Teaching & Learning
- Student use of AI in coursework is at instructor discretion
- Submitting work generated entirely or substantially by AI without significant student contribution is prohibited
- If an instructor permits AI, students may use it for supportive purposes such as brainstorming, research assistance, and understanding complex topics, but AI-generated content in submitted work must be clearly identified, properly cited, and accompanied by significant personal contribution
Individual faculty members may choose to prohibit any use of generative AI tools in their courses. Students should not use these tools in their course work for a particular course unless the instructor of the course permits them to. If the instructor permits, students may use generative AI tools to generate initial ideas, brainstorm, receive research assistance, understand complex topics, and other supportive uses as long as these do not compromise the student's independent critical thinking, learning, and demonstration of knowledge.
All content generated through the use of AI that contributes to a student's academic work must be:
• Clearly identified and properly cited according to the citation guidelines provided by the course faculty.
• Accompanied by significant personal contribution, critical engagement, or enhancement by the student. Examples include synthesis of AI-generated content with personal analysis or using AI outputs as a base for further exploration.
• Submitting content generated entirely or substantially by an AI tool without significant personal contribution, critical engagement, or enhancement by the student is prohibited.
- Use of AI for exams, quizzes, and other assessments is prohibited unless the instructor gives explicit permission
- The academic honor code also treats AI use to produce answers without explicit instructor permission as cheating in tests, exams, quizzes, or similar evaluations
• Using generative AI tools to complete exams, quizzes, or any assessments meant to evaluate the student's independent knowledge and thinking without explicit permission from the instructor is prohibited.
Use of Artificial Intelligence, to produce assignments (in part or in whole), essays (in part or in whole), or answers without explicit permission from the instructor, constitutes cheating. Situations where cheating may occur are during tests, exams, quizzes, or other similar methods of evaluation.
- AI may be used for learning support only when the instructor permits it
- The university expressly allows supportive uses such as brainstorming, research assistance, and understanding complex topics, so long as these uses do not compromise independent critical thinking, learning, or demonstration of knowledge
Students should not use these tools in their course work for a particular course unless the instructor of the course permits them to. If the instructor permits, students may use generative AI tools to generate initial ideas, brainstorm, receive research assistance, understand complex topics, and other supportive uses as long as these do not compromise the student's independent critical thinking, learning, and demonstration of knowledge.
Research
- The university-wide policy also requires disclosure of AI tools and AI-generated content used in scholarly publications
- For faculty and staff, AI may assist with drafting, editing, and analyzing scholarly communications, including publications, presentations, and grant proposals, but its use must be disclosed and appropriately cited
Faculty and staff are expected to use AI tools responsibly in scholarly communications, including publications, presentations, and grant proposals, to uphold academic integrity and transparency. AI may assist in drafting, editing, or analyzing content, but faculty must disclose its use, citing tools appropriately, and ensure AI-generated content is accurate and free from bias.
Must disclose AI tools and AI-generated content used in research, data analysis, and scholarly publications.
- For faculty and staff, AI may support research tasks such as data analysis or literature synthesis, but human oversight is required throughout the process
- AI contributions must be transparently documented, and final research decisions, including interpretation and conclusions, must remain under human judgment
Faculty and staff must exercise human oversight and control when integrating AI tools into research processes, ensuring compliance with the Institutional Review Board (IRB) guidelines and maintaining the ethical integrity of scholarly work. AI may support tasks such as data analysis or literature synthesis, but faculty are responsible for critically assessing AI outputs for accuracy, bias, and relevance, particularly in IRB-approved studies involving human subjects. AI contributions must be transparently documented, and final research decisions, including data interpretation and conclusions, must remain under human judgment to uphold rigorous, ethical, and IRB-compliant research standards.
Must disclose AI tools and AI-generated content used in research, data analysis, and scholarly publications.
- For scholarly communications and grant proposals, AI use must be transparent, appropriately cited, and accurate, and policy violations may result in disciplinary action
- The university requires faculty and staff to keep human oversight and control over AI in research and to comply with IRB guidelines, especially in studies involving human subjects
Faculty and staff must exercise human oversight and control when integrating AI tools into research processes, ensuring compliance with the Institutional Review Board (IRB) guidelines and maintaining the ethical integrity of scholarly work.
AI contributions must be transparently documented, and final research decisions, including data interpretation and conclusions, must remain under human judgment to uphold rigorous, ethical, and IRB-compliant research standards.
Faculty and staff are expected to use AI tools responsibly in scholarly communications, including publications, presentations, and grant proposals, to uphold academic integrity and transparency. AI may assist in drafting, editing, or analyzing content, but faculty must disclose its use, citing tools appropriately, and ensure AI-generated content is accurate and free from bias. Violations of this AI policy may constitute grounds for disciplinary action under existing university policies, including but not limited to charges of professional incompetency and neglect of duty, default of academic integrity in teaching, research, or scholarship, false swearing with respect to official documents, or violation of Board of Regents' policies as outlined in Section 8.3.9 of the University System of Georgia Policy Manual.
Academic Integrity
- Students must disclose AI use in academic work, clearly identify and properly cite AI-generated content, and provide full transcripts or interactions with AI upon request
- Faculty and staff must also require acknowledgment of AI contributions in coursework, and university documentation standards require disclosure of AI used, description of AI-generated content, and human oversight and validation procedures
All content generated through the use of AI that contributes to a student's academic work must be:
• Clearly identified and properly cited according to the citation guidelines provided by the course faculty.
• Disclose the use of generative AI tools in their academic work.
• Make available, upon request, full transcripts and/or all interactions with AI involved in the sourcing, ideation, generation, production, and/or submission of coursework. Faculty may request these items to be submitted as part of the assignment.
Faculty must clearly define AI usage expectations in their syllabi, specifying whether and how students may use AI in assignments, and ensure transparency by requiring acknowledgment of AI contributions (e.g., citing tools like ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, in the formatting style most appropriate for the course).
All academic outputs involving AI must include the following elements:
• Disclosure of AI used
• Description of AI-generated content
• Human oversight and validation procedures
- The policies do not define a university position on AI detection tools
- However, they do define enforcement consequences: failure to disclose AI use is treated as a violation of academic integrity, suspected AI misconduct should be handled through university AI and honor code procedures, and faculty/staff policy violations may lead to disciplinary action under existing university policies
• Failure to disclose the use of AI-generated content is considered a violation of academic integrity, and any remediation actions carried out by faculty and staff will be in alignment with existing Albany State University policy.
In cases of suspected academic misconduct involving AI, faculty should follow the university’s AI and honor code policies and procedures.
Violations of this AI policy may constitute grounds for disciplinary action under existing university policies, including but not limited to charges of professional incompetency and neglect of duty, default of academic integrity in teaching, research, or scholarship, false swearing with respect to official documents, or violation of Board of Regents' policies as outlined in Section 8.3.9 of the University System of Georgia Policy Manual. Such violations will be subject to the procedural due process requirements specified in Section 8.3.9.2.
Institutional & Administrative
- They must define AI expectations in syllabi, monitor AI use to prevent over-reliance and bias, acknowledge AI contributions where required, and complete annual AI training
- Faculty and staff are encouraged to integrate AI responsibly into teaching, research, and administrative duties, including developing course materials, facilitating classroom discussions, conducting research, and streamlining administrative tasks
Faculty at Albany State University are encouraged to responsibly integrate artificial intelligence (AI) tools, such as generative large language models and data analysis platforms, into their teaching, research, and administrative duties to enhance pedagogical innovation and academic excellence. AI may be used to support activities like developing course materials, facilitating classroom discussions, conducting research, or streamlining administrative tasks, provided said use aligns with the university’s commitment to academic integrity, ethical standards, and student data privacy.
Faculty must clearly define AI usage expectations in their syllabi, specifying whether and how students may use AI in assignments, and ensure transparency by requiring acknowledgment of AI contributions (e.g., citing tools like ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, in the formatting style most appropriate for the course).
Faculty are expected to complete annual AI training offered by the university to ensure competent and ethical use in the academic context as well as compliance with federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) legislation.
Faculty must monitor AI use to prevent over-reliance, ensure it does not undermine course learning outcomes, and address potential biases in AI outputs.
- The university also requires a public-facing registry of approved AI tools and periodic audits and reviews of those tools
- The university requires institutional tracking and review of AI tools used in academic contexts and states that allowable tools for student assignments will be defined and regularly updated, with prohibited tools communicated to students
- Faculty and staff are prohibited from entering student records, grades, or other personally identifiable information into public or unapproved AI platforms and must use only university-approved, secure AI tools for tasks involving student data
All AI tools used in academic contexts must be documented in an institutional inventory that includes the following data elements:
(Note: Coordinate with the institutional Chief Information Officer on this inventory)
Tool Name
Vendor
AI Tool Type (e.g., chatbot, generative AI, embedded vendor AI agent)
AI Model Type (e.g., LLM, image generator, recommendation engine)
Description of Data Interaction (institutional and student data)
Data Storage (physical location where AI tool stores data or where data servers/centers are located)
Purpose/Organizational Benefit
The AI tool inventory will be reviewed annually by the Office of Academic Affairs.
• Maintain a public-facing registry of approved AI tools, including ethical assessments and usage guidelines.
The institution will define and regularly update a list of allowable AI tools for student assignments. Prohibited tools will be clearly communicated to students.
Inputting student records, grades, or other personally identifiable information into public or unapproved AI platforms is prohibited to prevent unauthorized access or breaches. Faculty and staff are required to use only university-approved, secure AI tools for tasks involving student data
- Albany State University has an institution-wide governance framework for responsible, ethical, and transparent AI use in academic contexts
- It includes an AI Inventory Review Committee chaired by the Vice President for Academic Affairs or designee, an AI Committee to evaluate tools and investigate ethical concerns, annual policy and inventory review, mandatory onboarding and annual training, and shared accountability across Academic Affairs, Information Security, Institutional Research and Effectiveness, and Legal Affairs
This policy establishes a framework for the responsible, ethical, and transparent use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in academic contexts. It applies to all faculty, staff, and students at the university and governs the use of AI in teaching, learning, research, and scholarly communication.
The AI Inventory Review Committee, chaired by the Vice President for Academic Affairs (or designee), will coordinate the review process.
• Establish an AI Committee to evaluate new tools and investigate concerns related to ethical violations.
The university shall provide comprehensive and continuous training to faculty, staff, and students on the responsible and ethical use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in academic contexts.
Audience: All faculty, staff, and students
Frequency: Mandatory upon onboarding and annually thereafter
VII. Accountability
Office of Academic Affairs
Office of Information Security
Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness
Office of Legal Affairs
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 Albany State University's AI Policies
Albany State University has defined AI policies in 11 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 92%.
Students must disclose AI use in academic work, clearly identify and properly cite AI-generated content, and provide full transcripts or interactions with AI upon request. Faculty and staff must also require acknowledgment of AI contributions in coursework, and university documentation standards require disclosure of AI used, description of AI-generated content, and human oversight and validation procedures.
The policies do not define a university position on AI detection tools. However, they do define enforcement consequences: failure to disclose AI use is treated as a violation of academic integrity, suspected AI misconduct should be handled through university AI and honor code procedures, and faculty/staff policy violations may lead to disciplinary action under existing university policies.
The university requires institutional tracking and review of AI tools used in academic contexts and states that allowable tools for student assignments will be defined and regularly updated, with prohibited tools communicated to students. Faculty and staff are prohibited from entering student records, grades, or other personally identifiable information into public or unapproved AI platforms and must use only university-approved, secure AI tools for tasks involving student data. The university also requires a public-facing registry of approved AI tools and periodic audits and reviews of those tools.