TILT Master Teacher Initiative
The Master Teacher Initiative (MTI) is a university-wide program to enhance the quality of teaching within CSU’s colleges and libraries.
Visit TILT’s collection of Teaching Tips and the CNS collection of Teaching Tips
October 8, 2024
The CSU MTI Coordinators received another request from a faculty member regarding guidelines for how students can use ChatGPT. I will disseminate that information over the next few weeks. This week I include the last two posts by Joseph Brown I will share. Joseph Brown also shared a link to the Harvard AI Pedagogy Project as another resource. Under the “Assignments” section some built-out lessons are posted as examples of how to include AI in your course assignments.
What should a syllabus statement on AI look like?
by Joseph Brown, Director of Academic Integrity, TILT
February 22, 2023
While it is unusual for faculty to update a course syllabus mid-semester, the unprecedented impacts of ChatGPT and AI technology have many looking for ways to provide more guidance for their students. In this post, I’d like to share different versions of what syllabi statements on ChatGPT and AI-generated material can look like.
These can take different approaches. Here are some examples:
Example 1: Here is one such example co-created by the CSU Composition Program:
A Note on AI: This class is specifically a space for learning and practicing invaluable writing and researching processes that cannot be replicated by generative artificial intelligence (AI). While the ever-changing (and exciting!) new developments with AI will find their place in our workforces and personal lives, in the realm of education, this kind of technology can counteract learning. This is because the use of AI diminishes opportunities to learn from our experiences and from each other, to play with our creative freedoms, to problem-solve, and to contribute our ideas in authentic ways. In a nutshell, college is a place for learning, and this AI simply cannot do that learning for us. Academic integrity plays a vital role in the learning that takes place in CO 150, and submitting work as your own that was generated by AI is plagiarism. For all of these reasons, any work written, developed, created, or inspired by generative artificial intelligence does not lend itself to our learning goals and is a breach of ethical engagement and CSU’s academic integrity policy.
Note that this statement sets the expectation that any use on graded work/ work for credit will be considered a violation of the academic misconduct policy. Also, I really love how this statement shares its reasoning and approaches it with a positive tone and care for the student.
Example 2: This statement may unfold in this manner:
Generally speaking, you are not authorized to use artificial intelligence engines, software, or artwork generating programs (or similar) to produce work for this class EXCEPT on assignments that I have identified and for which you will have received significant guidance on appropriate use of such technologies. I will provide more information about the specific assignment when the time is appropriate in the course. You may not, however, construe this limited use as permission to use these technologies in any other facet of this course.
In this statement, the instructor makes it clear that only certain uses will be acceptable and that the student can expect future communication and instruction in those cases. In that scenario, the student has a reasonable expectation that the instructor will use signaling language when the work is assigned and that there will be significant guidance at that time about how to use the technology.
Example 3:This statement may unfold in this manner:
From this point forward, I will assume that all written work has been co-authored or entirely written by ChatGPT. I will grade such writing as I normally would and your grade will be a reflection of your ability to harness these new technologies as you prepare for your future in a workforce that will increasingly require your proficiency with AI-assisted work.
This is based on a real statement I saw in early February 2023. I felt many emotions while reading it. While this author might be right about AI technology’s future in the workplace eventually, not preparing students to communicate effectively according to the current standards of our disciplines is widely seen as an abdication of our responsibility to them. There is something very human in this response to ChatGPT, though, and I sympathize with faculty who feel exhausted at the prospect of having to combat yet another technology with the potential to undermine higher education.
Last Thoughts
As you can imagine, the right syllabus statement for your course can fall anywhere in between these examples. However, it is important that they remain consistent with university and department policy on assessing student work. Finally, the most important part of including a statement is that it provides clarity to your students about your expectations. Hopefully, it can also be the starting point for an evolving conversation.
The (Near) Definitive List of AI Syllabus Statements
A resource compiling AI-related syllabus statements from across higher education was recently shared on the Pod Network and it was just too helpful to not share. The value, I think, is that it contains all kinds of statements for all kinds of courses. Credit goes to Lance Eaton for putting this together. You can find it linked here: Classroom Policies for AI Generative Tools.
AI and the CSU Student Conduct Code
by Mike Katz, Director of the Student Resolution Center, posted by Joseph Brown
January 29, 2023
Some faculty have had questions about whether the CSU Student Conduct Code applies to work that was created by artificial intelligence. Below is some information provided by Mike Katz, Director of the Student Resolution Center, that I believe will be useful.
Is work (essays, responses, code, images) created by an artificial intelligence engine still covered by our Student Conduct Code’s language?
Yes. Definitively. The Student Conduct Code was written to address behavior, not technologies. In addition, work submitted for credit that was created by AI-engines can be addressed using multiple areas of the Academic Misconduct section of the Student Conduct Code.
Is it plagiarism? What about cheating?
Yes and yes. The language of the Student Conduct Code that deals with plagiarism prohibits “the copying of language, structure, images, ideas, or thoughts of another, and representing them as one’s own without proper acknowledgement…” [emphasis added].
You can see that the Code applies in two major areas here:
- The work was not created by the student.
- The work was submitted as a representation of one’s own work without proper acknowledgement that it was created by another.
As for cheating, the Code would apply to using AI-generated work because it would include “receiving unauthorized assistance on any form of academic work or engaging in any behavior specifically prohibited by the instructor in the course syllabus…” [emphasis added].
If you have questions about how the Student Conduct Code applies to a situation, you can contact Mike Katz at 970-491-7165. As always, if you have questions about academic integrity, feel free to call Joseph Brown at 970-491-2898.
I hope you find these posts helpful for your teaching. As always, I appreciate your questions, comments and feedback on this and other teaching related topics.
Cheers, Paul
