AI tools vary widely in how they handle your information; some store what you enter and may use it to improve future responses or for further training. Sharing sensitive information such as student or employee data with certain AI platforms could unintentionally make that data accessible beyond SHU. 

In order to protect data and privacy, please refer to the “Approved AI Tool List” for safe AI tools to use that have been vetted by IT.

Faculty and staff should treat AI tools the same way they treat any system that handles university information. Avoid including student records, health details, financial data or any confidential university data in AI prompts or data sets when using AI tools not approved for enterprise use. 

AI use must comply with existing university policies and expectations.

1. Seton Hill’s Statement on AI which outlines the university’s approach to AI on our campus and identifies key values that must guide its use in all contexts.

2. Seton Hill’s Data Classification policy provides information about how to handle Seton Hill data and includes specific information about using AI tools with our data in Appendix F.

3. Seton Hill’s Academic Integrity policy which establishes parameters for using AI in classroom spaces in ways that uphold principles of integrity and honesty.

Generative AI is a tool that automates and generates content in response to prompts, whereas Agentic AI can integrate with software systems to complete and execute tasks independently or with minimal human supervision. 

In order to protect data and privacy, please refer to the “Approved AI Tool List” for safe AI tools to use that have been vetted by IT.

As the human in the loop, you are responsible for verifying AI outputs. You must review AI-generated content for accuracy, bias or potential misinformation before using, sharing or citing it. 

You can use the SIFT method for evaluating AI outputs: S for stop, I for investigate, F for find better sources, and T for trace claims. You can read more about the process here: https://pressbooks.pub/introtocollegeresearch/chapter/the-sift-method/

Seton Hill’s Statement on AI outlines the nine core values that should guide your decision about how and whether to use AI.

Yes, provided the outputs adhere to Seton Hill’s official Brand Guidelines (colors, fonts, visual tone). AI tools must never generate or modify official university logos, marks, or seals. For public marketing campaigns, contact Communications and Marketing prior to distribution.

According to SHU’s Academic Integrity Policy, the following uses of AI are considered academic misconduct: using AI to falsify data or sources, generating content without proper attribution, presenting AI generated material as the student’s own work, and any other violations of the instructor’s written policy on AI use (in syllabi, rubrics, or assignment instructions). Students are expected to acknowledge when they use ideas or material from generative AI, following citation practices specified by their discipline or instructor. If a student fails to adhere to any component of this policy, faculty may assign a failing grade for the assignment and/or course. Faculty may also complete an Academic Integrity report, which is kept on file. When a student accrues two or more reports, additional disciplinary action may be warranted. You can view the full Academic Integrity policy in the University Catalog.

No. While some faculty and staff are eager to experiment with these tools, others choose to opt out. This decision should be made after careful consideration of university mission (see the Acceptable AI Use Policy for guidance), disciplinary expectations and values, learning objectives, and student needs. SHU’s goal is to offer clarity and guidance to faculty and staff so they feel empowered to make their own decisions about what’s best for their context, rather than mandate a one-size-fits-all approach. If you decide not to use AI in your classroom, make sure you include this information in your syllabus and talk with your students about why you made this decision.

University Level

You should include both the official Academic Integrity Policy and the genAI Acceptable Use Scale policies in your syllabus. You can find these documents on the Faculty Hub Canvas site. If you use the syllabus template sent by your dean, it already contains these policies.

How you use the genAI Scale is up to you with each assignment. One method is to cut and paste the number that applies for an assignment from the use scale and put it at the top of the assignment instructions in Canvas as a reminder to students. 

Program Level

You and/or your program may also choose to create a unique AI policy for your course or program of study that reflects disciplinary guidance. You can consult these examples from the English program and Modern Language program as inspiration for drafting your own.

Course Level

Consider what level of AI integration is appropriate for your course and assignments, including factors such as student level, disciplinary standards, and course outcomes.  Keep in mind that appropriate AI use may vary from assignment to assignment.

If you will develop a policy ahead of time to include in your syllabus, inspiration can be found here. Take care to explain the reasons why you’ve chosen the AI policy you’ve chosen to students in the document.

It can also be useful to develop an AI policy with your students in week one. You can use the International Center for Academic Integrity (ICAI) resource on the “Fundamental Values of Academic Integrity” to ask students to brainstorm a list of things they should/shouldn't do (and you, too, as their teacher) to uphold these values in your class. You can turn that into a policy for your course. Here's a helpful Substack post about how to go about creating a policy with students, too:
https://sydneysharkeyphd.substack.com/p/how-to-co-write-an-ai-policy-with

Transparency is key when it comes to academic integrity and AI use. If you don’t 

communicate with students, both in writing and verbally, they will not know what you expect regarding acceptable AI use. Here are a few strategies to try:

• Consider the syllabus as the starting point (and not the end!) of discussions about integrity and AI.

• Engage students in open conversations about academic integrity and AI use rather than just delivering rules. When can AI be helpful in your course? When does it harm the learning process or violate disciplinary values? Have frequent discussions with students about the ethics of AI use in the context of your classroom and area of study.

• Be transparent: share SHU’s official AI policies (see question 4) and clarify your own course or discipline-specific guidelines. Explain not only what is or isn’t allowed, but also why. If you use AI to create course materials or give feedback, be upfront with students about how and why you do so.

• Reinforce expectations on assignment sheets, instructions, and rubrics, and revisit them regularly in class discussions and with every new assignment. 

• Consider asking students to create or sign integrity pledges with each assignment in which they disclose their AI use and sign agreement with your stated policies.

At this time, SHU does not endorse the use of an AI detection tool. At this time, AI detection tools remain unreliable and are easily circumvented. While they may claim to detect AI-generated content, the results are often inaccurate, sometimes flagging original student work or missing AI content entirely. “Humanizing” tools can be used to bypass detection. Finally, inputting student work into an AI detector tool without transparency or student permission raises data privacy concerns and creates oppositional relationships between teachers and students. Given these flaws and ongoing debate in the field about their use, AI detectors are not recommended. For a more thorough overview of the ethics of AI detectors, see Leon Furze’s “AI Detection in Education.”  If you must use a detector, make sure you are complying with FERPA regulations concerning student data privacy when inputting student work. If you have questions about whether your AI detector tool is safe, contact IT.

Rather than relying on AI detection tools to accuse students of misconduct, only use them (if at all) as a starting point for further conversation. If you have concerns about a student’s work, meet with them to discuss the assignment. Ask questions like: How did you approach this assignment? What parts did you find challenging or straightforward? Can you explain your thinking behind specific sections? These conversations often clarify whether the student has completed the work with AI assistance. Additionally, reviewing document revision history or using tools like Google Docs’ version tracking can help verify their process. 

To discourage unsanctioned use of AI by students in college classes, you should:

• Clearly establish your expectations and policies related to AI:
  Communicate your course’s AI policy in the syllabus and each assignment instruction sheet, including what is and isn’t allowed, and explain the rationale behind these choices to center student learning. Connect to University policy, including the AI Acceptable Use Scale and Academic Integrity policy in the catalog.

• Discuss AI Ethics in Your Discipline:
  Discuss ethical AI use examples with students, exploring when and if AI can be a helpful tool for learning in your course and your discipline, as well as when AI use crosses into unethical behavior or violates disciplinary values.

• Foster Open Dialogue and Transparency:
  Encourage students to discuss their use of AI tools openly to reduce stigma. Be transparent about your own use of AI with students.

• Redesign Assignments to be AI Resistant:
  Create AI resistant assignments that incorporate authentic assessments that connect directly to students’ experiences, opinions, or local contexts; require process documentation; or include reflective elements. Use in-class, oral, or live assessments to ensure students produce their own work without external assistance when appropriate.

• Create an AI-Friendly Course Zone (When Appropriate):
  In some cases, consider allowing responsible AI use as part of the learning process, guiding students on how to use these tools ethically and productively.

Student concerns about AI use typically center on three core issues: privacy, sustainability, and learning loss. Trust and transparency are essential to addressing these concerns effectively. Just as instructors have the right to limit or ban AI use in their classrooms, they also have the right to establish opt-in/opt-out AI policies for students. Any such policies should be clearly stated in course documents and discussed verbally at the start of the term.

To further support students in navigating these concerns, consider the following strategies:

• Model your own decision-making:
  Share how you personally approach AI use — what you use it for, why, and how you weigh factors like privacy, sustainability, and impact on learning. Demonstrating your own ethical reasoning process gives students a concrete framework to draw from.

• Connect AI use to clear learning goals.
  Make your course and assignment objectives explicit, and explain how any AI tools you integrate support student learning. Never assign an AI tool without a clear pedagogical purpose. Ask yourself: Does this tool support student growth? Is it directly related to a learning objective? Is it relevant to professional preparation in the field?

• Point students to credible resources.
  When students have concerns, encourage them to seek out accurate information rather than rely on assumptions. For example, if a student is worried about AI's environmental impact, direct them to tools like What Uses More? or What Your Digital Life Uses to compare AI's footprint to that of other technologies they already use.

• Be transparent about data privacy.
  Clearly communicate how any tools you assign handle student data. If you are unsure how a tool uses data or are not comfortable vetting it yourself, default to the SHU-approved tool list.

The use of AI in the assessment process remains at the discretion of the individual faculty member. Whatever your decision, make sure to practice transparency. You must disclose any use of AI in the assessment process to your students and secure their permission before plugging their work into any AI tool. 

Below are some considerations to aid in your decision making.

• Formative v. Summative
  What is the point of the assessment? Is it formative (designed to help students develop skills or strategies, usually drafts or earlier in the semester) or summative (designed to evaluate whether students have met requirements or demonstrated skills, usually final products or at the end of the term)? If it’s formative, what is the tradeoff when you outsource this task to AI? What is gained/lost for the student? For you?

• Professional Judgement
  What kind of professional judgement does the assessment require, and does AI have the knowledge to make a fair judgement? For instance, is knowledge of the student and their unique needs and experiences necessary to make an informed decision? Is it important to consider where the student was and is now to make an assessment of their growth? What do you know about the student as a human being that AI might not? What disciplinary or course knowledge do you have that AI does not?

• Efficiency v. Effectiveness.
  Arguments for the use of AI in the assessment process are predicated on efficiency narratives. Consider what’s most important in your context: a fast and efficient assessment or a nuanced and effective assessment? Is a quicker assessment always a better one?

• Relationships.
  The act of assessing student work, including any feedback you provide, is ultimately about relationship building. How does the use of AI to do this work complicate human connections and teacher/student relationships?

• Fairness.
  Are you allowing your students to use AI for their work? If not, what message does it send them if you are using it but they’re not permitted to? While AI tools are marketed as more “objective” than human raters, objectivity isn’t always the goal of an assessment. AI can’t know the student as a human being or be present every day in your course, and this kind of context is critical for a fair assessment. Additionally, AI is designed to push back and critique, so it could be harsher than you when assigning grades.

Always practice transparency about your AI use, modeling honesty for your students and our community. You can use a footnote statement as simple as “AI Disclosure: This document was created with assistance from AI tools.” You may also want to add additional details such as “The content has been reviewed and edited by a human” or “For more information on the extent and nature of AI usage, please contact the author.” 

Every discipline will have its own unique approach to the integration of AI. You are strongly encouraged to initiate conversations with your colleagues and develop area policies. This process will not only help provide consistency and transparency across courses for students in your program, it will also help you as an instructor to articulate where your policy comes from. 

You can consult these examples from the English program and Modern Language program as inspiration for drafting your own. You can also consult this quick guide to developing a programmatic policy on AI from Kansas State.

Every discipline will have its own unique approach to the integration of AI. You are strongly encouraged to initiate conversations with your colleagues and develop area policies. This process will not only help provide consistency and transparency across courses for students in your program, it will also help you as an instructor to articulate where your policy comes from. 

You can consult these examples from the English program and Modern Language program as inspiration for drafting your own. You can also consult this quick guide to developing a programmatic policy on AI from Kansas State.

When working on scholarly publications, it’s advised to adhere to the same ethical principles for responsible use that you hold your students to. Most publications and disciplines have official guidance on acceptable use of AI in the research and writing process (for example, Elsevier’s policy can be found here). You are encouraged to familiarize yourself with these policies when undertaking any scholarly project.