Academic Expectations
Instructors are in a difficult position due to the technological revolution that AI has introduced. On the one hand, we have an obligation to prepare our students for the AI-enabled world that awaits them post-graduation. At the same time, especially with the introduction of agentic AI, AI can earn passing grades on many types of assessments used at universities which calls into question the validity of many traditional methods of assessing student learning. This means instructors need to do the hard work of reengineering assessments so that they include elements that are secure and AI-resilient. Our office continues to monitor the latest conversations around AI and assessment. Here are some resources we encourage instructors to engage with. We particularly feel it would be productive to engage with these resources within a departmental or program so that AI-resiliency extends beyond just the classroom level to the degree level.
WSU supports instructors in their choices regarding the most appropriate pedagogy for their discipline and specific course context. Therefore, it is the instructor’s prerogative to allow or prohibit the use of any generative AI tool. This decision comes with the obligation to accurately and clearly communicate AI policies to students enrolled in WSU courses across all campuses. Further, since courses are embedded within curricula, it is critical that instructors work with the programs that offer degrees and certificates to develop AI expectations across sequences of courses or throughout a curriculum of study.
The Office of the Provost expects every instructor to set clear expectations and policies related to acceptable AI use in their course(s). Instructors must clearly indicate their course policy about AI use in every class syllabus, and potentially, for each and every assessment. An expectation for our students is that there is accurate and transparent attribution of AI use in their classroom assessments.
As a reminder to our faculty and course instructors, you do not need to work in isolation on adapting your course(s) to the new AI landscape. The WSU Writing Program has guidance on writing with AI that is available here, the Transformational Change Initiative leads PIT Stops related to AI, and the Global Innovations Group also has trainings and workshops available. There are also general AI trainings available in Percipio. The Provost’s AI Council will continue to foster partnerships that allow additional opportunities for instructors and students to learn and engage with AI in the classroom.
Additional resources for teaching in an AI world can be found in the resources below.
- University of Sydney has developed a two lane approach to assessment in the age of AI that discusses AI-secure and non-AI-secure approaches to assessment.
- A recent article by Wendy Laura Belcher from The Chronicle of Higher Education demonstrates how to help students understand the limitations of LLMs and writing.
- Two more Chronicle of Higher Education articles provide concrete examples of how to incorporate AI into assessments:
- “Make AI Part of the Assignment,” by Marc Watkins.
- “AI Writing Disclosures Are a Joke. Here’s How to Improve Them,” by Yasha Hartberg.
- The WSU Writing Program and the WSU Libraries have resources related to teaching with AI.
- Bowen, J. A. (2024). Teaching with AI, First edition. (This is available as a downloadable ebook from the WSU Libraries using a WSU netID.)
How to Establish AI Policies within Courses
Step 1: Define acceptable use.
If you decide to allow generative AI as a tool for learning in your courses, clarify for your students the circumstances in which AI is allowable. You may discover that if you allow students to engage with generative AI, specific guidelines may need to accompany each assignment.
The Provost’s AI Council has found that there are many outstanding examples of setting clear expectations for students across many different subject areas and assessment types in this curated from a crowd-sourced document. We also encourage you to explore on your own to find AI policies developed by instructors in your field and represent your level of comfort with the use of AI.
Step 2: Explore the continuum of policies and communicate your policy to students in the course syllabus.
Below are policy examples from the University of Delaware’s Center for Teaching and Assessment of Learning, which distill the four basic approaches that instructors can take in their syllabi. We invite you to consider them as starting points in your exploration of what your AI policy will be. WSU recognizes that additional policies may be preferred by some, including explicit encouragement of students using AI.
Example A: AI Use Prohibited
Students are not allowed to use advanced automated tools (artificial intelligence or machine learning tools such as ChatGPT, Co-Pilot, or Dall-E) on assignments in this course. Each student is expected to complete each assignment without substantive assistance from others, including automated tools.
Example B: AI Use Only with Prior Permission
Students are allowed to use advanced automated tools (artificial intelligence or machine learning tools such as ChatGPT, Co-Pilot, or Dall-E) on assignments in this course if instructor permission is obtained in advance. Unless given permission to use those tools, each student is expected to complete each assignment without substantive assistance from others, including automated tools.
Example C: AI Use Only with Acknowledgement
Students are allowed to use advanced automated tools (artificial intelligence or machine learning tools such as ChatGPT, Co-Pilot, or Dall-E) on assignments in this course if that use is properly documented and credited. For example, text generated using ChatGPT-3 should include a citation such as: “Chat-GPT-3. (YYYY, Month DD of query). “Text of your query.” Generated using OpenAI. https://chat.openai.com/” Material generated using other tools should follow a similar citation convention.
Example D: AI Use Is Freely Permitted with No Acknowledgement
Students are allowed to use advanced automated tools (artificial intelligence or machine learning tools such as ChatGPT, Co-Pilot, or Dall-E) on assignments in this course; no special documentation or citation is required. NOTE: It is important to remember that the unauthorized use of generative AI in a course is a violation of WSU’s Community Standards and can be reported to the Center for Community Standards (CCS). As a reminder, any expectations about AI usage should be communicated in writing to students.
Step 3: Communicate with students in your classes about your AI policy.
Your AI course policy was developed with careful consideration. These policies are rooted in the intellectual framework of the course, your discipline, and your understanding of critical thought. It is essential to maintain ongoing discussions with your students about the rationale behind your course policies to continue their learning about this new technology.
Below are three examples of instructor rationale for their AI policies:
- In a policy example from Joel Gladd (University of Western Idaho) he mentions two guiding principles in a course that will allow the use of AI: “1) Cognitive dimension: Working with AI should not reduce your ability to think clearly. We will practice using AI to facilitate—rather than hinder—learning. 2) Ethical dimension: Students using AI should be transparent about their use and make sure it aligns with academic integrity.”
- Lis Horowitz (Salem State University) shares a practical reason behind a zero-tolerance policy for generative AI in their writing course. “Since writing, analytical, and critical thinking skills are part of the learning outcomes of this course, all writing assignments should be prepared by the student. Developing strong competencies in this area will prepare you for a competitive workplace. Therefore, AI-generated submissions are not permitted and will be treated as plagiarism.”
- By defining the idea of integrity, Megan McNamara (UC Santa Cruz) points out what is at stake when we talk about academic honesty and personal growth. As she states, “Integrity – other people’s perception of your word as true – is one of the most valuable assets you can cultivate in life. Being attentive to integrity in academic settings allows others to trust that you have completed work for which you are taking credit.” Her course allows students to use AI in limited ways, and this rationale sets the foundation for this use.
As the semester continues, you may find the need to clarify or fine-tune your course policies. If you do this, please do so in writing and clearly communicate any updates with your students. During the Fall semester, you may find yourself in a place where you need to speak with a student about concerns around artificial intelligence use. Please remember to provide the student an opportunity to respond to your concerns prior to reporting them to the Center for Community Standards. If you have questions about the academic integrity process, you can schedule an instructor consultation to have your questions answered. If you are interested in helping our community review appeals of academic integrity violations, we encourage you to apply.
(This communication includes, with permission, information composed by Duke University’s University Learning Innovations Office.)