Teaching & Learning
- Use of generative AI for graded coursework is prohibited unless the instructor explicitly permits it
- When permission is given, students must follow the instructor’s rules and give proper credit for AI use; the policy also says students are responsible for clarifying what help is allowed
• use of ChatGPT or other generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) without explicit permission from the instructor.
Unauthorized use of Artificial Intelligence (AI), or failure to disclose when or how AI has been used when authorization is given, is a violation of the Honor Code. Students may only use AI generative writing, artistic, or translating tools (such as but not limited to ChatGPT or Bard) when and as specified by the instructor. If and when such AI use is permitted, students must follow all guidelines established by the professor regarding acknowledging or referencing such use. Under the Honor Code, students must give proper credit whenever such AI is used.
Everything submitted to an instructor for a grade / credit / assessment is subject to the Honor Code Policy. It is the student’s responsibility to clarify whether (s)he can receive help / collaborate and the kind of help / collaboration allowed.
- AI use during exams is prohibited unless the exam question specifically authorizes it
- If unauthorized AI use is suspected, the professor may require additional evaluation measures and use those results for grading and Honor Code reporting
Use of AI to answer questions on exams is prohibited unless the question specifies that you are to use it. If unauthorized use of AI is suspected, the professor may implement reasonable supplemental or replacement measures to evaluate student knowledge or understanding of the topic, and the professor can use the results of such measures to re-evaluate the grade and to support reporting the student for an Honor Code violation.
Everything submitted to an instructor for a grade / credit / assessment is subject to the Honor Code Policy.
- The university does not provide a separate university-wide rule for non-graded personal study use of AI
- Its stated policy instead places responsibility on students to clarify with the instructor what assistance is allowed when work is submitted for grade, credit, or assessment
Everything submitted to an instructor for a grade / credit / assessment is subject to the Honor Code Policy. It is the student’s responsibility to clarify whether (s)he can receive help / collaborate and the kind of help / collaboration allowed.
Research
Academic Integrity
- The policy also requires students to give proper credit whenever AI is used
- Disclosure of AI use is required when an instructor has authorized it, and students must follow the professor’s directions for acknowledging or referencing that use
Unauthorized use of Artificial Intelligence (AI), or failure to disclose when or how AI has been used when authorization is given, is a violation of the Honor Code.
If and when such AI use is permitted, students must follow all guidelines established by the professor regarding acknowledging or referencing such use. Under the Honor Code, students must give proper credit whenever such AI is used.
- Unauthorized or undisclosed AI use is treated as an Honor Code violation
- Faculty may use supplemental or replacement evaluations when they suspect unauthorized AI use, may re-evaluate grades based on those measures, and may report students for Honor Code violations; sanctions range from assignment penalties up to university dismissal, with escalating procedures for repeat offenses
Unauthorized use of Artificial Intelligence (AI), or failure to disclose when or how AI has been used when authorization is given, is a violation of the Honor Code.
If unauthorized use of AI is suspected, the professor may implement reasonable supplemental or replacement measures to evaluate student knowledge or understanding of the topic, and the professor can use the results of such measures to re-evaluate the grade and to support reporting the student for an Honor Code violation.
Violations of the Honor Code will not be tolerated, and such breaches of academic trust will be met with appropriate sanctions. Professors have the ability to sanction students accused of breaching the Honor Code and have the responsibility of adding the names of such students to a university list of Honor Code violations. Sanctions for violators will be determined by the professor alone except in egregious cases, when the university may also take action.
Violation of Academic Honesty may include a range of sanctions, up to and including dismissal from Alvernia University.
Institutional & Administrative
- The university prohibits third-party AI note-takers and similar proxies in Alvernia-owned virtual meeting spaces and Alvernia-controlled in-person meetings
- If an external provider uses AI notetaking, the Alvernia organizer or attendee must obtain consent, follow legal obligations, ensure accuracy review, and protect accessibility and retention requirements
At this time, all third-party AI note-takers (such as Reader.AI or Otter.AI) and any other third-party proxy are prohibited in (i) all Alvernia-owned Zoom sessions, Microsoft Teams meetings, and other teleconferencing and meeting spaces and (ii) all Alvernia controlled in-person meetings.
In the event an external provider uses an AI note-taker in a virtual meeting or an in-person meeting, , the Alvernia meeting organizer or attendee is, at all times, responsible for obtaining consent and following legal obligations, understanding and adhering to legal requirements about consent, data retention, and disclosure when using AI notetaker/recording tools.
• It is the host's responsibility to remove any unapproved guest note-taking tools from the meeting and to notify the group that unauthorized note-takers will be removed ensuring that participants feel secure in that meeting data is handled appropriately.
• In the event an external provider uses AI notetaking, participants must be aware that AI notes may contain errors and should be reviewed for accuracy before widespread distribution.
o Verification is crucial, particularly for high-stakes decisions.
o Notes must be reviewed by the host, verified by participants, and formally approved by the represented group.
- Alvernia bars third-party AI note-takers in university-controlled meetings because it cannot control what data they collect or how they use it
- The policy assigns ITAC responsibility to maintain a list of acceptable AI note-takers and requires sensitive data to be handled securely, with AI notetaking turned off for sensitive meetings, confidential discussions, and student-related discussions; retention and storage must follow university data protection and record-keeping rules
ITAC Maintains and enforces this policy. Work with university senior leadership to establish and maintain a list of acceptable AI Notetakers.
Alvernia cannot control what data these tools collect and how that data is used. At this time, all third-party AI note-takers (such as Reader.AI or Otter.AI) and any other third-party proxy are prohibited in (i) all Alvernia-owned Zoom sessions, Microsoft Teams meetings, and other teleconferencing and meeting spaces and (ii) all Alvernia controlled in-person meetings. Alvernia cannot control what data these tools collect and how that data is used.
• Sensitive data must be handled securely. Review university data protection policies regarding storage, access, and retention periods: Information Technology Policies | Alvernia University
• In the event an external provider uses AI notetaking, the AI notetaking must be turned off for:
o sensitive meetings like performance evaluations, disciplinary matters, or discussions with students.
o breaks or when discussing confidential information. Ensure sensitive information is not recorded inadvertently.
Reten tion and storage of AI notes:
• In the event an external provider uses AI notetaking:
o Retention periods should align with the nature of the meeting and any university record-keeping policies and follow university data protection protocols.
o Meeting notes should be moved to an identified storage location to ensure University retention policies are met.
- The university has a defined governance structure for its AI notetaking policy rather than a broad institutional AI strategy in the provided sources
- ITAC maintains and enforces the policy and works with senior leadership on acceptable tools, while the Senior Leadership Team gives final approval and reviews exceptions
ITAC Maintains and enforces this policy. Work with university senior leadership to establish and maintain a list of acceptable AI Notetakers. Receives exceptions to the policy.
Senior Leadership Team Serves as final approval for policy and assists with reviewing exceptions to the policy.
This policy addresses the use of AI notetakers and recording tools in university meetings, both virtual and face-to-face.
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 Alvernia University's AI Policies
Alvernia University has defined AI policies in 8 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 67%.
Disclosure of AI use is required when an instructor has authorized it, and students must follow the professor’s directions for acknowledging or referencing that use. The policy also requires students to give proper credit whenever AI is used.
Unauthorized or undisclosed AI use is treated as an Honor Code violation. Faculty may use supplemental or replacement evaluations when they suspect unauthorized AI use, may re-evaluate grades based on those measures, and may report students for Honor Code violations; sanctions range from assignment penalties up to university dismissal, with escalating procedures for repeat offenses.
Alvernia bars third-party AI note-takers in university-controlled meetings because it cannot control what data they collect or how they use it. The policy assigns ITAC responsibility to maintain a list of acceptable AI note-takers and requires sensitive data to be handled securely, with AI notetaking turned off for sensitive meetings, confidential discussions, and student-related discussions; retention and storage must follow university data protection and record-keeping rules.