Teaching & Learning
- Outside GST, ACU’s general academic integrity materials require students to submit their own work
- For the Graduate School of Theology, AI use in assignments is governed by faculty instructions at the course level
- GST faculty may prohibit AI for any part of assignments and student work, and the GST specifically prohibits using AI to generate outlines, write essays and responses, revise written work, replace assigned readings with AI summaries or evaluations, translate language assignments, or submit AI-generated work as one’s own
faculty may choose to prohibit the use of generative AI for any and all aspects of assignments and student work; check your course syllabus, consult your teacher, and follow faculty instructions
faculty will specify the allowable/prohibited uses of generative AI for each of their courses and communicate their policies in classes, syllabi, and Canvas course sites
using AI to generate outlines, to write essays and responses, or to revise written work
using AI to replace assigned readings/resources (e.g. to generate summaries) or to evaluate assigned readings/resources
using AI to translate language assignments
submitting AI-generated work without attribution and clear description of the role AI played in the process
submitting AI-generated work or responses as one’s own, e.g. to generate arguments or interpretations that are not properly attributed
submitting one’s own work, whether in a research paper, test, or any other kind of assignment resulting in a written, oral, visual, or auditory product.
- ACU’s general academic integrity rules require students to submit their own work on tests and forbid submitting a paper or computer program written by another person
- The provided sources do not state a university-wide AI-specific exam rule, but GST faculty may set course-specific AI restrictions for student work and violations are treated as academic integrity violations
submitting one’s own work, whether in a research paper, test, or any other kind of assignment resulting in a written, oral, visual, or auditory product.
submitting a paper or computer program written by another person.
faculty may choose to prohibit the use of generative AI for any and all aspects of assignments and student work; check your course syllabus, consult your teacher, and follow faculty instructions
Failure to follow prescribed policies will be considered a violation of academic integrity
- In the GST, some AI use for learning support is allowed unless a faculty member prohibits it
- A faculty blog post also presents a sample course policy where AI is permissible in limited support roles, but that blog content is advisory rather than a university-wide rule
- Allowable uses include assisting with literature reviews, identifying relevant sources, summarizing resources not explicitly assigned for reading, and generating lines of inquiry for research
Allowable use of generative AI in GST (unless prohibited by faculty)
to assist with literature reviews, help identify relevant sources, and summarize articles or other resources not explicitly assigned for reading
to generate lines of inquiry for research
Use of AI is permissible under certain circumstances such as using generative AI as one might a search engine or other office aid software (i.e. citation software or grammar and spelling checkers).
- The university does not provide a specific AI code-generation policy in the supplied sources
- ACU’s general academic integrity definitions do state that submitting a computer program written by another person is academic dishonesty
submitting a paper or computer program written by another person.
Research
- AI-generated work submitted without attribution and a clear description of AI’s role is also prohibited
- In the GST, AI may be used for some research support functions unless faculty prohibit it, but it is prohibited for generating outlines, writing essays and responses, or revising written work
using AI to generate outlines, to write essays and responses, or to revise written work
submitting AI-generated work without attribution and clear description of the role AI played in the process
to assist with literature reviews, help identify relevant sources, and summarize articles or other resources not explicitly assigned for reading
to generate lines of inquiry for research
- The GST allows AI for certain research data and analysis tasks unless faculty prohibit it
- The policy expressly allows AI to analyze large datasets, conduct pattern recognition such as coding data, and generate visual aids or tables and graphs
Allowable use of generative AI in GST (unless prohibited by faculty)
to analyze large datasets or conduct pattern recognition (e.g. coding data)
to generate visual aids or produce tables/graphs
- The provided sources do not define AI rules for grant proposals, IRB applications, or research ethics declarations
- The only research-related AI integrity language supplied is the GST statement that violating prescribed AI policies is an academic integrity violation and that submitting AI-generated work as one’s own without attribution is prohibited
Failure to follow prescribed policies will be considered a violation of academic integrity
submitting AI-generated work without attribution and clear description of the role AI played in the process
submitting AI-generated work or responses as one’s own, e.g. to generate arguments or interpretations that are not properly attributed
Academic Integrity
- A faculty blog sample statement also says that if a student uses AI to complete an assignment, the student must disclose how AI contributed to the work
- In the GST, disclosure of AI use may be required by faculty, and submitting AI-generated work without attribution and a clear description of AI’s role is prohibited
faculty may require students to disclose where and how they have employed generative AI in the process of their work
submitting AI-generated work without attribution and clear description of the role AI played in the process
submitting AI-generated work or responses as one’s own, e.g. to generate arguments or interpretations that are not properly attributed
Should a student choose to use AI to complete an assignment, the student must disclose how AI contributed to the work.
- In the GST, submitted work may be analyzed for probable AI use, and work that violates GST or faculty AI policy is treated as academically dishonest
- ACU’s academic integrity process states that a second violation in a class results in an F in the course and immediate referral to the Dean of Students, and faculty must report confirmed violations to the department chair and dean
submitted work may be analyzed for the probability of use from generative AI tools; work found to violate GST or faculty policy will be considered academically dishonest
A second violation in a class will result in an F in the course and immediate referral to the Dean of Students.
If it is determined that a violation occurred, the faculty member is responsible for forwarding paperwork describing the incident and penalty simultaneously to the department chair and the Dean of the college.
Institutional & Administrative
- The university empowers faculty to set course-level AI rules, particularly within the Graduate School of Theology
- A university LibGuide also provides guidance for faculty on using AI, suggesting they can use it to help draft student feedback or create course content, and should consider acknowledging such use to students to model ethical behavior
faculty will specify the allowable/prohibited uses of generative AI for each of their courses and communicate their policies in classes, syllabi, and Canvas course sites
Consider using AI to help you draft feedback to students or grade assignments.
If you use AI to create course content, consider acknowledging that to your students to model responsible and ethical behavior.
- The university advises against using personal or confidential information with generative AI tools
- Specifically, the Graduate School of Theology policy states that students should never input personal, confidential, or proprietary data
- A faculty guide reinforces this, warning against entering any student information or intellectual property into free AI tools because the data may be used for training
students should never input personal information, confidential data, or proprietary information into a generative AI tool.
At ACU, we must be careful to protect student data and privacy and not enter any student information or intellectual property into a free AI tool.
- The provided sources do not set out a university-wide AI governance framework, committee, or institutional roadmap
- The clearest governance statement in the supplied materials is limited to the GST, which says the school has specific policies on generative AI and places course-level implementation with faculty
In view of these risks, the GST has specific policies about the use of generative AI.
faculty will specify the allowable/prohibited uses of generative AI for each of their courses and communicate their policies in classes, syllabi, and Canvas course sites
DocuMark: Responsible AI Use for Academic Integrity
Knowing your institution's AI policy is step one. DocuMark helps enforce it fairly by empowering universities to manage AI-generated content, prevent cheating, and support student writing through responsible AI use.
Common Questions About Abilene Christian University's AI Policies
Abilene Christian University has defined AI policies in 12 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 100%.
In the GST, disclosure of AI use may be required by faculty, and submitting AI-generated work without attribution and a clear description of AI’s role is prohibited. A faculty blog sample statement also says that if a student uses AI to complete an assignment, the student must disclose how AI contributed to the work.
In the GST, submitted work may be analyzed for probable AI use, and work that violates GST or faculty AI policy is treated as academically dishonest. ACU’s academic integrity process states that a second violation in a class results in an F in the course and immediate referral to the Dean of Students, and faculty must report confirmed violations to the department chair and dean.
The university advises against using personal or confidential information with generative AI tools. Specifically, the Graduate School of Theology policy states that students should never input personal, confidential, or proprietary data. A faculty guide reinforces this, warning against entering any student information or intellectual property into free AI tools because the data may be used for training.