grammar.
- You must disclose AI use (e.g., “Used ChatGPT to help outline the
paper”).
- You are responsible for verifying the accuracy and originality of all
submitted work.
What’s Not Allowed
Unless specifically permitted:
- Do not submit AI-generated work as your own without proper
attribution.
- Do not use AI to complete assignments that are designed to assess
your individual knowledge, reflection, or problem-solving.
- Do not use AI to bypass learning or plagiarize ideas.
 I allow students to use GenAI in certain circumstances in my course
Rebecca (chemistry). I provide examples of productive/encouraged uses, as well
Hunter as prohibited uses. Acceptable uses include clarifying concepts,
brainstorming/outlining lab reports, etc., getting help with clarifying their
writing, and generating study aids. I also have some assignments where
students are explicitly instructed to use AI for a task. For these
assignments, there is a fact checking and reflecting component built into
the assignment. I am finding that as students are instructed to use AI
more in this way, they are becoming more critical of the outputs (and in
many cases more hesitant to rely on AI), which is a good thing!
In speaking with folks in the chemical industry, it is clear that they expect
recent graduates to be familiar with AI. Many companies are creating
their own internally trained AIs to help with workflows, data analysis,
troubleshooting, etc. For this reason, I will continue to build thoughtful
opportunities for AI use into my assignments.

As I use AI tools extensively in my courses, I post an AI Use & Ethics

Karen policy in Canvas for all my courses and review their use for specific
Becker assignments, optional tasks, and work flow.

In MKT 201 which is a first level Marketing course, AI-enhanced learning

is intentionally integrated to mirror how businesses work: using the tools
to think smarter, but working with integrity and understanding that they
still need to provide value to the team/company. I am clear that AI can
make them faster, allow them to analyze large data sets, and be efficient
with their time, but it is their thinking, knowledge, and ethics that are key.

The policy emphasizes use cases and ethical considerations such as

bias awareness, hallucination risk and verification, transparency about
tool use, training limits, and TCNJ academic integrity standards and
varied use policies. This is my policy which is on Canvas AI USE policy
MKT [Link].
Download AI USE policy MKT [Link].

I believe ethical, practical use of AI is essential to building AI fluency, a

critical skill for graduating business students so I have the policy at the
beginning of the course, and then touch more deeply on key issues as
we work through exercises and applications.
 This course supports ethical use of GenAI during specified tasks and
Lauren assignment activities only; each specified use of GenAI is specially
Foxworth designed to enhance, rather than replace, the learning process. Students
must be transparent about all uses of GenAI. Students are encouraged to
keep open dialogue, notifying the instructor if they encounter a use for
GenAI that was not previously specified in the task instructions.
Collaboration with ChatGPT or other GenAI companion when not
specified or pre-approved in the instructions is not permitted in this
course and is considered a violation of academic integrity.

I have already provided clear instructions to students concerning the use

James of LLMs in my classes: They are not allowed to do so and will be reported
Taylor as violating academic integrity of they do.
There are many reasons for this, but the ethical case against LLM use is
clear: Current LLMs have been trained on stolen data. (I have identified
78 of my copyrighted works as those that have been pirated by LLMs,
including Gemini.) When students feed prompts into LLMs they are
contributing to the theft of IP.

I teach chemistry - so I don't have to worry about writing reports as much.

Donna There are positives and negatives for use in problem solving. If students
Bassolino just use it to get the answer and write it down - then it's not good. They
get to the test and don't know how to do problems. However, if they
continue with prompts and ask it to explain how to do a problem and why
to do it that way. How to start a word problem etc. It can be used to
"generate more problems like this" for practice. (I do this for them but
they can do it themselves. This wuld be an acceptable use.
They also need to be careful because sometimes AI messes up - not so
much with math based problems but with nomenclature.
I always warn them to make sure they understand the answer that comes
out.

In my current courses, I generally do not permit any use of AI. This

Minsoo semester, I am teaching a child development class serving as a
Kim- foundation of teaching, an inclusive arts method class, and a student
 teaching seminar. I have a firm statement in the first two class syllabi
Bossard saying that any use of AI is not permissible. In the student teaching
seminar, there is room for using AI when used under the guidance of the
instructor.
I am currently thinking through some acceptable possible uses of AI,
especially in the student teaching seminar course because I have come
across the statistics that about 60% of teachers today use AI for lesson
planning. I have also attended a panel of teachers demonstrating the use
of AI in lesson planning, rubric development, drafting letters to families,
and I came to accept that AI will be an integral part of teacher education
and teacher work in the field.
In my own work, I also have started use AI for grammar check and
checking tone of writing as a person who learned English as the second
language. I have encountered some moments when ChatGPT made very
confident mistakes and used those as examples to share with students to
be suspicious and always be diligent about double checking when using
AI tools. As the Academic Integrity officer of SOE, I have met students
who had a very warped idea of what it is like to do work on their own and
get any assistance from AI when doing work.
The primary concern I have with teacher candidates using AI is the
embedded biases within AI tools due to the fact that how AI is trained on
pre-existing data. If teacher candidates do not have a critical eye from
being familiar with culturally and community responsive teaching, they
will continue perpetuating biases against students and families they work
with. I am currently thinking about what activities/in-class
exercises/assignments can be given so that we can improve teacher
candidates' AI literacy so they can use it more critically.

I currently don't have an official AI-use policy in my classes. I am

Tom fortunate as the main assessment assignments are in-class tests and
Hagedorn quizzes. However, these assessments are based upon homework
assignments, which some students have been using AI for. I do grade
homework and students are told that answers can only use the ideas and
notations we have introduced in class, and so far, students aren't able to
use AI sufficiently well to meet that criteria -- though a few keep trying
(they get marked down for using non-class notation, etc.) Moreover, I
have spoken to students about how they are only reducing their
knowledge and critical thinking skills by using AI for homework, as AI use
replaces the practice that students need. I have told students that each
time they want to use AI as an answer generator, they should be asking
themselves if they want a lower grade on their quiz or test.
I see that students may be able to have good acceptable and valid
reasons for using AI for more advanced projects, but not for learning core
foundational topics, which is the primary content of my courses.
 In my digital marketing strategy class, I encourage students to use AI as
Eddie part of the final project for the class. At the start I mentioned in class that
Inyang students can use AI to brainstorm content ideas, create blog titles,
campaign slogans and market research. However, as the semester
progressed, I realized students were not quite sure what is ok to use AI
for and what is not ok to use AI for. So I then created a pdf that goes over
how to use AI responsibly for the class, and I created another pdf that
listed acceptable uses of AI for each part of the project. That seemed to
help students know what to do more than when I just have a verbal
description. Although, I do not use AI detectors due to their potential for
false positives, I do let students know what I am familiar enough with AI
that I can detect when students submit work that is entirely AI generated,
and the 1st offense will be they can do the assisgnment but without the
use of AI, and 2nd offense may result in a referral to academic integrity.
So far, I have only had 1 student n 2 sections of class submit work that
was entirely AI. Due to the nature of the final project where they have
weekly deliverables, it is not possible to submit entirely AI generated
content without me knowing because there are details that are
idiosyncratic to each small business client that are working with. Hence
the need to use the school's database to access current specific data that
the AI may not yet have been trained on, helps me to mitigage the
possibility of students relying entirely on AI for their assignments. I am
still trying to learn new ways to ensure students use AI as a tool, and not
outsource all of their thinking towards it, so that do not have to do the
work themselves.

From a librarian's perspective, this topic very naturally fits into core
Jia Mi values of information literacy—think critically about where information
comes from, how it's created, and how it should be used responsibly.
Generative AI tools are powerful but unreliable sources of information.
They can generate inaccuracies or biased content, and often the data
behind them is not transparent. For that reason, users should approach
AI-generated information with healthy skepticism and verify that
information through reliable sources, such as library databases or peer-
reviewed resources.
The same questions librarians teach with traditional sources apply here:
Who created this? Why was it made? What are the limitations?
Promotion of transparency in how AI is used is akin to teaching students
to cite their sources and give proper credit. The role of librarians lends
itself well to moderating discussions on privacy—avoiding the use of
personal or copyrighted content, biases and equity—how AI reflects
systems of bias, and access—making sure every student uses secure,
institutionally supported tools. In this sense, librarians can help
communities navigate the ethical use of AI while reinforcing principles
around the evaluation, attribution, and responsible use of information.
 I am taking this course to learn about uses of AI that might be beneficial
Jeanine in my courses. Because I am both skeptical and under-informed, I
Vivona currently have a "no AI use" policy for my courses. Here is how I present
that policy in my course syllabi:
"In this course, any use of AI bots (e.g., ChatGPT, Grammarly, Quillbot,
or any other content generation or writing alteration software or app)
constitutes cheating (i.e., attempting to gain unfair advantage) and
misrepresentation (i.e., submitting work you did not do as though it is
your own work). Such apps or software may not be used for any course
assignment or task, formal or informal, graded or ungraded. You are
responsible for knowing where such bots are operating and making sure
you are not using them for your work in this course. Here is a partial list
of things you must do without consulting AI bots: all written work including
exams, papers, and discussion posts; all preparation and materials for in-
class assignments (e.g., Student-led Discussion); all correspondence
(e.g., email) with me or other members of the class; all brainstorming and
research (e.g., for group project or final paper).
Many students believe that professors cannot detect AI use and even
when AI use is suspected, it cannot be proven sufficiently to support an
academic integrity violation. I have been an Academic Integrity Officer for
HSS for many years and I can assure you that both of these beliefs are
false. Students who use AI when it is prohibited, as it is in this course,
receive substantial penalties for their actions. Believe me when I say you
will do better in this course (and learn more) without using AI!"
I do not yet have a sense of how AI might be useful to me or my
students. But I have learned that I should provide a clear pedagogical
and ethical explanation for why I prohibit AI use; I will add that to my
policy. In addition, I would like to develop activities that assist students in
recognizing inaccuracies and biases in the outcome of Gen AI, and that
foster their own critical thinking about when and when not to use these
tools.

This semester is the first time I included the declaration of AI usage in my

Lynn Tang course syllabi. It is the first time I used AI to develop a couple classroom
activities using Padlet. It is also the first time I used AI to edit one of my
research papers before resubmitting it to a journal. So far, my experience
with AI has been both positive and negative.
The best experience is how AI can save my time to polish the language
in my paper with the tone that is best suited for academic publication. I
did review every word AI rewritten and make those I do not agree.
The negative experience is I do not know how to detect whether my
students have used AI to complete their assignments. So far, only one
group of my graduate students acknowledged the usage of AI. It did offer
me an opportunity to assess what AI can do and can not do at this point.
Moving forward, my biggest concern is how to detect the usage of AI if
students do not disclose it.