Teaching & Learning
- Coursework AI rules vary by department and instructor rather than following a single uniform university-wide permission standard in the provided sources
- The university-wide academic integrity policy prohibits unauthorized aids and requires students to seek instructor advice if unsure; History & Classics, Psychology, and Computer Science each state that AI use in coursework is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the instructor or syllabus, and History & Classics notes that instructors may set course-specific AI rules
A student who is uncertain whether or not a course of action might constitute cheating or plagiarism should seek in advance the advice of the instructor involved.
a. Cheating is copying or the use of unauthorized aids or the intentional falsification or invention of information in any academic exercise.
In the History & Classics Department we expect students to complete assignments that reflect their own work, ideas, and research and that are communicated in their own words. The use of unauthorized aids is an academic offence. Beyond that, each instructor has the freedom to craft AI policies particular to their course. Students can expect to see this information clearly articulated on the syllabus, on assignment instructions, and/or communicated verbally in class.
The use of Generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini) is not permitted in course work unless explicitly allowed by the course instructor. Course policies on Generative AI will be clearly stated in each course syllabus, including appropriate use cases (if any).
While each individual class at Acadia will approach the use of AI-generated content differently, the Jodrey School of Computer Science will treat AI-generated work as plagiarism unless the syllabus/assignment direction specifically allows for the use of such generated code.
- The provided sources do not set a distinct AI rule specifically for exams or quizzes
- The general academic integrity rule against unauthorized aids applies to any academic exercise, and department-level materials discuss assignments and coursework rather than exam-specific AI use
a. Cheating is copying or the use of unauthorized aids or the intentional falsification or invention of information in any academic exercise.
- Some departmental and Senate materials allow AI for learning support only under conditions
- History & Classics acknowledges that students use AI as learning aids and says the department is committed to teaching responsible use; the School of Business syllabus statement says AI to assist learning is allowed only with prior instructor permission and proper crediting
We recognize the value of AI in some contexts and are committed to teaching students how to responsibly use AI in the humanities; however, we also have profound concerns about the unregulated use of AI and its potential impacts on student learning.
3. Academic Integrity: Although many students have adopted AI devices as learning aids, others have chosen to use it as a shortcut in the production of essays or other assignments and to avoid engaging in critical reading, writing, and thinking on their own terms; this is contrary to the entire purpose of the study of the humanities and social sciences.
Use of artificial intelligence tools by students to assist with their learning is allowed only if:
prior permission has been given by the course professor/instructor, and
the student properly credits/cites how the AI technology was used in their work.
AI must be used in an ethical and responsible manner as a positive learning tool. AI may not be used in ways that violate Acadia’s Academic Integrity Policy.
- Computer Science treats AI-generated code as plagiarism unless a class or assignment specifically permits it
- Submitting code produced by AI tools such as GitHub Copilot or ChatGPT is treated as academic dishonesty when not explicitly authorized
Acadia’s Academic Calendar defines plagiarism as “the act of presenting the ideas or words of another as one’s own”. With respect to computer programming, this means that if you are passing in code that you did not write, then you are committing an act of Academic Dishonesty. This includes copying code found on websites or having AI generate the code for you (using tools like GitHub Copilot, Google Codey/Colab, ChatGPT, etc).
While each individual class at Acadia will approach the use of AI-generated content differently, the Jodrey School of Computer Science will treat AI-generated work as plagiarism unless the syllabus/assignment direction specifically allows for the use of such generated code.
Research
- For Psychology thesis work, generative AI is not permitted unless the thesis supervisor explicitly allows it
- Even when allowed, use must be limited to supportive functions such as grammar, sentence clarity, or reference formatting, and AI must not create or replace substantive thesis content; students must also disclose any AI use in the acknowledgements and take responsibility for the final content
As per the wider academic integrity policy, the use of Generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini) is not permitted in thesis work unless explicitly allowed by the thesis supervisor. Acceptable use cases for Generative AI (if any) should be discussed with supervisors prior to their use, and in consultation with the Research Ethics Board and the wider department.
If the use of Generative AI is allowed by an individual supervisor, these tools should only be used in a limited capacity that supports overall learning. Generative AI should never be used to create or replace any substantive portion of the thesis project (e.g., idea generation, research, writing, data generation, interpretation). Examples of acceptable use cases may include guidance for improving sentence clarity, checking for spelling and grammar errors, or formatting reference lists.
Students must declare if Generative AI was used in the acknowledgements section of their thesis. This acknowledgement should include which tools were used and in what context, as well as a statement of personal responsibility for the accuracy of provided information.
o In the preparation of this thesis project, the author used ChatGPT 4, a Generative AI model, to assist with reviewing grammar and sentence structure. The author has reviewed and edited all content produced by Generative AI and takes full responsibility for the content of this project
- Any acceptable use must be discussed in advance with the supervisor and in consultation with the Research Ethics Board and department
- The only explicit guidance in the provided sources is from Psychology thesis policy, which prohibits generative AI from creating or replacing substantive parts of thesis work, including data generation and interpretation, unless a supervisor has explicitly allowed limited use
As per the wider academic integrity policy, the use of Generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini) is not permitted in thesis work unless explicitly allowed by the thesis supervisor. Acceptable use cases for Generative AI (if any) should be discussed with supervisors prior to their use, and in consultation with the Research Ethics Board and the wider department.
If the use of Generative AI is allowed by an individual supervisor, these tools should only be used in a limited capacity that supports overall learning. Generative AI should never be used to create or replace any substantive portion of the thesis project (e.g., idea generation, research, writing, data generation, interpretation).
- Psychology thesis policy explicitly ties AI use in research projects to research ethics oversight
- Thesis projects, especially those involving human participants, must meet Research Ethics Board standards, and any acceptable AI use must be discussed with the supervisor and in consultation with the Research Ethics Board and department; misuse of generative AI in a thesis is treated as a serious academic integrity offense
Thesis projects are substantive, high-value academic works that are intended to showcase the abilities of high-performing students in our department. These research projects, especially those involving human participants, must be held to the high standard described by Acadia’s Research Ethics Board and the Canadian Psychological Association’s Code of Ethics.
Given all of the above, any violation of academic integrity in a thesis project, including misuse of Generative AI tools, will be considered a serious offense.
As per the wider academic integrity policy, the use of Generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini) is not permitted in thesis work unless explicitly allowed by the thesis supervisor. Acceptable use cases for Generative AI (if any) should be discussed with supervisors prior to their use, and in consultation with the Research Ethics Board and the wider department.
Academic Integrity
- Disclosure and attribution requirements are explicitly stated in some provided sources
- The university calendar requires students to acknowledge and document sources of ideas used in written work; the School of Business syllabus statement requires students to properly credit or cite AI use; and Psychology requires thesis acknowledgements to declare which AI tools were used, in what context, and to include a personal responsibility statement
Students are required to acknowledge and document the sources of ideas that they use in their written work.
Use of artificial intelligence tools by students to assist with their learning is allowed only if:
prior permission has been given by the course professor/instructor, and
the student properly credits/cites how the AI technology was used in their work.
Students must declare if Generative AI was used in the acknowledgements section of their thesis. This acknowledgement should include which tools were used and in what context, as well as a statement of personal responsibility for the accuracy of provided information.
- The provided sources define penalties and procedures for AI-related academic integrity violations, but they do not state a position on AI detection software
- University-wide, suspected violations trigger instructor review and a meeting with the student, and sanctions can range from redoing work to dismissal; Psychology further specifies escalating penalties for first, second, and repeated offenses, and misuse of AI in coursework is treated as an academic integrity violation
Penalties are levied in relation to the degree of the relevant infraction. They range from requiring the student to re-do the piece of work, through failure on that piece of work, to failure in the course, and to dismissal from the university.
Procedures Concerning Infractions of Academic Integrity (Academic)
a. An instructor who suspects a violation of academic integrity shall first attempt to determine if a potential violation exists. This determination shall involve a preliminary meeting between the instructor and student. If a determination is made by the instructor that the incident does not constitute a violation, no further action is initiated.
The misuse of AI tools (i.e., any use not explicitly permitted in a course by instructors) will constitute an academic integrity violation, with penalties aligned to those for cheating or plagiarism.
A first offence will result in one or more of the following, depending on the circumstances of the offense:
o A written warning
o An educational assignment (e.g., 1-page reflection on plagiarism)
o A reduction in the mark on the assignment
o A mark of zero on the assignment
o If the assignment is worth less than 5% of the overall grade, a reduction in the overall course mark of up to 5%
A second offence (confirmed by the Registrar) will result in a grade of zero for the psychology course
More than two offences will result in referral to the Dean for determination of appropriate sanction, which may involve removal from the academic program
Institutional & Administrative
- The provided Senate minutes show that Acadia was discussing broader AI governance but had not established a settled university-wide policy in the cited material
- Senate discussion notes that the Academic Integrity Committee had been asked to examine AI, and members raised whether the university needed a wider discussion or a broader AI policy beyond ad hoc approaches
K. Ashley stated that what she wanted to do at the last meeting was get a sense of what the Acadia community needs and what is already happening in terms of generative AI. The week she submitted this as an agenda item, she had three emails, two of which were external, asking what we were doing about AI. Her understanding right now is that AI is being considered by the Academic Integrity Committee, which was asked to look at the issue, possibly in terms of its most negative aspects of cheating or plagiarism. She wanted to know if Senate felt that we needed a wider discussion of AI or an AI policy that would maybe integrate positive aspects of it, as well, or whether we want things to continue on an ad hoc kind of basis.
The School of Business feels that generative AI needs to be considered more broadly than simply in terms of academic integrity.
It transcends the whole institution, and we need to put some good, thoughtful policy pieces around it.
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 Acadia University's AI Policies
Acadia University has defined AI policies in 10 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 83%.
Disclosure and attribution requirements are explicitly stated in some provided sources. The university calendar requires students to acknowledge and document sources of ideas used in written work; the School of Business syllabus statement requires students to properly credit or cite AI use; and Psychology requires thesis acknowledgements to declare which AI tools were used, in what context, and to include a personal responsibility statement.
The provided sources define penalties and procedures for AI-related academic integrity violations, but they do not state a position on AI detection software. University-wide, suspected violations trigger instructor review and a meeting with the student, and sanctions can range from redoing work to dismissal; Psychology further specifies escalating penalties for first, second, and repeated offenses, and misuse of AI in coursework is treated as an academic integrity violation.
No explicit data protection or approved AI platform policy is currently defined in the available policy sources.