Texas A&M University
Generative AI
Syllabus Statement
Considerations
CENTER FOR TEACHING EXCELLENCE
Table of Contents
Approaches to Syllabus Statements Concerning Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Possible Courses of Action for the Institution ......................................................................................................... 3
Sample Syllabus Statements Grouped by Permission Level
No Use of Generative AI Permitted .......................................................................................................................... 3
Use of Generative AI Permitted Under Some Circumstances or With Explicit Permission ..................................... 4
Broader Use of Generative AI Permitted Within Guidelines .................................................................................... 5
Supplemental Resource Documents ............................................................................................................... 6
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................................. 6
Considerations for Generative AI Syllabus Statements p. 2 of 6
Approaches to Syllabus Statements Concerning
Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Possible Courses of Action for the Institution
Texas A&M University wishes to approach the introduction of generative artificial intelligence (generative 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.
The three courses of action identified below represent distinctly useful approaches to this complex challenge.
1. Produce a syllabus statement to be added to minimum syllabus requirements, identifying the university-
wide acceptable use of generative AI
2. 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
3. (Recommended) Pursue a hybrid of the two previous options, including both of the following:
a. An addition to the minimum syllabus requirements, which both
i. makes explicit the responsibility of instructors and students to establish clear
expectations for generative AI use within each course and/or assignment and
ii. reinforces that the use of generative AI in academic coursework is integrally related to
academic integrity and will be governed by the Aggie Honor Code.
b. Guidance provided to support faculty in making their individual determinations
Sample Syllabus Statements Grouped by Permission Level
The following samples have been posted on publicly viewable websites at the institutions designated. The
samples represent instructor uses on their own syllabi and not institutional policies.
No Use of Generative AI Permitted
Bryant University: AI Writing tools are not permitted for any stage or phase of work in this class. If you use
these tools, your actions would be considered academically dishonest and a violation of Bryant’s Academic
Honesty Policy.
Princeton University: 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. You may not engage in unauthorized collaboration or make use of
ChatGPT or other AI composition software.
Texas Tech University: Since writing, analytical, and critical thinking skills are part of the learning outcomes
of this course, all writing assignments should be prepared by the student. Developing strong competencies
in this area will prepare you for a competitive workplace. Therefore, AI-generated submissions are not
permitted and will be treated as plagiarism.
Considerations for Generative AI Syllabus Statements p. 3 of 6
University of New Hampshire: Unless otherwise specified, the use of Automated Writing Tools, including
chatGPT and similar artificial intelligence (AI) tools, is strictly prohibited in this course, even when properly
attributed. The use of automated writing tools is considered plagiarism (as defined by SRRR 9.3) and will be
handled in accordance with existing policy.
University of California, Irvine: Academic Integrity for Your Writing Class: The Composition Program and its
teachers assume that work submitted by students–all process work, drafts, low-stakes writing, final versions,
and all other submissions–will be generated by the students themselves, working individually or in groups.
This means that the following would be considered violations of academic integrity by the Composition
Program:
If a student has another person/entity do the writing of any substantive portion of an assignment for them,
which includes hiring a person or a company to write essays and drafts and/or other assignments, research-
based or otherwise, and using artificial intelligence affordances like ChatGPT;
If a student submits the same work for more than one class without consulting with the instructors.
University of Massachusetts Amherst: [This course] assumes that all work submitted by students will be
generated by the students themselves, working individually or in groups. Students should not have another
person/entity do the writing of any substantive portion of an assignment for them, which includes hiring a
person or a company to write assignments and using artificial intelligence tools like ChatGPT.
University of Iowa: This course] assumes that work submitted by students—all process work, drafts, low-
stakes writing, final versions, and all other submissions—will be generated by the students themselves,
working individually or in groups. This means that the following would be considered violations of academic
integrity: a student has another person/entity do the writing of any substantive portion of an assignment for
them, which includes hiring a person or a company to write essays and drafts and/or other assignments,
research-based or otherwise, and using artificial intelligence affordances like ChatGPT. (Excerpted from
ChatGPT by University of California: Irvine Division of Teaching Excellence and Innovation)
University of Iowa: Since writing, analytical, and critical thinking skills are part of the learning outcomes of
this course, all writing assignments should be prepared by the student. Developing strong competencies in
this area will prepare you for a competitive workplace. Therefore, AI-generated submissions are not
permitted and will be treated as plagiarism. (Sample statement shared by Chrissann Sparks Ruehle, with
permission for others to use, on Higher Ed Discussions of AI Writing Facebook Group on 1/6/2023, cited in
ChatGPT Resources by Texas Tech University Teaching, Learning & Professional Development Center)
Use of Generative AI Permitted Under Some Circumstances or With Explicit Permission
Bryant University: During our class, we may use AI Writing tools such as ChatGPT. You will be informed as
to when, where, and how these tools are permitted to be used, along with guidance for attribution. Any use
outside of this permission constitutes a violation of Bryant’s Academic Honesty Policy.
Bryant University: We recognize that there are a variety of AI programs available to assist writers. AI
programs are not a replacement for human creativity, originality, and critical thinking. Writing is a craft that
you must develop over time to develop your own individual voice as a writer. However, within limited
circumstances, and with proper attribution, AI programs may be used as a tool.
Considerations for Generative AI Syllabus Statements p. 4 of 6
Princeton University: Students must obtain permission from me before using AI composition software (like
ChatGPT) for any assignments in this course. Using these tools without my permission puts your academic
integrity at risk.
University of New Hampshire: If you are allowing AI in some instances, it is recommended to add the following:
It is important to note that if AI tools like chatGPT are permitted to be used for an assignment, then they
should be used with caution and proper citation. AI is not a replacement for your own thinking and research.
Washington University in St. Louis: On Academic Integrity:
Effective learning, teaching and research all depend upon the ability of members of the academic community
to trust one another and to trust the integrity of work that is submitted for academic credit or conducted in
the wider arena of scholarly research. Such an atmosphere of mutual trust fosters the free exchange of ideas
and enables all members of the community to achieve their highest potential.
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 attribution or authorization is a form of academic dishonesty. If you
are unsure about whether something may be plagiarism or academic dishonesty, please contact your
instructor to discuss the issue. Faculty, students, and administrative staff all share the responsibility of
ensuring the honesty and fairness of the intellectual environment at Washington University in St. Louis.
Colorado University: There are situations and contexts within this course where you will be asked to use AI
tools to explore how they can be used. Outside of those circumstances, you are discouraged from using AI
tools to generate content (text, video, audio, images) that will end up in any student work (assignments,
activities, responses, etc) that is part of your evaluation in this course. Any student work submitted using AI
tools should clearly indicate what work is the student’s work and what part is generated by the AI. In such
cases, no more than 25% of the student work should be generated by AI. If any part of this is confusing or
uncertain, please reach out to me for a conversation before submitting your work.
Broader Use of Generative AI Permitted Within Guidelines
Bryant University: AI Writing tools such as ChatGPT are welcome in this class, provided that you cite when
and how you use the tool. You will be provided with examples of how to cite your use of this tool in your
writing.
Bryant University: Example of attribution language: “The author generated this text in part with GPT-3,
OpenAI’s large-scale language-generation model. Upon generating draft language, the author reviewed,
edited, and revised the language to their own liking and takes ultimate responsibility for the content of this
publication.”
University of Massachusetts Amherst: AI is allowed with attribution: Use of AI tools, including ChatGPT, is
permitted in this course for students who wish to use them. To adhere to our scholarly values, students must
cite any AI-generated material that informed their work (this includes in-text citations and/or use of
quotations, and in your reference list). Using an AI tool to generate content without proper attribution
qualifies as academic dishonesty.
Considerations for Generative AI Syllabus Statements p. 5 of 6
University of Massachusetts Amherst: AI is encouraged with certain tasks and with attribution: You can
choose to use AI tools to help brainstorm assignments or projects or to revise existing work you have
written. When you submit your assignment, I expect you to clearly attribute what text was generated by the
AI tool (e.g., AI-generated text appears in a different colored font, quoted directly in the text, or use an in-text
parenthetical citation).
University of Iowa: 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 attribution or authorization is a form of academic
dishonesty. If you are unsure about whether something may be plagiarism or academic dishonesty, please
contact your instructor to discuss the issue. Faculty, students, and administrative staff all share the
responsibility of ensuring the honesty and fairness of the intellectual environment. (Excerpted from
Constructing a Syllabus: A Checklist by Washington University in St. Louis Center for Teaching and Learning)
University of Iowa: Use of AI tools, including ChatGPT, is permitted in this course for students who wish to
use them. To be consistent with our scholarly values, students must cite any AI-generated material that
informed their work and use quotation marks or other appropriate indicators of quoted material when
appropriate. Students should indicate how AI tools informed their process and the final product, including
how you validated any AI-generated citations, which may be invented by the AI. Assignment guidelines will
provide additional guidance as to how these tools might be part of your process for each assessment this
semester and how to provide transparency about their use in your work.
University of Iowa: When AI use is encouraged with certain tasks: Students are invited to use AI platforms
to help prepare for assignments and projects (e.g., to help with brainstorming or to see what a completed
essay might look like). I also welcome you to use AI tools to help revise and edit your work (e.g., to help
identify flaws in reasoning, spot confusing or underdeveloped paragraphs, or to simply fix citations). When
submitting work, students must clearly identify any writing, text, or media generated by AI. This can be done
in a variety of ways. In this course, parts of essays generated by AI should appear in a different colored font,
and the relationship between those sections and student contributions should be discussed in cover letters
that accompany the essay submission. (Based on Course Policies related to ChatGPT and other AI Tools by
Joel Gladd)
Supplemental Resource Documents
Course Policies related to ChatGPT and other AI Tools, by Joel Gladd, PhD
University of Colorado, AI & Education Syllabi Policies at CU
Academic Integrity and Artificial Intelligence, Jillian Hogan, Texas Tech University
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to Michelle Fitzgerald, MS Candidate in Industrial & Organizational Behavior and Graduate Assistant
Non-Teaching at the Center for Teaching Excellence, Texas A&M University, for collecting and synthesizing these
sample syllabus statements.
Considerations for Generative AI Syllabus Statements p. 6 of 6
