91¶ÌÊÓƵ

PPM student code language should always be included in your general course policies:

As part of the student code (PPM 6-22), you are expected to be academically honest and ethical. Academic dishonesty includes cheating; plagiarizing; colluding with others to be dishonest; falsifying information; giving, selling, or receiving unauthorized course or test information; using a tool or other aid not explicitly permitted by your instructor such as generative AI (e.g. ChatGPT) to complete assignments or exams; or infringing on others' copyrights and intellectual property. Academic dishonesty can have serious consequences in the class and/or at 91¶ÌÊÓƵ. Be sure, if you borrow an idea, to express it in language entirely your own and let the reader know the idea's source in a citation note.

You might consider more explicit instructions in your course ():

“AI content generation tools (such as ChatGPT, etc…) are not permitted for any work, or phase of work, in this class. Using them may interfere with your progress as an independent thinker and your achievement of the course’s outcomes. If you use these tools, your actions would be considered academically dishonest and a violation of Weber State’s Academic Integrity Policy.”

“During our class, we may use AI tools such as ChatGPT in certain specific cases.  You will be informed as to when, where, and how these tools are permitted to be used, along with guidance for attribution.  Any use outside of these specific cases would be considered academically dishonest and a violation of Weber State’s Academic Integrity Policy.”

See the example below from a college instructor on how you might demonstrate what is allowed where.

Homework Assignments
AI tools can be used for: open notes, book use, online learning

Quizzes and Weekly Summaries
AI tools can be used for: open notes, book use, online learning

Team Projects
AI tools can be used for: open notes, book use, online learning, gathering content, and communication between students and their groups

“AI tools such as ChatGPT are welcome in this class, provided that you cite when and how you use the tool.  You will be provided with examples of how to cite your use of this tool.”

*Provided they are cited, and student can explain their work

()

“The author generated this text in part with GPT-3, OpenAI’s large-scale language-generation model using the following prompts: “______” and “_____”. Upon generating draft language, the author reviewed, edited, and revised the language to their own liking and takes ultimate responsibility for this content.

None of these statements is required except for the course policy statement of academic integrity. It is still your choice as a faculty member to decide which policy fits your course(s), learning outcomes and information literacy, and still upholds the standards of academic integrity and rigor. Given the varying needs across the institution, this approach provides much room for you to find your fit for your student needs while still adhering to academic standards.

Whatever you decide, we highly recommend that your syllabus clearly reflect your stance.

91¶ÌÊÓƵ’s Student Code of Conduct provides the primary safeguard and policy governing academic integrity in all of its formulations. The following prohibited activities are particularly pertinent to GenAI use:

• Using materials during a test not authorized by the person giving the test;
• Knowingly obtaining academic credit for work that is not one’s own regardless of the source of the work;
• Plagiarism, which is the unacknowledged (uncited) use of any other person’s or group’s ideas or work. This includes purchased or borrowed papers;
• Collusion, which is the unauthorized collaboration with another person in preparing work offered for credit;
• Falsification, which is the intention and unauthorized altering or inventing of any information or citation in an academic exercise, activity, or record-keeping process;
• Using any unauthorized resource or aid in the preparation or completion of any course work, exercise, or activity

It bears repeating that students are looking to us to define what is acceptable and unacceptable in the course. Effective pedagogical ways to accomplish this goal include:

• Facilitating a robust conversation in class or online discussion during the first week of class about the importance of academic integrity and ethical behavior within school and within their discipline, the advantages and disadvantages of AI use, expectations within the workforce, impact on society, etc. Encourage students to understand that one of the purposes of higher education is to enable originality and critical thinking skills.
   
• Co-construct community agreements with your students, and prepare first day activities in the first week of the semester that incorporate discussion of your AI policies. Research shows that students really appreciate being part of the process of determining the way they need to show up for class.

Students should be citing the following information:

• Direct Content Use: Any direct text, images, code, or data generated by an AI should be cited. For example, if a student uses a passage from an AI-generated text in their paper, it must be cited as they would with any other source.
   
• Paraphrased Content: If students paraphrase content generated by an AI, it should also be cited to acknowledge the original AI source.
   
• Ideation and Assistance: When AI tools are used for brainstorming, generating ideas, or assisting in structuring an assignment, this should be acknowledged even if the final text is not directly taken from the AI.
   

Some faculty may engage with software, such as CopyLeakes and GPTZero, to detectthe use of AI. As of this writing, there is no single fool-proof way to detect the use of generative AI in academic writing. Additionally, some detection software may unfairly penalize students or be ineffective at detecting AI use. 

Some faculty members have adopted a triangulation approach in which they get to know a student’s authentic writing through early low-stakes activities, then employ a combination of software for verification if suspicion arises.

If you suspect a student has used AI outside of the standards you have set for your course, invite that student to a conversation about what happened. You might ask the student to elaborate on their process in completing the assignment. Provide the student with a fair opportunity to explain, and or defend their work. You have the best understanding of the circumstances, and you may determine how you would like to move forward. If you decide that the issue should be escalated, your syllabus policies and the student code of conduct should guide you.

Most of our students do not show up to class with the intention of cheating. Sometimes, cheating happens within certain types of conditions and opportunities. We can help to deter cheating by making small pedagogical changes:

• Work to establish a welcoming and open classroom environment in which students believe that you are there to support them in learning. When students feel welcomed, respected and valued, their ability to engage and learn increases.
   
• Provide supportive scaffolding and clear explanations to your assignments to reduce confusion. When students don’t understand assignments and are in a time crunch, it might be tempting to use AI in an unauthorized manner, or cheat in other ways.
   
• Develop your courses to engage with higher order thinking skills in Bloom’s Taxonomy, reflective exercises and other strategies that make the content relevant to students’ lives. AI lives and thrives in the generic.
   
• Normalize the appropriate use of AI through transparency. In the same way, you would cite where you get your teaching materials, use transparent practices if you used AI to help you build an assignment or prepare course materials.
   
• Consider student workload and semester timing. Our students are people too who can buckle under the pressure of everything due at the same time. If you have flexibility in your coursework, consider shifting your assignment due dates where it makes sense.
   
• Strongly consider experimenting with  that are in line with your course outcomes. A written paper or multiple choice exam is one of many ways to determine if your students have learned the material.

• and the Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning provide various courses and workshops to assist you in developing your skills to engage in thoughtful and authentic alternative assessments.
   
• CETL’s Digital Fluency Faculty in Residence and 91¶ÌÊÓƵ Online’s instructional designers can help you in a personalized manner to determine the range of assessments available to match your course outcomes.

Generative AI presents a number of opportunities for us to refine our craft and further engage our students. It can assist us with:

• Visually enhancing our visual presentations () 
   
• Revising and sharpening our course outcomes. Check out that was built just for us teachers.
   
• Building those tricky rubrics that align accurately with our course outcomes. Check out another  helpful for this.
   
• Create engaging classroom activities. Check out this pretty well-received class activity (PDF), which also included the execution directions, that an instructor co-created with the help of ChatGPT3.5.
   
• provides varied resources including an OpenAI tutorial for those new to AI.
   
• This academic article presents insights from faculty and students about

You may enroll in CETL’s Fall AI Learning Community (Sept. 17 - Oct. 22) for a robust introduction to using AI. You will earn a badge from the Association of College and University Educators (ACUE) and a certificate of completion from CETL. This learning community has a value of $200 to you.

A critical point to note:

Weber State is, first and foremost, a teaching institution that prizes our personalized interactions with students in the learning process. We must adhere to PPM 9-5 in our responsibilities to our students and conduct ourselves according to the scholarly standards of our disciplines. 

Additionally, the following from the Utah State Board of Education’s  provides us with useful additional guidance:

• While generative AI presents useful assistance to amplify teachers’ capabilities and reduce teacher workload, these technologies will not be used to supplant the role of human educators in instructing and nurturing students. The core practices of teaching, mentoring, assessing, and inspiring learners will remain the teacher’s responsibility in the classroom.

• AI is a tool to augment human judgment, not replace it. Teachers and staff must review and critically reflect on all AI-generated content before use, thereby keeping “humans in the loop.

• Teachers will ultimately be responsible for evaluation, feedback, and grading, including determining and assessing the usefulness of AI in supporting their grading work. AI will not be solely responsible for grading.