We found 349 results that contain "ai incorporation"
Posted on: GenAI & Education
AI for MSU Educators
This playlist, developed by the Instructional Technology and Development Team at IT, includes some general and MSU-specific resources about using ChatGPT and similar AI tools in teaching and learning. Currently, it consists of a list of FAQs about ChatGPT and an interactive Padlet site for you to share your experiences with AI and get connected with other MSU educators.
Posted on: GenAI & Education
Using AI in Teaching & Learning
Resources for exploring the use of AI, and specifically large language models similar to ChatGPT, in teaching and learning. This is inclusive of its uses for instructors (e.g., lesson planning, rubric generation, etc.) and for students (e.g., writing assignments, comparison exercises, etc.)
Posted on: GenAI & Education
Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Guidance from MSU
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.
You can learn more about generative AI and participate in discussions here on iteach.msu.edu.
Click section 3 of this playlist for additional resources on generative AI on #iteachmsu!
You can learn more about generative AI and participate in discussions here on iteach.msu.edu.
Click section 3 of this playlist for additional resources on generative AI on #iteachmsu!
Posted on: GenAI & Education
Generative AI Syllabus Guide
A good portion of your students will likely use AI to some extent this semester, so plan accordingly. Many students are aware of generative AI, and at least some of them will use these tools for their course work. Critically considering your course design in the context of generative AI is an important educator practice.
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 with
non-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).
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 with
non-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).
PEDAGOGICAL DESIGN
Posted on: GenAI & Education
Complete Guide to Incorporating Generative AI in Your Syllabus
(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
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
Posted by: Makena Neal
Pedagogical Design
Posted on: Spring Conference o...
Incorporating equitable pedagogy into your classroom
Title: Incorporating equitable pedagogy into your classroomPresenter: Valerie Hedges (Physiology); Casey Henley (Neuroscience & Physiology)
Description: Increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in higher education aim to cultivate learning spaces where all students have the ability to thrive and succeed. Our learning community, Equitable Pedagogy: Removing Barriers to Learning, has spent the year reviewing methods for making the classroom more inclusive. In this workshop, we want to share those practices with our participants. Many components of our course design can affect our students’ perceptions of belonging. This workshop will explore how we as instructors can choose to be more equitable in our classrooms towards the creation of more inclusive learning environments. Our focus will be on the course syllabus as a framework to discuss the many ways in which we as instructors can better address issues of equity. Topics will include language and tone of the syllabus, flexible course structure options, fair attendance and late work policies, providing opportunities for collaboration and social connectedness, instructor presence, and equitable grading policies. Participants should bring their course syllabus to the workshop to annotate as we openly discuss practical ways to increase equity and inclusion within our courses. The workshop is relevant to in-person, online, and hybrid courses.
Description: Increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in higher education aim to cultivate learning spaces where all students have the ability to thrive and succeed. Our learning community, Equitable Pedagogy: Removing Barriers to Learning, has spent the year reviewing methods for making the classroom more inclusive. In this workshop, we want to share those practices with our participants. Many components of our course design can affect our students’ perceptions of belonging. This workshop will explore how we as instructors can choose to be more equitable in our classrooms towards the creation of more inclusive learning environments. Our focus will be on the course syllabus as a framework to discuss the many ways in which we as instructors can better address issues of equity. Topics will include language and tone of the syllabus, flexible course structure options, fair attendance and late work policies, providing opportunities for collaboration and social connectedness, instructor presence, and equitable grading policies. Participants should bring their course syllabus to the workshop to annotate as we openly discuss practical ways to increase equity and inclusion within our courses. The workshop is relevant to in-person, online, and hybrid courses.
Authored by: Valerie Hedges
Pedagogical Design
Posted on: #iteachmsu
Incorporating Synchronous Teamwork in an Asynchronous Online Course
Topic Area: Online Teaching & Learning
Presented by: Andrea Bierema
Abstract:
I teach flipped-style undergraduate science courses for non-science majors with 100-180 students per section. Each week, students learn basic concepts toward the beginning of the week and later apply those concepts to case studies and other activities. Prior to the pandemic, students worked in teams of 3-5 students during class to apply concepts. So that students did not have to fit synchronous meetings in their schedule every week but still could meet with other students throughout the semester, I changed our assessments to team activities. I used CATME Smarter Teamwork- which MSU has a license- to create the teams. Because I was no longer present during the teamwork component of the course, I added a team charter worksheet. Also, students evaluated their team members on CATME after each team assignment. These evaluations served two purposes: students had a chance to improve their team by providing thoughtful feedback and I used them as evidence for team member participation (and they could provide counter-evidence if they disagreed with their team's evaluations). To ensure that students viewed and thought about the feedback that they received, I added teamwork skills as an objective of the course and created journaling assignments in which students reflected on their evaluations and how they will continue improving their teamwork skills. During this session, I will provide an overview of the teamwork for this class, details on how I used CATME, the team charter worksheet, the journaling assignments, and a summary of the end-of-semester student evaluations of these activities.
Session Resources:
Rating Practice and Teammaker (Document)
Team Charter Worksheet (Document)
Teamwork Journaling (Document)
Presented by: Andrea Bierema
Abstract:
I teach flipped-style undergraduate science courses for non-science majors with 100-180 students per section. Each week, students learn basic concepts toward the beginning of the week and later apply those concepts to case studies and other activities. Prior to the pandemic, students worked in teams of 3-5 students during class to apply concepts. So that students did not have to fit synchronous meetings in their schedule every week but still could meet with other students throughout the semester, I changed our assessments to team activities. I used CATME Smarter Teamwork- which MSU has a license- to create the teams. Because I was no longer present during the teamwork component of the course, I added a team charter worksheet. Also, students evaluated their team members on CATME after each team assignment. These evaluations served two purposes: students had a chance to improve their team by providing thoughtful feedback and I used them as evidence for team member participation (and they could provide counter-evidence if they disagreed with their team's evaluations). To ensure that students viewed and thought about the feedback that they received, I added teamwork skills as an objective of the course and created journaling assignments in which students reflected on their evaluations and how they will continue improving their teamwork skills. During this session, I will provide an overview of the teamwork for this class, details on how I used CATME, the team charter worksheet, the journaling assignments, and a summary of the end-of-semester student evaluations of these activities.
Session Resources:
Rating Practice and Teammaker (Document)
Team Charter Worksheet (Document)
Teamwork Journaling (Document)
Authored by: Andrea Bierema
Posted on: GenAI & Education
Promote Equitable and Inclusive Use in Generative AI
Consider equity and inclusion when making decisions about AI use in your course.
How does the development and use of generative AI affect identity groups differentially? What biases exist within the development and use of generative AI? What are the potential challenges regarding AI from an equity-lens (e.g., historic issues with facial recognition and BIPOC populations)?
What data sources does generative AI use to generate a response, and how representative is this data source?
Consider how AI content and perspectives can enhance dialogue and collaboration between diverse disciplines, departments, and individuals.
Consider how integration of generative AI technologies into the classroom help or hinder students’ success.
Consider situations in which some students may have access to more advanced technology than others based on cost or other factors.
Consider if generative AI technology provides accommodation for certain populations and how its use may help achieve equity for persons with disabilities.
Photo by Pietro Jeng on Unsplash
How does the development and use of generative AI affect identity groups differentially? What biases exist within the development and use of generative AI? What are the potential challenges regarding AI from an equity-lens (e.g., historic issues with facial recognition and BIPOC populations)?
What data sources does generative AI use to generate a response, and how representative is this data source?
Consider how AI content and perspectives can enhance dialogue and collaboration between diverse disciplines, departments, and individuals.
Consider how integration of generative AI technologies into the classroom help or hinder students’ success.
Consider situations in which some students may have access to more advanced technology than others based on cost or other factors.
Consider if generative AI technology provides accommodation for certain populations and how its use may help achieve equity for persons with disabilities.
Photo by Pietro Jeng on Unsplash
Posted by: Makena Neal
Posted on: IT - Educational Te...
AI Commons
The AI Commons is a collaborative hub for the MSU community to contribute, discuss, and explore the evolving role of generative AI in higher education. Learn more and share your experiences at https://aicommons.commons.msu.edu/.
Posted by: Lindsay Tigue
Posted on: Spring Conference o...
Incorporating Reflective Practices in Classrooms: Our Learning Assessment Model
Title: Incorporating Reflective Practices in Classrooms: Our Learning Assessment ModelPresenters: Salomon Rodezno, Dustin Petty (Bailey Scholars Academic Advisor, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources); Sarah Prior (Bailey Scholars Program Director, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources; Sociology Department, College of Social Science); Eric Abaidoo (Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources); Salomón Rodezno (Educational Administration, College of Education) A.L. McMichael (Director, LEADR; History and Anthropology, College of Social Science); Harlow Loch (Accounting Department, Eli Broad College of Business); Reva Durr (Educational Administration, College of Education); Guanglong Pang (Educational Administration, College of Education); Brandy Ellison (Center for Integrative Studies in Social Science, College of Social Science)Format: WorkshopDate: May 11th, 2023Time: 2:45pm - 3:45pmClick here to viewDescription:Reflective practices emotionally connect learners to their classroom experiences. This connection increases self-efficacy, retention, and integration of content. Incorporating reflective practices meaningfully into learning spaces and syllabi can be elusive given the substantive demands of the curriculum and the temporal limits of the semester. This workshop will address the benefits and challenges of using reflective practices as a central component of the assessment and/or grading processes. Bailey Scholars Graduate and Faculty Fellows will share their experiences using reflective practices in their classes within and beyond the Bailey Scholars Program.
Authored by: Salomon Rodezno
Pedagogical Design
Posted on: #iteachmsu
Epistemic Justice Fellows: Incorporating Students’ Home and Community Knowledge in Your Course
Please apply here by February 19: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1N3H76YYEDzlYuN1jZKp3EVy6K7mbo9AivP-142eyd9I
Epistemic Justice Fellows: Incorporating Students’ Home and Community Knowledge in Teaching and Learning
To instructors in the arts, humanities, and natural sciences and STEM fields:
We invite faculty (of any appointment type), academic specialists who teach, and graduate students who teach to apply for the interdisciplinary Epistemic Justice Fellowship for this Spring 2025.
This Fellowship is designed to support instructors who want to add or change an assignment, activity, or module/unit in a course to incorporate students’ home and community knowledge, such as students’ home languages, student knowledge about their communities, or home and community knowledge about the natural world. Incorporating and valuing student experiences as assets can positively impact student learning about subject matter as well as enhance student engagement, enjoyment, and belonging.
Fellows will receive $500 at the conclusion of the fellowship. Fellows are expected to:
Develop a new or change an existing activity/assignment/module to incorporate students’ home or community knowledge, and present this work to the cohort
Provide a collegial community for the rest of the cohort who will also be working on their own courses
Attend three Fellow meetings (most in person) from 10AM-12PM on the following Tuesdays:
February 25: Kickoff - foundational concepts and identifying changes to your courses
March 25: Midpoint meeting - check in and group discussion on fellows’ projects, followed by mini-workshop on “Facilitating Teaching Workshops”
April 22: Presentations of fellows’ change or addition to their courses
Attend the lecture/workshop series connected to this topic, consisting of 3 public talks, some in person and some virtual, throughout the semester (dates TBA - but exceptions/alternatives can be made if those dates are not feasible for a fellow)
Commit to offering a workshop or mentorship opportunity in the future for colleagues in your own field related to valuing home and community knowledge
Please apply here by February 19: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1N3H76YYEDzlYuN1jZKp3EVy6K7mbo9AivP-142eyd9I
Please note that if you are not sure if your course would be make sense for this fellowship, you are very welcome to contact the organizers at mollelle@msu.edu and troutma1@msu.edu to ask; for example, if you wanted to allow an existing assignment on any topic to be written in the student’s home language for a first draft, that could apply to any subject matter in any course with any writing.
This Fellowship and lecture series are graciously supported by:
Creating Inclusive Excellence Grant from Institutional Diversity and Inclusion
Office of the Assistant Dean for Undergraduate Studies in the College of Arts and Letters
Office of the Assistant Dean for STEM Education in the Office of Undergraduate Education
Organizers: Denise Troutman, Sophie Huss, Ellen Moll
Additional PIs: Kristin Arola, Marcie Ray, Stephen Thomas
Epistemic Justice Fellows: Incorporating Students’ Home and Community Knowledge in Teaching and Learning
To instructors in the arts, humanities, and natural sciences and STEM fields:
We invite faculty (of any appointment type), academic specialists who teach, and graduate students who teach to apply for the interdisciplinary Epistemic Justice Fellowship for this Spring 2025.
This Fellowship is designed to support instructors who want to add or change an assignment, activity, or module/unit in a course to incorporate students’ home and community knowledge, such as students’ home languages, student knowledge about their communities, or home and community knowledge about the natural world. Incorporating and valuing student experiences as assets can positively impact student learning about subject matter as well as enhance student engagement, enjoyment, and belonging.
Fellows will receive $500 at the conclusion of the fellowship. Fellows are expected to:
Develop a new or change an existing activity/assignment/module to incorporate students’ home or community knowledge, and present this work to the cohort
Provide a collegial community for the rest of the cohort who will also be working on their own courses
Attend three Fellow meetings (most in person) from 10AM-12PM on the following Tuesdays:
February 25: Kickoff - foundational concepts and identifying changes to your courses
March 25: Midpoint meeting - check in and group discussion on fellows’ projects, followed by mini-workshop on “Facilitating Teaching Workshops”
April 22: Presentations of fellows’ change or addition to their courses
Attend the lecture/workshop series connected to this topic, consisting of 3 public talks, some in person and some virtual, throughout the semester (dates TBA - but exceptions/alternatives can be made if those dates are not feasible for a fellow)
Commit to offering a workshop or mentorship opportunity in the future for colleagues in your own field related to valuing home and community knowledge
Please apply here by February 19: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1N3H76YYEDzlYuN1jZKp3EVy6K7mbo9AivP-142eyd9I
Please note that if you are not sure if your course would be make sense for this fellowship, you are very welcome to contact the organizers at mollelle@msu.edu and troutma1@msu.edu to ask; for example, if you wanted to allow an existing assignment on any topic to be written in the student’s home language for a first draft, that could apply to any subject matter in any course with any writing.
This Fellowship and lecture series are graciously supported by:
Creating Inclusive Excellence Grant from Institutional Diversity and Inclusion
Office of the Assistant Dean for Undergraduate Studies in the College of Arts and Letters
Office of the Assistant Dean for STEM Education in the Office of Undergraduate Education
Organizers: Denise Troutman, Sophie Huss, Ellen Moll
Additional PIs: Kristin Arola, Marcie Ray, Stephen Thomas
Posted by: Stephen Thomas
Justice and Belonging
Posted on: GenAI & Education
Generative AI Use Codes
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
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
Authored by: Stephen Thomas
Posted on: GenAI & Education
MSU University Communications has posted a great resource on guidelines for using generative AI. This guide is a great place to start exploring potential uses of AI in your instructional practice. Further, this guide offers some descriptions and explanations of terms you may have encountered, but are not fully sure of the meaning. You will want to keep this guide as a resource to share with others who are interested in AI, but don't know where to begin -https://comms.msu.edu/resources/use-of-ai -
Posted by: Jay Loftus
Posted on: #iteachmsu
Use AI to generate rubrics.
To create a rubric for just about anything, I find Chat GPT to be very useful. I use iterations of the following prompts, with specifics for each rubric I need to generate:
"In table form create a rubric with four cut-points ranging from "Not Present" to "Exemplary." There should be XXX number of categories: Category 1, Category 2, Category 3, etc... Leave a column on the left for notes or comments.
Typically, using that prompt as a starting point will lead Chat GPT to creating a workable first draft of a rubric.
ChatGPT provided some other things to consider as you prepare your prompt or modify the results:
"1. Define Clear Objectives: Start by providing the AI with specific objectives or outcomes that the rubric is intended to measure. This could include skills, knowledge, behaviors, or attitudes relevant to the task or subject matter.
2. Input Criteria and Levels of Performance: Give the AI detailed descriptions of the criteria you want to assess, along with different levels of performance (e.g., Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor). Ensure that these descriptions are clear and distinct to guide the AI in creating nuanced and differentiated levels.
3. Incorporate Examples and Standards: To enhance the rubric, include examples of exemplary work or specific standards you expect. This helps the AI to understand the context and quality you're seeking, allowing it to generate more accurate and useful content.
4. Refine and Customize: Once the AI provides a draft, review and refine it to ensure it aligns with your educational goals and standards. Personalize the rubric to the specific needs of your course or assignment, making adjustments based on your expertise and experience."
To create a rubric for just about anything, I find Chat GPT to be very useful. I use iterations of the following prompts, with specifics for each rubric I need to generate:
"In table form create a rubric with four cut-points ranging from "Not Present" to "Exemplary." There should be XXX number of categories: Category 1, Category 2, Category 3, etc... Leave a column on the left for notes or comments.
Typically, using that prompt as a starting point will lead Chat GPT to creating a workable first draft of a rubric.
ChatGPT provided some other things to consider as you prepare your prompt or modify the results:
"1. Define Clear Objectives: Start by providing the AI with specific objectives or outcomes that the rubric is intended to measure. This could include skills, knowledge, behaviors, or attitudes relevant to the task or subject matter.
2. Input Criteria and Levels of Performance: Give the AI detailed descriptions of the criteria you want to assess, along with different levels of performance (e.g., Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor). Ensure that these descriptions are clear and distinct to guide the AI in creating nuanced and differentiated levels.
3. Incorporate Examples and Standards: To enhance the rubric, include examples of exemplary work or specific standards you expect. This helps the AI to understand the context and quality you're seeking, allowing it to generate more accurate and useful content.
4. Refine and Customize: Once the AI provides a draft, review and refine it to ensure it aligns with your educational goals and standards. Personalize the rubric to the specific needs of your course or assignment, making adjustments based on your expertise and experience."
Posted by: Jeremy Van Hof
Pedagogical Design
Posted on: GenAI & Education
AI Commons Bulletin - Human-curated news about generative AI for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. 12/11/2024
📔 Automatic AI Summaries Now in ProQuest
MSU’s Proquest library database access added an AI “Research Assistant” in an article sidebar. The tool features article summaries, additional sources, important concepts and research topics.
Learn More: Library Learning Space - https://librarylearningspace.com/proquest-launches-ai-powered-research-assistant-to-promote-responsible-ai-use-in-academia/
🔎 Introduction to Prompts
Organizes many practical tips for writing AI prompts into one framework. The article is specific to education and includes links to authoritative resources.
Learn More: Park, J., & Choo, S. (2024). Generative AI Prompt Engineering for Educators: Practical Strategies. Journal of Special Education Technology, 0(0). https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/01626434241298954
🧬 Think of AI Uses as Along a Continuum
Monash University describes four examples of AI use in their courses:
1. Explore AI with students to build AI Literacy and discuss academic integrity.
2. Design assessments that focus on process rather than product to build critical thinking.
3. Incorporate new AI-enabled activities, like simulated personas.
4. Use AI for basic assessment, freeing educators to focus on personalized feedback.
Learn More: Hook, J., Junor, A., Sell, C., & Sapsed, C. (2024). Navigating integrity and innovation: Case studies of generative AI integration from an Arts Faculty. ASCILITE Publications, 165–172. https://publications.ascilite.org/index.php/APUB/article/view/1234/1478
Get the AI-Commons Bulletin on our Microsoft Teams channel, at aicommons.commons.msu.edu, or by email (send an email to aicommons@msu.edu with the word “subscribe”).
📔 Automatic AI Summaries Now in ProQuest
MSU’s Proquest library database access added an AI “Research Assistant” in an article sidebar. The tool features article summaries, additional sources, important concepts and research topics.
Learn More: Library Learning Space - https://librarylearningspace.com/proquest-launches-ai-powered-research-assistant-to-promote-responsible-ai-use-in-academia/
🔎 Introduction to Prompts
Organizes many practical tips for writing AI prompts into one framework. The article is specific to education and includes links to authoritative resources.
Learn More: Park, J., & Choo, S. (2024). Generative AI Prompt Engineering for Educators: Practical Strategies. Journal of Special Education Technology, 0(0). https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/01626434241298954
🧬 Think of AI Uses as Along a Continuum
Monash University describes four examples of AI use in their courses:
1. Explore AI with students to build AI Literacy and discuss academic integrity.
2. Design assessments that focus on process rather than product to build critical thinking.
3. Incorporate new AI-enabled activities, like simulated personas.
4. Use AI for basic assessment, freeing educators to focus on personalized feedback.
Learn More: Hook, J., Junor, A., Sell, C., & Sapsed, C. (2024). Navigating integrity and innovation: Case studies of generative AI integration from an Arts Faculty. ASCILITE Publications, 165–172. https://publications.ascilite.org/index.php/APUB/article/view/1234/1478
Get the AI-Commons Bulletin on our Microsoft Teams channel, at aicommons.commons.msu.edu, or by email (send an email to aicommons@msu.edu with the word “subscribe”).
Posted by: Michele (MJ) Jackson
Posted on: GenAI & Education
AI Commons Bulletin 2/26/2025
🆚 AI in Qualitative Research: ChatGPT vs. Human Coders
An MSU study examined ChatGPT’s role in qualitative data analysis, comparing AI-augmented and human coding of hotel guest experiences. AI-generated themes aligned with human-coded ones but missed social interactions and safety concerns. A hybrid approach—AI for initial coding with human refinement—balances efficiency and analytical rigor.
Learn More: Sun, H., Kim, M., Kim, S., & Choi, L. (2025). A methodological exploration of generative artificial intelligence (AI) for efficient qualitative analysis on hotel guests’ delightful experiences. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 124, 103974.
🤔 VR Tool with AI Increased Student Learning and Reflection
This empirical study found that students interacting with a VR course tutor increased focus and reflection and were more likely to ask questions, “Within the dialogue with the AI virtual tutor, learners most frequently engaged in discourse centered around collaboratively building on ideas.”
Learn More: Chu, X. et al. Enhancing the flipped classroom model with generative AI and Metaverse technologies. Ed Tech Res Dev (2025).
🧠 Use LLM Prompting to Teach Computational Thinking
Many fields consider computational thinking (CT) to be essential. Hsu (2025) details how to teach this skill using LLM prompting. Also includes interesting ideas for incorporating prompting in a deeper way: meaningful, social prompting, or learner directed prompting
Learn More: Hsu, HP. From Programming to Prompting. TechTrends (2025).
🧭 AI Guidelines at Major Universities are Pretty Predictable
A content analysis of AI guidelines at the top 50 USNWR-ranked institutions reveals key themes: AI use is allowed but must not involve plagiarism or unauthorized assistance, instructors should clearly define AI expectations, and users must follow privacy guidelines by avoiding sharing sensitive or confidential information.
Learn More: Alba et al (2025) ChatGPT Comes to Campus. SIGSCE TS.
Bulletin items compiled by MJ Jackson and Sarah Freye with production assistance from Lisa Batchelder. Get the AI-Commons Bulletin on our Microsoft Teams channel, at aicommons.commons.msu.edu, or by email (send an email to aicommons@msu.edu with the word “subscribe”).
🆚 AI in Qualitative Research: ChatGPT vs. Human Coders
An MSU study examined ChatGPT’s role in qualitative data analysis, comparing AI-augmented and human coding of hotel guest experiences. AI-generated themes aligned with human-coded ones but missed social interactions and safety concerns. A hybrid approach—AI for initial coding with human refinement—balances efficiency and analytical rigor.
Learn More: Sun, H., Kim, M., Kim, S., & Choi, L. (2025). A methodological exploration of generative artificial intelligence (AI) for efficient qualitative analysis on hotel guests’ delightful experiences. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 124, 103974.
🤔 VR Tool with AI Increased Student Learning and Reflection
This empirical study found that students interacting with a VR course tutor increased focus and reflection and were more likely to ask questions, “Within the dialogue with the AI virtual tutor, learners most frequently engaged in discourse centered around collaboratively building on ideas.”
Learn More: Chu, X. et al. Enhancing the flipped classroom model with generative AI and Metaverse technologies. Ed Tech Res Dev (2025).
🧠 Use LLM Prompting to Teach Computational Thinking
Many fields consider computational thinking (CT) to be essential. Hsu (2025) details how to teach this skill using LLM prompting. Also includes interesting ideas for incorporating prompting in a deeper way: meaningful, social prompting, or learner directed prompting
Learn More: Hsu, HP. From Programming to Prompting. TechTrends (2025).
🧭 AI Guidelines at Major Universities are Pretty Predictable
A content analysis of AI guidelines at the top 50 USNWR-ranked institutions reveals key themes: AI use is allowed but must not involve plagiarism or unauthorized assistance, instructors should clearly define AI expectations, and users must follow privacy guidelines by avoiding sharing sensitive or confidential information.
Learn More: Alba et al (2025) ChatGPT Comes to Campus. SIGSCE TS.
Bulletin items compiled by MJ Jackson and Sarah Freye with production assistance from Lisa Batchelder. Get the AI-Commons Bulletin on our Microsoft Teams channel, at aicommons.commons.msu.edu, or by email (send an email to aicommons@msu.edu with the word “subscribe”).
Posted by: Sarah Freye
Posted on: GenAI & Education
AI Commons Bulletin 3/10/2025
📖 Want a Playbook for Envisioning How AI Changes Your Curriculum?
A concise summary of a biomedical engineering educators’ summit on integrating AI into curricula. It covers aligning AI with industry shifts, using AI in courses, and tackling challenges like accreditation and curriculum overload through Q&A and strategic discussions.
Learn More: Khojah, R., Werth, A., Broadhead, K.W. et al. Integrating Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools and Competencies in Biomedical Engineering Education. Biomed Eng Education (2025).
💯 Estonia to Give All Students ChatGPTedu
Estonia, one of the top countries for ChatGPT usage, is aiming to provide all 10th and 11th grade students with ChatGPT Edu by September 2025, eventually expanding to all 200,000 students in the country.
Learn More: https://openai.com/index/estonia-schools-and-chatgpt/
💰 MSU Tech Store Now Has Full Copilot License for Purchase
MSU Tech Store now offers the full suite of Microsoft Copilot for purchase. The current price is $168 per license through August 2025. This includes access to Copilot within existing applications like Word, Teams, and Outlook.
Learn More: https://techstore.msu.edu/
🤖 Some Concrete Examples for Using and Assigning AI in a Database Course
Examples of using AI to create mini-cases, quiz questions, and slides, plus assignments analyzing AI-generated data and solutions. Students valued the experience, though its impact on critical thinking and problem-solving varied.
Learn More: Zhang, X. (2025). Teaching Tip Incorporating AI Tools Into Database Classes. Journal of Information Systems Education, 36(1), 37–52.
Bulletin items compiled by MJ Jackson and Sarah Freye with production assistance from Lisa Batchelder. Get the AI-Commons Bulletin on our Microsoft Teams channel, at aicommons.commons.msu.edu, or by email (send an email to aicommons@msu.edu with the word “subscribe”).
📖 Want a Playbook for Envisioning How AI Changes Your Curriculum?
A concise summary of a biomedical engineering educators’ summit on integrating AI into curricula. It covers aligning AI with industry shifts, using AI in courses, and tackling challenges like accreditation and curriculum overload through Q&A and strategic discussions.
Learn More: Khojah, R., Werth, A., Broadhead, K.W. et al. Integrating Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools and Competencies in Biomedical Engineering Education. Biomed Eng Education (2025).
💯 Estonia to Give All Students ChatGPTedu
Estonia, one of the top countries for ChatGPT usage, is aiming to provide all 10th and 11th grade students with ChatGPT Edu by September 2025, eventually expanding to all 200,000 students in the country.
Learn More: https://openai.com/index/estonia-schools-and-chatgpt/
💰 MSU Tech Store Now Has Full Copilot License for Purchase
MSU Tech Store now offers the full suite of Microsoft Copilot for purchase. The current price is $168 per license through August 2025. This includes access to Copilot within existing applications like Word, Teams, and Outlook.
Learn More: https://techstore.msu.edu/
🤖 Some Concrete Examples for Using and Assigning AI in a Database Course
Examples of using AI to create mini-cases, quiz questions, and slides, plus assignments analyzing AI-generated data and solutions. Students valued the experience, though its impact on critical thinking and problem-solving varied.
Learn More: Zhang, X. (2025). Teaching Tip Incorporating AI Tools Into Database Classes. Journal of Information Systems Education, 36(1), 37–52.
Bulletin items compiled by MJ Jackson and Sarah Freye with production assistance from Lisa Batchelder. Get the AI-Commons Bulletin on our Microsoft Teams channel, at aicommons.commons.msu.edu, or by email (send an email to aicommons@msu.edu with the word “subscribe”).
Posted by: Sarah Freye
Posted on: GenAI & Education
AI Commons Bulletin 2/19/2025
🧠 AI Tools Soon to Decide How Much They Need to “Think”
Expect the answers from AI tools to generally improve over the next few months, as more of them incorporate “reasoning” into their process. These are models that can discern when a prompt is more complex and would require a multi-step reasoning process. OpenAI is starting this with ChatGPT soon.
Learn More: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtwK3hBAjDY
📗 Five Generations of Intelligent Textbooks
Sosnovsky & Brusilovsky compile the literature on intelligent textbooks and organize five generations:
Engineered: AI-powered adaptive reading.
Integrated: Linked with external smart content.
Extracted: AI analyzes and structures knowledge.
Datamined: Tracks student engagement for insights.
Generated: AI creates content, questions, & chatbots
Learn More: Sosnovsky, S., Brusilovsky, P. & Lan, A. Intelligent Textbooks. Int J Artif Intell Educ (2025).
🚫 Guidance for Uses of AI Banned by EU’s AI Act
The EU regulates AI much more than the US does. When it adopted the AI Act, it banned “unacceptable risk” uses, but didn’t provide much explanation. A new report lays out examples, including manipulative, deceptive, and exploitative practices.
Learn More: https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/redirection/document/112367
⏳ Waiting 5-10 Minutes for an AI to Answer?! What?!
Deep Research is a newer function of Google’s AI, Gemini. You can ask it an extended question and it will break it down into parts, research each part (including multiple web searches), and write up a report you can download. It’s available both on the web and on Android. Additional $ required.
Learn More: https://youtu.be/IBKRyI5m_Rk
Bulletin items compiled by MJ Jackson and Sarah Freye with production assistance from Lisa Batchelder. Get the AI-Commons Bulletin on our Microsoft Teams channel, at aicommons.commons.msu.edu, or by email (send an email to aicommons@msu.edu with the word “subscribe”).
🧠 AI Tools Soon to Decide How Much They Need to “Think”
Expect the answers from AI tools to generally improve over the next few months, as more of them incorporate “reasoning” into their process. These are models that can discern when a prompt is more complex and would require a multi-step reasoning process. OpenAI is starting this with ChatGPT soon.
Learn More: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtwK3hBAjDY
📗 Five Generations of Intelligent Textbooks
Sosnovsky & Brusilovsky compile the literature on intelligent textbooks and organize five generations:
Engineered: AI-powered adaptive reading.
Integrated: Linked with external smart content.
Extracted: AI analyzes and structures knowledge.
Datamined: Tracks student engagement for insights.
Generated: AI creates content, questions, & chatbots
Learn More: Sosnovsky, S., Brusilovsky, P. & Lan, A. Intelligent Textbooks. Int J Artif Intell Educ (2025).
🚫 Guidance for Uses of AI Banned by EU’s AI Act
The EU regulates AI much more than the US does. When it adopted the AI Act, it banned “unacceptable risk” uses, but didn’t provide much explanation. A new report lays out examples, including manipulative, deceptive, and exploitative practices.
Learn More: https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/redirection/document/112367
⏳ Waiting 5-10 Minutes for an AI to Answer?! What?!
Deep Research is a newer function of Google’s AI, Gemini. You can ask it an extended question and it will break it down into parts, research each part (including multiple web searches), and write up a report you can download. It’s available both on the web and on Android. Additional $ required.
Learn More: https://youtu.be/IBKRyI5m_Rk
Bulletin items compiled by MJ Jackson and Sarah Freye with production assistance from Lisa Batchelder. Get the AI-Commons Bulletin on our Microsoft Teams channel, at aicommons.commons.msu.edu, or by email (send an email to aicommons@msu.edu with the word “subscribe”).
Posted by: Sarah Freye
Posted on: GenAI & Education
AI 101: and Infographic
Check out this simple resource from aiEDU (the AI Education Project) a non-profit that creates equitable learning experiences that build foundational AI literacy. You can learn more, and find adaptable tools and activities for educators, parents, and students at https://www.aiedu.org/
Check out this simple resource from aiEDU (the AI Education Project) a non-profit that creates equitable learning experiences that build foundational AI literacy. You can learn more, and find adaptable tools and activities for educators, parents, and students at https://www.aiedu.org/
Posted by: Makena Neal
Posted on: GenAI & Education
AI Commons Bulletin 2/24/2025
🚫 No More Guidance from USDE
Beyond the AI guidance for schools and the toolkits for educators and developers, the entire Office of Educational Technology website is gone. tech.ed.gov now directs to the USDE website.
Learn More: https://www.ed.gov/
📽️ Try This: Create AI Video for YouTube
Short videos can be useful tools for teaching something, or that students can use to demonstrate something. YouTube now offers tools to use AI to generate video based on a text prompt.
Learn More: https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/heres-how-you-can-create-ai-videos-in-youtube-shorts-thanks-to-google-veo/
🤔 AI Operator Can Take e-Learning Courses For You
OpenAI’s Operator tool can take an online course, which means it’s time to rethink asynchronous course design.
Learn More: https://benbetts.co.uk/the-fall-of-click-next-e-learning-what-operator-means-for-training/?ref=2ndbreakfast.audreywatters.com
✍️ Should We Invent New Words to Talk to AI?
Want a fresh way to discuss AI literacy? These authors argue we need new words—not just human vocabulary—to grasp AI. Encourage students to create neologisms for human concepts AI should learn or machine ideas we must understand. What might they invent?
Learn More: Hewitt, Geirhos, & Kim, (2025). We Can’t Understand AI Using our Existing Vocabulary.
Bulletin items compiled by MJ Jackson and Sarah Freye with production assistance from Lisa Batchelder. Get the AI-Commons Bulletin on our Microsoft Teams channel, at aicommons.commons.msu.edu, or by email (send an email to aicommons@msu.edu with the word “subscribe”).
🚫 No More Guidance from USDE
Beyond the AI guidance for schools and the toolkits for educators and developers, the entire Office of Educational Technology website is gone. tech.ed.gov now directs to the USDE website.
Learn More: https://www.ed.gov/
📽️ Try This: Create AI Video for YouTube
Short videos can be useful tools for teaching something, or that students can use to demonstrate something. YouTube now offers tools to use AI to generate video based on a text prompt.
Learn More: https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/heres-how-you-can-create-ai-videos-in-youtube-shorts-thanks-to-google-veo/
🤔 AI Operator Can Take e-Learning Courses For You
OpenAI’s Operator tool can take an online course, which means it’s time to rethink asynchronous course design.
Learn More: https://benbetts.co.uk/the-fall-of-click-next-e-learning-what-operator-means-for-training/?ref=2ndbreakfast.audreywatters.com
✍️ Should We Invent New Words to Talk to AI?
Want a fresh way to discuss AI literacy? These authors argue we need new words—not just human vocabulary—to grasp AI. Encourage students to create neologisms for human concepts AI should learn or machine ideas we must understand. What might they invent?
Learn More: Hewitt, Geirhos, & Kim, (2025). We Can’t Understand AI Using our Existing Vocabulary.
Bulletin items compiled by MJ Jackson and Sarah Freye with production assistance from Lisa Batchelder. Get the AI-Commons Bulletin on our Microsoft Teams channel, at aicommons.commons.msu.edu, or by email (send an email to aicommons@msu.edu with the word “subscribe”).
Posted by: Sarah Freye
Host: CTLI
Introduction to Creating Effective Assessments
This hybrid workshop introduces educators to core strategies for designing effective assessments that support student learning and course goals. Participants will explore various types of assessments, evaluate their alignment with learning objectives, and compare approaches based on course context, including discipline, size, and level. The session will also address the emerging role of generative AI in assessment design, offering insights into both challenges and opportunities in today’s evolving educational landscape.
Upon completion of this learning experience, participants will be able to:
identify various assessments strategies and their types
evaluate whether various assessment types are aligned with a course's objectives
compare different assessment strategies based on course discipline, size, level, and goals
describe the role of generative AI in assessment design.
The in-person location for this session is the Center for Teaching and Learning Innovation. Please join us in the Main Library, Room W207. For directions to W207, please visit the Room Locations page..
Navigating Context
EXPIRED
Host: CTLI
Understanding AI in your pedagogy
This workshop is designed to equip MSU educators with the knowledge and skills necessary to navigate the evolving educational landscape shaped by generative AI. Participants will explore the multifaceted impact of AI on teaching and learning, and develop strategies to integrate AI into their courses effectively while addressing both opportunities and challenges.
Upon completion of this learning experience participants will be able to:
implement AI tools and techniques to enhance teaching practices and improve administrative efficiency in their courses
integrate discussions and content about AI within their discipline to help students understand its relevance and implications in their field of study
develop comprehensive AI policies for their courses, addressing acceptable use, academic integrity, and guidelines for AI-supported assignments and assessments.
Navigating Context
EXPIRED