We found 9 results that contain "genai"

The following MSU-specifics should be used to inform your decisions on Generative Artifical Intelligence (GenAI)...
Overall guidance: We collectively share the responsibility to uphold intellectual honesty and scholarly integrity. These are core principles that may be compromised by the misuse of GenAI tools, particularly when GenAI-generated content is presented as original, human-created work.  
Permitted uses in Teaching & Learning: Instructors are expected to establish a course-specific guidance that defines the appropriate and inappropriate use of GenAI tools.

Students may only use GenAI tools to support their coursework in ways explicitly permitted by the instructor.  

Non-permissible uses: 

Do not Use GenAI to deliberately fabricate, falsify, impersonate, or mislead, unless explicitly approved for instruction or research in a controlled environment.
Do not Record or process sensitive, confidential, or regulated information withnon-MSU GenAI tools.
Do not Enter FERPA-protected student records, PII, PHI, financial, or HR data into unapproved tools; comply with MSU’s data policy and all regulations.
Do not Use export-controlled data or CUI with GenAI tools unless approved for MSU’s Regulated Research Enclave (RRE).

 
Also consider article "How to Cite AI" as you engage in your course-level rule decisions. 

 
Citing Generative AI (e.g., ChatGPT) in Higher Education Scholarship, Teaching, and Professional Writing
As generative AI tools like ChatGPT are increasingly used in academic settings—for teaching support, scholarly writing, and even faculty development—it's important to adopt citation practices that are centerend on ethics and that ensure clarity, transparency, and academic integrity. Below are structured guidelines across major citation styles (APA, MLA, Chicago), tailored to the needs of university instructors, researchers, and students. A final section also offers examples of less formal disclosures appropriate for drafts, instructional materials, and academic development work. 
 
Note that as large language models continue to develop, it will become increasingly important to cite the specific model or agent that was used to generate or modify content. It will also be important to regularly revisit citation guidelines, as these, too, are rapidly evolving to meet the demands of the ever-changing AI landscape. 
APA (7th ed.) Style
Official Guidance:APA Style Blog: How to Cite ChatGPT
Reference Entry Template:Author. (Year). Title of AI model (Version date) [Description]. Source URL
Example Reference:OpenAI. (2023). ChatGPT (May 24 version) [Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com/
In-text citation:(OpenAI, 2023)
Higher Education Example:When asked to summarize Bandura’s concept of self-efficacy for use in an introductory education course, ChatGPT stated that “self-efficacy refers to an individual’s belief in their ability to execute behaviors necessary to produce specific performance attainments” (OpenAI, 2023).
MLA (9th ed.) Style
Official Guidance:MLA Style Center: Citing Generative AI
Works Cited Template:“[Prompt text]” prompt. ChatGPT, Version Date, OpenAI, Access Date, chat.openai.com.
Example Entry:“Summarize Bandura’s concept of self-efficacy” prompt. ChatGPT, 24 May version, OpenAI, 26 May 2023, chat.openai.com.
In-text citation:("Summarize Bandura’s concept")
Chicago Manual of Style (17th ed.)
Official Guidance:Chicago recommends citing AI-generated text via footnote only, not in the bibliography.
Footnote Example:


Text generated by ChatGPT, May 24, 2023, OpenAI, https://chat.openai.com.


Higher Education Example:


Used in a teaching statement to describe inclusive pedagogy practices. ChatGPT, response to “Give an example of inclusive teaching in STEM,” May 24, 2023, https://chat.openai.com.


 
Less Formal Disclosures for Transparency
In many instructional or professional academic contexts—such as teaching statements, reflective memos, informal reports, or early-stage drafts—it may be more appropriate to disclose use of generative AI tools in a narrative or parenthetical style rather than a formal citation format. Below are examples of how this can be done responsibly and transparently:
Examples of Less Formal Attribution:


“This draft was developed with the assistance of ChatGPT, which helped generate an outline based on course goals I provided. All final content was authored and reviewed by me.”


“In preparing this teaching philosophy, I used ChatGPT to help articulate distinctions between formative and summative assessment. The generated content was edited and integrated with my personal teaching experiences.”


“Some of the examples included in this workshop description were drafted with the help of ChatGPT (May 2023 version). I adapted the AI-generated responses to better align with our institutional context.”


“This syllabus language on academic integrity was initially drafted using a prompt in ChatGPT. The AI output was revised significantly to reflect course-specific values and policies.”


(Used in slide footnotes or speaking notes): “Initial ideas for this section were generated using ChatGPT and reviewed for accuracy and alignment with our campus policy.”


When to Use Informal Attribution:


Internal memos or reports


Course or assignment drafts


Teaching statements or portfolios


Slide decks or workshop materials


Informal educational publications (e.g., blog posts, teaching commons)


Best Practices for Academic Use in Higher Education


Transparency is key. Whether using a formal citation style or a narrative disclosure, always clearly communicate how AI tools were used.


Human review is essential. AI-generated content should always be edited for accuracy, nuance, inclusivity, and disciplinary alignment.


Tailor to context. Use formal citation when required (e.g., published research); use informal attribution for pedagogical artifacts or collaborative drafts.

2024 Educator Seminars are presented by MSU IT Educational Technology, MSU Libraries, the Center for Teaching and Learning Innovation (CTLI), the Enhanced Digital Learning Initiative (EDLI), Testing Center & Assessment Services, and MSU IT Training​. 
Day 2: August 23, 2024
Instructions: Click on the registration link and sign-up for the sessions you're interested in. After completing your registration you will receive an email with the Zoom link for the session.

8:30 - 9:30am    GenAI in Teaching & Learning
Facilitator: Min Zhuang, Hala Sun & Imari Cheyne Tetu (EDLI)
Our presentation will explore how genAI has and will continue to change the context of curriculum and assessment in higher education. Current literature regarding genAI and its use in assessment and curriculum development will be shared. We will conclude with a discussion of ethics of AI use and AI tools available at MSU, as well as ideas on how educators might use genAI to engage and support students inside and outside of the classroom.
Session recording

9:30 - 10:30am    Introduction to the Libraries
Facilitators: Ben Oberdick (Libraries)
Enhance your teaching and research by learning about the Libraries’ extensive collections, services, spaces and expertise.
Session recording

10:30 - 11:30am    D2L Brightspace Essentials: Navigation, Gradebook Creation, and Structuring Accessible Content  
Facilitators: Lindsay Tigue & KJ Downer-Shojgreen (IT&D)
This informational webinar will cover the basics of setting up your course in D2L Brightspace. See an overview of the interface and learn how to set up tools for assessment and engagement, including the gradebook, assignments and assignment collection, quizzes, discussions, syllabus, digital document distribution, announcements and more. Examples will also be shown for uploading and organizing content with links to activities, so that learners can navigate the course efficiently. 
Session recording

11:30am - 12:30pm      BREAK

12:30 - 1:30pm    OneDrive - Getting Started
Facilitators: Michael Julian & Lindsey Howe (IT: Training)
Access, share, and collaborate on all your files from anywhere! Join us for this free, two-hour training session that will introduce you to Microsoft OneDrive. There will be live demonstrations and an opportunity for a Q&A session with our trainers. We will make it easy to learn how to store, access, and collaborate on your shared work files, all while supporting your specific business needs.
Session recording

1:30 - 2:30pm    Setting up your Gradebook
Facilitators: Cui Cheng & Jennie Wagner (IT&D)
Access to accurate and up-to-date grades is very important to students. The D2L online gradebook gives private views to students and a spreadsheet view to instructors. This training will lead you through how to set up a points-based or percentage-based (weighted) gradebook. We will also cover how to connect existing activities or assessments--such as discussions, assignments and quizzes--to the gradebook.
Session recording

2:30 - 3:30pm    MSU Commons
Facilitators: Kristen Lee & Larissa Babak (Libraries)
MSU Commons is an open access platform for connecting with other scholars, sharing your work, and developing your online presence. On MSU Commons, you can upload your scholarly and educational work in an open access repository, join discussion groups and collaborate in your areas of interest, create a WordPress site to host a multitude of content (including course content), and establish a digital presence that allows to you find other members, publications, and networks related to your work. This workshop will provide an opportunity to explore the various facets of MSU Commons, as well as an overview of the brand new repository system, KCWorks!
Session recording

3:30 - 4:30pm    Achieving your Course Goals with Backward Design
Facilitators: Rhonda Kessling & KJ Downer-Shojgreen (IT&D)
The backward design process begins with the final learning outcomes and works backward from there. When we ask ourselves precisely what the student should know or do, then we have a starting point for building the course, the lesson or the program. We will work together to create learning outcomes and to align them with assessments. This design process will help you become more intentional with your activities and assessments and make them more meaningful to your students.  
Session recording

The following is a proposed system of “Generative AI Use Codes” (GAUC) for academic assignments to provide clearer communication between instructors and students. These can be used to communicate the allowed level of generative AI assistance and desired degree of citation in academic tasks. The codes are meant to be simple and easy to use, reminiscent of the approach of Creative Commons licenses. There are two parts to the code: Part 1 communicates the role of AI in the task, and Part 2 communicates the desired attribution of the work requested.
Part 1: Generative AI Use Codes (GAUC)
GAUC-0: No Generative AI Allowed

Symbol: AI 🚫
Description: Students are not permitted to use generative AI in any capacity for the assignment. 

GAUC-1: Generative AI for Brainstorming Only

Symbol: AI ⛈️
Description: Students can use generative AI for brainstorming ideas, but the final content must be entirely their own. 

GAUC-2: Generative AI as a Reference

Symbol: AI 📚
Description: Students can use generative AI as a reference, similar to how one might use a textbook. However, direct output from the AI should not be included verbatim in the final assignment. 

GAUC-3: Generative AI for Editing and Refinement

Symbol: AI ✍️
Description: Students can draft their own work and use generative AI tools to edit, refine, and polish their content. The initial ideas and content must originate from the student. 

GAUC-4: Collaborative Creation with Generative AI

Symbol: AI 🤝
Description: Students can collaborate with generative AI to create content. While students should be actively involved in the creation process, they can interweave their own content with content generated by the AI. 

GAUC-5: Unrestricted Generative AI Use

Symbol: AI 🌍
Description: Students can use generative AI in any capacity, including generating the entirety of the assignment with the AI. They’re encouraged to experiment and innovate using the technology.

Part 2: Generative AI Attribution Codes (GAAC)
N: No Attribution Required

Symbol: 🆓
Description: Students are not required to provide any citation or acknowledgment for using generative AI, irrespective of the extent of AI’s contribution.

S: Source Attribution Required

Symbol: 🔗
Description: Students are required to mention the AI tool or platform they used (e.g., OpenAI’s GPT-4), but no specific citation format is mandated.

C: Comprehensive Attribution Required

Symbol: 📝
Description: Students should provide a comprehensive citation, detailing not just the AI platform/tool, but also specifying parameters, prompts, or any other specifics of how the AI was utilized.

R: Reflection on AI Use

Symbol: 💭
Description: Beyond merely citing the tool, students need to include a short reflection or description of how the AI was used, its influence on the outcome, and any human-AI collaborative dynamics involved.

Implementation:
Example: On assignment sheets or syllabi, faculty can employ both the GAUC and GAAC codes side by side, for instance, “GAUC-3-C” or “AI✍️📝”. This would indicate that students can use generative AI for editing and refinement, and they need to provide comprehensive attribution for the AI used.
Educational Materials: In addition to the code, it would be beneficial to provide students with a brief guide or overview of the GAUC system, explaining each code and its implications. This could include examples of how to cite or reflect on AI use appropriately.
Honor Code Integration: The concept of proper attribution, even to AI tools, should be ingrained in academic integrity guidelines. Stressing the importance of honest and transparent communication regarding AI assistance aligns with principles of academic honesty.
Faculty Discretion: While these codes provide a structured approach, faculty should retain the discretion to make specific clarifications or exceptions based on the nature of the assignment or the objectives of the exercise.
GAUC – 4S – OpenAI. (2023). ChatGPT (Aug 3rd version) [Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com/chat

The following MSU-specifics should be used to inform your decisions...
Overall guidance: We collectively share the responsibility to uphold intellectual honesty and scholarly integrity. These are core principles that may be compromised by the misuse of GenAI tools, particularly when GenAI-generated content is presented as original, human-created work.  
Permitted uses in Teaching & Learning: Instructors are expected to establish a course-specific guidance that defines the appropriate and inappropriate use of GenAI tools.

Students may only use GenAI tools to support their coursework in ways explicitly permitted by the instructor.  

Non-permissible uses: 

Do not Use GenAI to deliberately fabricate, falsify, impersonate, or mislead, unless explicitly approved for instruction or research in a controlled environment.
Do not Record or process sensitive, confidential, or regulated information withnon-MSU GenAI tools.
Do not Enter FERPA-protected student records, PII, PHI, financial, or HR data into unapproved tools; comply with MSU’s data policy and all regulations.
Do not Use export-controlled data or CUI with GenAI tools unless approved for MSU’s Regulated Research Enclave (RRE).

A well-prepared course should be designed for ("restrict", "permit" or "require") or designed around generative AI. Courses designed for ("ban") AI should detail the ways and degrees to which generative AI use will be incorporated into activities and assessments. Courses designed for AI may incorporate AI for some activities and not others and depending on course AI may be explicitly excluded or included at different stages. Courses designed around AI may discuss impacts of generative AI as a topic but expectations are that students will not use these types of tools, and the course should be intentionally designed such that the use of generative AI would either not be conducive to the completion of assessments and activities, or such that the attempt to do so would prove overly cumbersome. Regardless of your approach, communicating your expectations and rationale to learners is imperative.
Set clear expectations. Be clear in your syllabus about your policies for when, where, and how students should be using generative AI tools, and how to appropriately acknowledge (e.g., cite, reference) when they do use generative AI tools. If you are requiring students to use generative AI tools, these expectations should also be communicated in the syllabus and if students are incurring costs, these should be detailed in the course description on the Registrar’s website. 
Regardless of your approach, you might include time for ethics discussions. Add time into your course to discuss the ethical implications of chatGPT and forthcoming AI systems. Talk with students about the ethics of using generative AI tools in your course, at your university, and within your discipline or profession. Don’t be afraid to discuss the gray areas where we do not yet have clear guidance or answers; gray areas are often the places where learning becomes most engaging.Photo by Shahadat Rahman on Unsplash

(Photo by Steve Johnson on Unsplash )
You can also access the Generative AI Syllabus Guide Playlist with this content broken down into the following sections. Table of Contents:

MSU Guidance and [Non]Permitted Uses
Developing and Communicating a Course-level Generative AI Use policy
Example Syllabus Statements for the Use of AI Tools in Your Course

Design For Generative AI (restrict, permit, require)
Design Around Generative AI (ban)


Example Statements from Current USA, Higher Education Educators
Developing your Scholarly and Ethical Approaches to Generative AI
Beyond Syllabi Language
Additional considerations to help you develop your generative AI philosophy (Watkins, 2022)
References

The following MSU-specifics should be used to inform your decisions...
Overall guidance: We collectively share the responsibility to uphold intellectual honesty and scholarly integrity. These are core principles that may be compromised by the misuse of GenAI tools, particularly when GenAI-generated content is presented as original, human-created work.  
Permitted uses in Teaching & Learning: Instructors are expected to establish a course-specific guidance that defines the appropriate and inappropriate use of GenAI tools.

Students may only use GenAI tools to support their coursework in ways explicitly permitted by the instructor.  

Non-permissible uses: 

Do not Use GenAI to deliberately fabricate, falsify, impersonate, or mislead, unless explicitly approved for instruction or research in a controlled environment.
Do not Record or process sensitive, confidential, or regulated information withnon-MSU GenAI tools.
Do not Enter FERPA-protected student records, PII, PHI, financial, or HR data into unapproved tools; comply with MSU’s data policy and all regulations.
Do not Use export-controlled data or CUI with GenAI tools unless approved for MSU’s Regulated Research Enclave (RRE).

Developing and Communicating a Course-level Generative AI Use policy 
A well-prepared course should be designed for ("restrict", "permit" or "require") or designed around ("ban") generative AI. Courses designed for AI should detail the ways and degrees to which generative AI use will be incorporated into activities and assessments. Courses designed for AI may incorporate AI for some activities and not others and depending on course AI may be explicitly excluded or included at different stages. Courses designed around AI may discuss impacts of generative AI as a topic but expectations are that students will not use these types of tools, and the course should be intentionally designed such that the use of generative AI would either not be conducive to the completion of assessments and activities, or such that the attempt to do so would prove overly cumbersome. 
Regardless of your approach, communicating your expectations and rationale to learners is imperative.
Set clear expectations. Be clear in your syllabus about your policies for when, where, and how students should be using generative AI tools, and how to appropriately acknowledge (e.g., cite, reference) when they do use generative AI tools. If you are requiring students to use generative AI tools, these expectations should also be communicated in the syllabus and if students are incurring costs, these should be detailed in the course description on the Registrar’s website. 
Regardless of your approach, you might include time for ethics discussions. Add time into your course to discuss the ethical implications of chatGPT and forthcoming AI systems. Talk with students about the ethics of using generative AI tools in your course, at your university, and within your discipline or profession. Don’t be afraid to discuss the gray areas where we do not yet have clear guidance or answers; gray areas are often the places where learning becomes most engaging.
Example Syllabus Statements for the Use of AI Tools in Your Course 
There is no “one size fits all policy” for AI uses in higher education. Much like attendance/participation policies, GenAI course-level rules and statements will be determined by individual instructors, departments, and programs. The following resource is provided to assist you in developing coherent policies on the use of generative AI tools in your course, within MSU's guideline. Please adjust these examples to fit your particular context. Remember communication of your course generative AI policies should not only be listed in your syllabus, but also explicitly included  in assignment descriptions where AI use is allowed or disallowed. 
It is your responsibility as instructor to note and explain your individual course-level rule. A conversation with your department is highly recommended so that generative AI use in the classroom reflects broader use in the unit and  discipline. If you have specific questions about writing your course rules, please reach out to the Center for Teaching and Learning Innovation. 
Design For Generative AI
Restrict [This syllabus statement is useful when you are allowing the use of AI tools for certain purposes, but not for others. Adjust this statement to reflect your particular parameters of acceptable use. The following is an example.] 
Example1:  

The use of generative AI tools (e.g. ChatGPT, Dall-e, etc.) is permitted in this course for the following activities:

[insert permitted your course activities here*]


The use of generative AI tools is not permitted in this course for the following activities:

[insert not permitted your course activities here*]


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 integrity and the Spartan Code of Honor Academic Pledge.

Example2: Taken, with slight modification, from Temple University’s Center for the Advancement of Teaching  to demonstrate the kinds of permitted/restricted activity an instructor could denote.
The use of generative AI tools (e.g. ChatGPT, Dall-e, etc.) is permitted in this course for the following activities: 



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. 
Completing group work that your group has assigned to you, unless it is mutually agreed within your group and in alignment with course policy 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 integrity and the Spartan Code of Honor Academic Pledge. For example, [Insert citation style for your discipline. See these resources for APA guidance, and for other citation formats.]. Any assignment that is found to have used generative AI tools in unauthorized ways [insert the penalty here*]. When in doubt about permitted usage, please ask for clarification. 
 
Use permitted [This syllabus statement is useful when you are allowing, and perhaps encouraging, broad use of generative AI tools. Adjust this statement to reflect your particular parameters of acceptable use in your course. The following is an example.] 
Example:
You are welcome to use generative AI tools (e.g. ChatGPT, Dall-e, etc.) in this class as doing so aligns with the course learning goal [insert the course learning goal use of AI aligns with here*]. 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 integrity and the Spartan Code of Honor Academic Pledge.
Use required [This syllabus statement is useful when you have certain assignments that will require that students use generative AI tools. Adjust this statement to reflect your particular parameters of acceptable use. The following is an example.] 
Example:
You will be expected to use generative AI tools (e.g. ChatGPT, Dall-e, etc.) in this class as doing so aligns with the course learning goal [insert the course learning goal use of AI aligns with]. Our class will make use of the [insert name of tool(s) here*] tool, and you can gain access to it by [insert instructions for accessing tool(s) here*]. 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 integrity and the Spartan Code of Honor Academic Pledge.
 
Design Around Generative AI
Ban [This syllabus statement is useful when you are forbidding all use of generative AI tools for any purpose in your class. Adjust this statement to reflect your particular parameters of acceptable use. The following is an example.] 
The use of generative AI tools (such as ChatGPT, DALL-E, etc.) is not permitted in this class; therefore, any use of AI tools for work in this class may be considered a violation of Michigan State University’s policy on academic integrity, the Spartan Code of Honor Academic Pledge andStudent Rights and Responsibilities, since the work is not your own. The use of unauthorized AI tools will result in [insert the penalty here*].

CONCERN: The ubiquity of generative AI tools, including their integration into Google search results and MS Office products, means that an outright generative AI ban is implausible for any activity that makes use of the Internet or MS Office Suite.

* It is highly recommended that you have conversations in your department about the appropriate penalties for unauthorized use of an AI. It is important to think about the appropriate level of penalty for first-time offenders and those who repeatedly violate your policies on the use of AI. 



Example Statements from Current USA, Higher Education Educators
This collection of example statements are a compilation from a variety of sources including Faculty Learning Community (FLC) at Cleveland State University, Ohio University’s AI, ChatGPT and Teaching and Learning, and some of Michigan State University’s own educators! (If you have an example generative AI policy from your course that you’d be willing to share, please add it to the comments below or e-mail it to MSU Center for Teaching and Learning Innovation at teaching@msu.edu) NOTE: making your own course-level determination of "ban", "restrict", "permit", or "require" and using the sample language is the best, first place to start!
 “AI (artificial intelligence) resources such as ChatGPT can be useful in a number of ways. Because it can also be abused, however, you are required to acknowledge use of AI in any work you submit for class. Text directly copied from AI sites must be treated as any other direct quote and properly cited. Other uses of AI must be clearly described at the end of your assignment.” -Claire Hughes-Lynch
 “While AI tools can be useful for completing assignments and detecting plagiarism, it is important to use them responsibly and ethically. Practice based on these guidelines as a future or current K-12 teacher. The following are some guidelines for what not to do when using AI in your assignments and for plagiarism detection:

Do not rely solely on AI tools to complete assignments. It is important to understand the material and complete assignments on your own, using AI tools as a supplement rather than a replacement for your own work.
Do not use AI tools to plagiarize*. Using AI to generate or modify content to evade plagiarism detection is unethical and violates academic integrity.
Do not assume that AI responses are always correct. It has been noted that AI can generate fake results.* Please see the plagiarism/academic integrity policy in the course syllabus.” -Selma Koc

“Intellectual honesty is vital to an academic community and for my fair evaluation of your work. All work submitted in this course must be your own, completed in accordance with the University’s academic regulations. Use of AI tools, including ChatGPT, is permitted in this course. Nevertheless, you are only encouraged to use AI tools to help brainstorm assignments or projects or to revise existing work you have written. It is solely your responsibility to make all submitted work your own, maintain academic integrity, and avoid any type of plagiarism. Be aware that the accuracy or quality of AI generated content may not meet the standards of this course, even if you only incorporate such content partially and after substantial paraphrasing, modification and/or editing. Also keep in mind that AI generated content may not provide appropriate or clear attribution to the author(s) of the original sources, while most written assignments in this course require you to find and incorporate highly relevant peer-reviewed scholarly publications following guidelines in the latest publication manual of the APA. Lastly, as your instructor, I reserve the right to use various plagiarism checking tools in evaluating your work, including those screening for AI-generated content, and impose consequences accordingly.” -Xiongyi Liu
“If you are ever unsure about whether collaboration with others, including using artificial intelligence, is allowed or not, please ask me right away. For the labs, although you may discuss them in groups (and try using AI), you must all create your own code, output and answers. Quizzes will be done in class and must be solely your own work. You alone are always responsible for the correctness of the final answers and assignments you submit.” - Emily Rauschert on AI as collaboration partner
“Chat GPT: The use of Chat GTP is neither encouraged nor prohibited from use on assignments for GAD 250. Chat GPT is quickly becoming a communication tool in most business settings. Therefore, if you choose to use Chat GPT for assignments, please be sure to revise the content for clarity, conciseness, and audience awareness. Chat GPT is simply a tool and should not be used as a way to produce first and only drafts. Every assignment submission will be graded using the rubric provided in the syllabus. Be aware that Chat GPT may not develop high-quality work that earns a passing grade. It is your responsibility to review and revise all work before submitting to the instructor.” -Leah Schell-Barber for a Business Communications Course
“Use of Generative AI, such as ChatGPT and Microsoft Bing-Chat, must maintain the highest standards of academic integrity and adhere to the OU Code of Student Conduct.  The use of Generative AI should be seen as a tool to enhance academic research, not as a replacement for critical thinking and originality in assignments. Students are not permitted to submit assignments that have been fully or partially generated by AI unless explicitly stated in the assignment instructions. All work submitted must be the original work of the student. Any ideas garnered from Generative AI research must be acknowledged with proper in-text citation and reference. Students may be asked to save the AI chat as a PDF file for verification.” -Ohio University College of Business Generative AI Use for Academic Work Policy
“‘The policy of this class is that you must be the creator of all work you submit for a grade. The use of others’ work, or the use of intelligent agents, chat bots, or a.i. engines to create your work is a violation of this policy and will be addressed as per MSU and Broad College codes of conduct.’ - Jeremy Van Hof… Or, you might consider this, which I asked ChatGPT to write for me: ‘Sample Policy Language: Students should not use ChatGPT to complete course assignments or for any other academic activities. ChatGPT should be used as a supplemental resource and should not replace traditional academic activities.’ (ChatGPT per Jeremy Van Hof’s prompting) 
Or this much longer version, also written by ChatGPT: ‘The following course policy statement prohibits the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for the’ completion of assignments and activities during the duration of the course. At the Broad College, we strive to create an academic environment where learning is the foremost priority. We strongly believe that learning is best achieved through the hard work and dedication of our students. As such, we prohibit the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for the completion of assignments and activities during the course.  Our policy is in line with our commitment to providing a fair and equitable learning environment for all students. We believe that AI should not be used to substitute human effort, as it defeats the purpose of our educational goals, which are to encourage critical thinking and problem-solving.  We understand that AI can be a useful tool in many contexts, and we do not discourage its use in other courses. However, in this course, we will not accept assignments or activities that have been completed through the use of AI. We expect our students to be honest and to complete their work independently.  We will be monitoring student work closely to ensure compliance with this policy. Violations of this policy will be met with disciplinary sanctions. All students are expected to adhere to this policy and to abide by the standards of the University.’ (ChatGPT per Jeremy Van Hof’s prompting)” -Jeremy Van Hof, Broad College of Business
“I study AI. I research it in my role as faculty in the Experience Architecture and Professional & Public Writing majors. And I don’t think it’s inherently bad or scary, in the same way that a calculator isn’t bad/scary for math. Artificial intelligence technologies such as ChatGPT can be an excellent starting point and a place to begin inquiry. But they are not a replacement for human thinking and learning. Robots lack empathy and nuance. As such, here is my policy:
You may use AI as a tool, but you may not use AI to replace your own beautiful brain. That means that you may ask ChatGPT, for example, to give you a list of bands similar to one that you hear and appreciate in this course. You may ask ChatGPT to give you an overview of a punk scene in a geographic location at a particular time. You may ask it for the history of punk rock and punk cultures. You may ask it what happened to Sid Vicious. 
But you may not ask it to write on your behalf, and you must not turn in anything that has been written by ChatGPT and pass it off as your own for any assignment in this class, including discussion responses, papers, and exams. If you do so, I will know, and that will lead to an uncomfortable moment–and to you failing the assignment.
This is not meant to be punitive. It’s meant to reinforce how much I value you and your ideas and your intellect. In a face-to-face environment, we would have a lengthy conversation about AI, ethics, and human learning. If you want to have that conversation, I’m happy to do so via Zoom–email me!” -Kate Birdsall, asynchronous US23 course on punk-rock politics
Developing your Scholarly and Ethical Approaches to Generative AI 
Taken, with slight modification, from “Update Your Course Syllabus for chatGPT” by Ryan Watkins, Professor of Educational Technology Leadership, and Human-Technology Collaboration at George Washington University in Washington DC (2022), via Medium. 
Beyond Syllabi Language 
Communicate your perspective about AI use. In addition to syllabus statements, consider talking with your students about AI tools like ChatGPT. Regardless of your orientation to generative AI use, it is important that you clearly communicate your expectations with the introduction of each assignment/assessment.   
Different levels of familiarity: As an emerging technology, students will have differing levels of familiarity with these tools. For instance, while ChatGPT can write a grammatically correct paper or appear to solve a math problem, it may be unreliable and limited in scope. Discuss with students the uses and limitations of AI tools more broadly in addition to your perspective on their use in your class. 
Connect to critical thinking skills: AI tools have many implications beyond the classroom. Consider talking with students about how to be engaged-consumers of AI content (e.g., how to identify trusted sources, reading critically, privacy concerns). Discuss how you and colleagues use AI in your own work.
Adapt assessments. AI tools are emerging and it can be incredibly difficult to make any assessment completely free from AI interference. Beyond a syllabus statement, you may also consider adapting your assessments to help reduce the usefulness of AI products. However before revising any assignment, it’s helpful to reflect on what exactly you want students to get out of the experience and share your expectations with your students. Is it just the end product, or does the process of creating the product play a significant role? 

Create assessments that allow students to develop ideas over time. Depending on your class size, consider scaffolding assessments to be completed in small components (e.g., proposal, annotated bibliography, outline, first draft, revised drafts). 
Ask students to connect their writing to specific course materials or current events. Students can draw from the course textbook, additional readings on Moodle or Blackboard, and even class discussion boards or in-class discussions.  
Incorporate personal experiences and reflections. Provide students with opportunities to connect what they are learning to their own lives and experiences—stories unique to each individual. 
Incorporate Multimedia Assessments. Consider developing or adapting assessments to include multimedia submissions (e.g., audio or video components). Also, consider peer-review and social annotation tools like Eli Review or Google Docs for students to use when responding to assigned readings or other materials.  
Use class time. Ask students to complete writing assignments during class time (e.g. complete reading reflections at the beginning of class, or use exit tickets). Asking students to organize their ideas by writing during class may also support student engagement in other class activities such as discussions and group work.  

Get Creative With Your Assignments: Visit “Update Your Course Syllabus for chatGPT” by Ryan Watkins (Medium article) for 10 ideas for creative assignments adapted for a classroom with chatGPT. You can mitigate the risk of students using chatGPT to cheat, and at the same time improve their knowledge and skills for appropriately using new AI technologies inside and outside the classroom.
Additional considerations to help you develop your generative AI philosophy (Watkins, 2022)
Expand your options. Consider your repertoire of instructional strategies. Atsusi Hirumi offers a guide to research-grounded strategies for any classroom. These are not, however, “a la carte” menus; you must use all of the steps of any strategy to gain the evidence-based benefits.
Reflect on your values. As Tyler Cowen pointed out, there will be those who gain and those that lose with the emergence of chatGPT and other generative AI tools. This is as true for students as it is for faculty and instructors. Be ready to openly discuss the ethical implications of generative AI tools with your students, along with the value of what you are teaching and why learning these are important to their futures.
Consider time. As discussed during Bryan Alexander’s webinar, chatGPT and other generative AI tools offer a short-cut to individuals who are short on time. Examine your course schedule to determine if you are unknowingly pushing students to take short-cuts. Some instructors try to cover too much content in their courses already.
Remember, AI is not human. Be careful not to anthropomorphize chatGPT and other generative AI tools. ChatGPT is a language model, and if we anthropomorphize these technologies, then it will be much harder to understand their promise and perils. Murray Shanahan suggests that we avoid statements such as, “chatGPT knows…”, or “ChatGPT thinks…”; instead, use “According to chatGPT…” or “ChatGPT’s output…”.
Again, AI is likely to be a part of your students’ life to some extent this semester, so plan accordingly. Critically considering your course design in the context of generative AI is an important educator practice. Following the Provost’s call, MSU instructors are encouraged to 1) develop a course-level generative AI use policy and actively discuss with students about expectations for generative AI use in the work for your class, 2) promote equitable and inclusive use of the technology, and 3) work with colleagues across campus to determine ethical and scholarly applications of generative AI for preparing students to succeed in an evolving digital landscape. MSU does not currently have a university-wide policy on AI in the classroom, so  it is your responsibility as instructor to note and explain your individual course policy. A conversation with your department is highly recommended so that generative AI use in the classroom reflects that in the discipline. 
References
This resource is collated from multiple sites, publications, and authors with some modification for MSU context and links to MSU specific resources. Educators should always defer to University policy and guidelines. 

MSU Office of Student Support & Accountability Faculty Resources, including Academic Dishonesty Report form. 
Watkins, R. (2022) Update Your Course Syllabus for chatGPT. Educational Technology Leadership, The George Washington University via Medium: https://medium.com/@rwatkins_7167/updating-your-course-syllabus-for-chatgpt-965f4b57b003 
Center for the Advancement of Teaching (2023). Sample Syllabus Statements for the Use of AI Tools in Your Course. Temple University 
Center for Teaching & Learning (2023) How Do I Consider the Impact of AI Tools like ChatGPT in My Courses?. University of Massachusetts Amherst. https://www.umass.edu/ctl/how-do-i-consider-impact-ai-tools-chatgpt-my-courses 
Center for Teaching, Learning and Assessment (2023). AI, ChatGPT and Teaching and Learning. Ohio University. https://www.ohio.edu/center-teaching-learning/instructor-resources/chat-gpt
Office of Teaching, Learning, and Technology. (2023). Artificial Intelligence Tools and Teaching. Iowa University. https://teach.its.uiowa.edu/artificial-intelligence-tools-and-teaching 
Center for New Designs in Learning and Scholarship (2023). Chat GPT and Artificial Intelligence Tools. Georgetown University. https://cndls.georgetown.edu/ai-composition-tools/#privacy-and-data-collection 
Office for Faculty Excellence (2023). Practical Responses to ChatGPT. Montclair State University. https://www.montclair.edu/faculty-excellence/practical-responses-to-chat-gpt/ 
Teaching and Learning at Cleveland State University by Center for Faculty Excellence is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License
 

There is no “one size fits all policy” for AI uses in higher education. Much like attendance/participation policies, GenAI course-level rules and statements will be determined by individual instructors, departments, and programs. The following resource is provided to assist you in developing coherent policies on the use of generative AI tools in your course, within MSU's guideline. Please adjust these examples to fit your particular context. Remember communication of your course generative AI policies should not only be listed in your syllabus, but also explicitly included  in assignment descriptions where AI use is allowed or disallowed. 
Design For Generative AI: Sample Syllabus LanguageDesign Around Generative AI: Sample Syllabus LanguageIt is your responsibility as instructor to note and explain your individual course-level rule. A conversation with your department is highly recommended so that generative AI use in the classroom reflects broader use in the unit and  discipline. If you have specific questions about writing your course rules, please reach out to the Center for Teaching and Learning Innovation. Photo by Uriel SC on Unsplash

2025 Educator Seminars are presented by MSU IT Educational Technology, MSU Libraries, the Center for Teaching and Learning Innovation (CTLI), the Enhanced Digital Learning Initiative (EDLI), and MSU IT Training​. 
Day 2: August 22, 2025
Instructions: Click on the registration link and sign-up for the sessions you're interested in. After completing your registration you will receive an email with the Zoom link for the session. Any questions or concerns contact us at ITS.FallEducatorSeminar@msu.edu.

 
9:30 - 10:30am   AI: MSU Policies and Thinking About Your Approach in the Classroom
Facilitators:  Caitlin Kirby and Hala Sun (EDLI)
Generative AI continues to provide challenges and opportunities in the classroom. This session will cover MSU-related policies and general practices for thinking about your approach to genAI in the classroom.
Registration Link

10:30 - 11:30am    Training: Forms - Creating Forms and Surveys  
Facilitators: Michael Julian & Lindsey Howe  (IT Training)     
A live training session that will explore Forms, the go-to app for collecting data and storing it in Excel. Learn how to get started in Forms with areas in form and survey creation, formatting, branching, data collection, and sharing. 
Registration Link

11:30am - 12:30pm      BREAK

12:30 - 1:30pm    Removing Barriers to Learning: Improving D2L Course Usability and Accessibility with Ally
Facilitators: Kevin Henley (IT&D)
Registration Link

1:30 - 2:30pm   Crafting clear, ethically grounded AI policies 
Facilitators: Jeremy Van Hof (CTLI)
In this interactive workshop, participants will explore strategies for crafting clear, ethically grounded AI policies tailored to their specific courses. You'll leave with a draft policy and a framework for aligning AI use with your teaching values and student learning goals.
Registration Link

2:30 - 3:30pm  Setting up Your Gradebook
Facilitators: Dr. Lindsay Tigue and Dr. Cui Cheng (IT&D)
Registration Link