»Chapman Considerations for Syllabus Policy on the Use of AI Generative Tools

These are both exciting and challenging times to be an educator. As a global community, we are facing complex problems in the natural environment, political climate, education, poverty, health/mental wellness, and yes, technology. Those who paved the way for us to be educators in higher education no doubt felt some level of uncertainty, angst, and disorientation aroused by similar challenges. Yet, rapid advances in technology are, in many ways, unique to the present and future generations. The explosion of artificial intelligence (AI) tools, particularly text-generating tools, is what Hanstedt (2018) would refer to as a “wicked problem”- a situation “where the parameters of the problem and the means available for solving them were changing constantly” (3). In his book, Creating wicked students: Designing courses for a complex world, Hanstedt reminds us that progress in a wicked and unpredictable world requires citizens who possess wicked competencies. So, the question before us is,

how do we create educational opportunities that recognize, value, and account for a constantly changing world and produce graduates who can participate in solving wicked problems in thoughtful and constructive ways?

This guide is designed to help you clarify your position on the use of generative AI tools in your course/discipline and craft a student-centered syllabus that reflects our commitment to developing impactful global citizens. Once you determine your position, it is important to communicate this clearly to your students. Like other policies and procedures important to your course, it is important to develop a policy statement on AI for your syllabus. As you do so, remember that the syllabus sets the tone for the entire course. Very often, the syllabus is the first contact that students have with both the us and the course. An effective, student-centered syllabus

“should be more than just a checklist or collection of policies and procedures... We [faculty] should aim to do more than badger our students with arbitrary dictates that suggest we fully expect them to misbehave” (Gannon, 2023, par 2).

We also felt it important to affirm our collective commitment to the development of effective communication skills, particularly professional and scholarly writing. The following position statement from the Modern Language Association-Joint Taskforce on Writing and AI Working Paper (2023) provides a framework for this commitment.

Position Statement on Writing

As generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies become widely available as writing aids, … we affirm our common values as…professional educators. We believe that writing is an important mode of learning that facilitates the analysis and synthesis of information, the retention of knowledge, cognitive development, social connection, and participation in public life… We affirm that the term writing describes a process as well as a product and that the labor of students, teachers, and writing professionals should be credited and compensated. We believe that higher education’s specific institutional role of credentialing the achievements of students as individuals means that generative AI cannot simply be used in colleges and universities as it might be in other organizations for efficiency or other purposes. To this end, we believe the primary work of educators is to support students’ intellectual and social development and to foster exploration and creativity rather than to surveil, discipline, or punish students (3).

Organization of This Guide

This guide is organized to help you develop a syllabus that invites interest, enthusiasm, and a sense of belonging in this course and the discipline. To that end, we begin with understanding the a) course of action for the university, b) importance of what and how we communicate, c) need for ongoing conversations, and d) options for syllabus statements permission level. Should you have questions or need more guidance, please reach out to the Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning and/or any member of this task force.

Course of Action for the Institution

Chapman University approaches the introduction of generative artificial intelligence (AI) with scholarly rigor, intellectual integrity, and educational excellence. The university recognizes that generative AI presents additional challenges to academic integrity and simultaneously presents stimulating opportunities to educate effectively for the future of learning and work. With that in mind, Chapman seeks to:

1. Offer guidance through appropriate university offices and allow individual instructors to determine their own syllabus statement identifying acceptable use of generative AI within the course context through this guide and the Chapman AI Hub; and
2. Produce a syllabus statement to be added to minimum syllabus requirements, identifying the university-wide position on acceptable use of generative AI (see university policy statement on AI).

Academic freedom allows you, the instructor, to select your own individual approach that aligns to the institutional mission and policy statement. In addition to the minimum syllabus requirements, it is important that your AI statement/policy

1. makes explicit the responsibility of instructors and students to establish clear expectations for generative AI use within each course and/or assignment, and
2. reinforces that the use of generative AI in academic coursework is integrally related to academic integrity and will be governed by Chapman’s Academic Integrity Committee

The Importance of What and How We Communicate

Chapman is committed to inclusivity and aims to create a sense of belonging for all students through positive and personalized learning experiences, both inside and outside of the classroom. Establishing and maintaining inclusive learning spaces has implications for our daily communications and actions:

• What we say, the tone in which we say it, and our explicit behaviors will either support or contradict our goal for inclusion.
  • Words matter – select with caution.
  • The tone of one policy statement can undo multiple, positive steps forward in creating an inclusive learning environment in our classroom.
  • Our actions inside and outside of the classroom will be interpreted as inclusive or exclusive.

As you create your syllabus, one question you ought to keep at the center of the process is: What am I saying to my students?

After you have completed your syllabus, read through the document from a student’s perspective.

• Is the overall tone of the syllabus positive and affirming, supporting an inclusive and welcoming learning environment?
• Are required university and course policies included with live links?
• Are your course expectations and grading procedures clearly articulated?
• Are you excited about the course before it even begins?

The Ongoing Conversation

It is important that faculty and administrators have ongoing conversations within their department/school about the appropriate penalties for unauthorized use of an AI. It is also important to think about the appropriate level of penalty for first-time offenders and those who repeatedly violate policies on the use of AI. It is also important to have honest and open conversations with your students. According to Flower Darby (2023),

“a big part of the conversation should focus on cheating and plagiarism. A recent talk on academic integrity by Tricia Bertram Gallant, director of the academic-integrity office at the University of California at San Diego, helped me think about how to frame this discussion with students. Cheating isn’t new, and neither is ‘contract cheating’ (paper mills and other schemes to pay someone to do your homework), though the latter seems to be growing by leaps and bounds. One way forward is to emphasize how cheaters are only cheating themselves.In her talk, Gallant described a track coach who would tell runners they could ride a scooter around the track, but that that wouldn’t make them faster or stronger runners. Think about yourself like that coach, she said. Talk with students about the value of doing the work of learning for themselves instead of outsourcing it to a machine… Better yet, coach students on the effective use of AI tools related to classwork (Darby, 2023, par. 11).

As you read through the options for syllabi policy on AI tools, please try to read from a student’s perspective. Ask yourself: Does the language and tone of the policy support

1. scholarly rigor, intellectual integrity, educational excellence, DEI, a sense of belonging, and ultimately support the development of multidimensional, original thinkers? And
2. learning environments that “challenge students academically, nurture their intellectual curiosity, and ensure their holistic development and success as lifelong learners and global citizens” (Chapman’s Strategic Plan for 2023-2028).

Note: The statements presented below may be used as-is in your syllabus or modified to suit the needs of the course activities and assessments.

Broad Use Permitted Within Guidelines

Syllabus Statement Option #1

(Adapted from Temple University statements and Dr. Ruppel’s FFC statement)

Chatbots or generative AI tools may offer useful information. However, students are solely responsible for the accuracy and authenticity of the material that the Chatbot generates in response to their prompt or AI query. It is the student’s responsibility to verify the accuracy of the information provided and to use that information in ethical ways that avoid academic integrity issues. Students should also be aware of the inherent bias that may be manifested in generative AI responses and need to think critically as they analyze the information provided. To stay in compliance with university policies on academic integrity, a student’s use of AI tools must be properly documented and referenced in the citation style of your chosen discipline.
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 general information about the topic.
• Drafting an outline to organize your thoughts.
• Checking grammar, writing conventions, and/or style.

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

• Using the AI tool to compose a response to discussion board prompt or to enter content into a chat in a classroom context (e.g., Zoom).
• Completing your specific task for assigned group work.
• Writing a draft of a writing assignment.
• Writing entire sentences, paragraphs, or papers to complete class assignments.

If you have questions about whether a specific AI tool is permitted, please ask me for clarification prior to turning in classroom or research assignments. Should I determine that an assignment has used generative AI tools in unauthorized ways, I will ask you in for a conference. Repeated offences may be brought before Chapman University’s Academic Integrity Committee for final arbitration.

Syllabus Statement Option #2

(Adapted from George Washington University)

Generative AI tools, especially large language model chatbots like ChatGPT, are widely used today in many contexts. Learning to use AI responsibly and ethically is thus an important concept to engage with thoughtfully in your work as a student and beyond. Students should, however, be aware of the limits of generative AI tools such as ChatGPT:

• The quality of the prompt fed to the chatbot directly correlates to the quality of the generated text you will receive. Making the most of ChatGPT requires being thoughtful about how you write your prompts.
• Fact-check all AI outputs. Assume it is wrong unless you cross-check the claims with reliable sources. The current AI models will confidently reassert factual errors. You will be responsible for any errors or omissions.
• Full disclosure: Like any other tool, the use of AI should be acknowledged. At the end of your assignment, write a short paragraph to explain which AI tool and how you used it, if applicable. Include the prompts you used to get the results. Failure to do so is in violation of academic integrity policies.

The following examples demonstrate approved uses of AI in this course. You can take advantage of a generative AI to:

• Brainstorm ideas, draft an outline, clarify thoughts, and/or generate keywords.
• Fine-tune, expand, or clarify your research questions.
• Check grammar, writing conversions, and style; help you find an expression.

Caution: Using an AI-content generator such as ChatGPT to complete an assignment without proper attribution violates academic integrity. By submitting assignments in this class, you pledge to affirm that they are your own work, and you attribute the use of any tools and sources.

Use Permitted: Some Circumstances or With Explicit Permission

Syllabus Statement Option #1

There are some situations and contexts within this course where you will be asked to use artificial intelligence (AI) tools to explore how they can be used. Outside of those circumstances, you are not permitted from using AI tools to generate content (text, video, audio, images, etc.) that will end up in any course work (assignments, activities, discussion responses, etc.) submitted in this course.

The following policy covers the use of any generative AI tool, such as ChatGPT, Google Bard, Bing Chat, etc. in this course.

1. You are discouraged from using generative AI tools except when instructed to do so. Please contact me if you are unsure or have questions before using AI tools for any assignment.
2. If generative AI tools are permitted to be used, you must indicate what part of the assignment was written by the AI tool and what was written by you. You may also be asked to explain how you personally used these tools to complete the assignment. Individual assignments permitting AI tools will provide more specific guidance about how, and to what extent, they can be used.
3. All assignments in this course, regardless of whether AI use is permitted, must be completed in ways that avoid violation of the university’s policies on academic integrity and AI use. If you have any questions about how and when it is appropriate to use AI tools for the activities in this course, please reach out to me for a conversation before submitting your work.

Syllabus Statement Option #2

While we recognize that there are a variety of artificial intelligence (AI) programs available to assist students with a wide range of academic assignments and learning activities, AI programs are not a replacement for human creativity, originality, and critical thinking. The purpose of assignments in this course is for you to demonstrate your writing, critical thinking, and analytical skills while providing you with opportunities to grow as a communicator, thinker, and scholar.

I may sometimes incorporate the use of generative AI tools like ChatGPT into your lessons and assignments. In these cases, AI will be used as a valuable tool for learning. However, in instances where you are not specifically told to use generative AI, I ask you to embrace the challenges of learning, scholarship, and personal growth and write without using these tools. If you have any questions about how and when it is appropriate to use AI tools for the activities in this course, please reach out to me for a conversation before submitting your work.

In all academic work, the ideas and contributions of others must be appropriately acknowledged and work that is presented as original must be, in fact, original. Using an AI-content generator (such as ChatGPT) to complete coursework without proper citation of source(s) or permission is a form of academic dishonesty. Every effort must be made to avoid violation of the university’s policies on academic integrity and AI use. If you are unsure about whether something may be in violation of these policies, please reach out to me so we can address these concerns before you submit your work. Faculty, students, and administrative staff all share the responsibility of ensuring the honesty and fairness of the intellectual environment at Chapman University.

No Use Permitted (Not Recommended)

It is essential that all work turned in for this class represents your personal analytical and critical thinking skills. For this reason, the use of generative models of artificial intelligence such as ChatGPT, Haptic and Microsoft Copilot (among others) is not permitted. Additionally, paraphrasing tools such as Spinbot and Wordtune are also prohibited. While you may use university approved programs such as Grammarly to check for spelling and grammar errors, it is fundamental that all text be produced solely by you. If you use a program such as Google Translate or ChatGPT to help with translation, speak with me to discuss implications and limitations. If I suspect that your response was produced by an LLM, I will check the various services that can detect this. If those services confirm my suspicion, I will call you in for a conference. If you are in doubt about whether a specific form of aid is allowed, please speak directly with me.

Special Caution with Selecting The “No Use” Position

You may feel tempted, especially at first, to select a “No Use of AI Permitted” statement for your syllabus. However, we would caution against such a position as it would be more likely to increase academic integrity violations without a clear, direct benefit. Whether we like it or not, AI tools are already in heavy use in almost every context of our modern lives, and students have already adapted AI tools into their learning, studying, and writing methods in ways that we likely do not comprehend. Instead of immediately taking on a “no AI” position,” we ask that you instead think carefully about whether you are certain that these tools will negatively affect students’ ability to accomplish the learning outcomes of your course—and whether they might realistically hinder or assist students in attaining the secondary and soft skills that are also essential for college students to learn. Before taking such a decision, please consider speaking with a member of our Task Force or reading some of the “Teaching & Learning” resources we have collected around this issue.

Resources for Syllabus Development or Revision

    Gannon, K. (2023). How to Create a Syllabus: Advice guide. Chronicle of Higher Education.
https://www.chronicle.com/article/how-to-create-a-syllabus/?cid=gen_sign_in
 This resource is exactly what the title indicates. It is a guide for syllabus construction.

    Comer, A. R. (2016). The syllabus as a contract: How to deal with clever students who find loopholes you didn’t intend. Chronicle of Higher Education.
https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-syllabus-as-a-contract/
 The author discusses how the syllabus is often viewed used as a contract agreement – and what to do if students find a way to reinterpret the language on your syllabus to their benefit — in ways that you did not intend.

    Watkins, R. (Dec. 8, 2022). Update your course syllabus for ChatGPT. Medium.
https://medium.com/@rwatkins_7167/updating-your-course-syllabus-for-chatgpt-965f4b57b003
 If you missed the Summer Conference on Innovative Teaching and Student Success, this article offers some easy to implement suggestions for updating your syllabus. You may also want to contact Chapman’s CETL for additional ideas on writing a syllabus that supports students’ sense of belonging.

    Classroom Policies for AI Generative Tools (Resource link*) - A faculty member, Lance Eaton, compiled a list of 50+ classroom policy statements to help other instructors see the range of policies available and aid in developing their own policy for navigating AI-Generative Tools. (Permission is granted by the author to share this resource or parts of it with other colleagues, institutions, and communities of practice.)

    Strategies for Creating “Generative AI-Resistant” Assessments:
https://blog.uwgb.edu/catl/strategies-for-creating-generative-ai-resistant-assessments/
 While some educators are excited about integrating AI collaboration into their teaching practices, others are apprehensive about its potential misuse by students. To address these concerns, this blog post presents assignment strategies that can be more “generative AI-resistant.” There are no “AI-proof” assessments, but these suggestions should serve as starting points for creating authentic assignments and/or ones that require demonstration of original and critical thinking.

Preparing for the New Semester (Conversations about ChatGPT)

    Darby, F. (2023). 4 Steps to Help You Plan for ChatGPT in Your Classroom. Chronicle of Higher Education.
https://www.chronicle.com/article/4-steps-to-help-you-plan-for-chatgpt-in-your-classroom
 A very good introduction to ChatGPT and four strategies to help you through the “wrap your head around AI tools” stage.

    McMurtie, B. (2023). ChatGPT is everywhere: Love it or hate it, academics can’t ignore the already pervasive technology.
https://www.chronicle.com/article/chatgpt-is-already-upending-campus-practices-colleges-are-rushing-to respond
 A resource to process common faculty concerns and faculty ideas regarding the use of AI tools.

Special thanks to the following members of the Provost’s Taskforce on the Development of Syllabus Policy Statements for compiling and synthesizing these sample syllabus statements, guidelines, and resources.

Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning:

• Cathy Pohan, Executive Director
• Melissa Samaniego, Assistant Director & Instructional Designer

Leatherby Libraries

• Kevin Ross, Dean (Librarian)
• Taylor Greene, Chair of Research and Instructional Services (Librarian)
• Doug Dechow, Assistant Dean for Library Research & Data Services (Librarian)

Faculty Representatives

• Kendra Day, Fowler School of Engineering & CETL Summer Faculty Fellow
• Richard Ruppel, Wilkinson College of Arts, Humanities, & Social Sciences
• Kathleen Hill-Besinque, Faculty Senate Academic Integrity Committee
• James Hirsh, Faculty Senate Academic Integrity Committee

Administrative Consultants

• Helen Norris, VP and Chief Information Officer
• Janine DuMontelle, VP and General Counsel