Teaching & Learning
- Use of generative AI in graded coursework is prohibited when it is unapproved and used to create content submitted as the student's own work
- The catalog allows such use only when there is proper citation or explicit instructor permission, and instructors may set different written definitions of academic dishonesty for their courses
● the unapproved use of generative AI (e.g., ChatGPT, image or code generators) to produce content submitted as one’s own work, including essays, problem sets, programming code, or artistic work, without proper citation or explicit instructor permission;
Instructors whose definition of academic dishonesty differs from that stated above have the obligation and responsibility to so inform students, in writing, at the beginning of the course.
- Such use is only allowed if there is proper citation or explicit instructor permission
- Unapproved generative AI use for programming work is prohibited when students submit AI-produced code as their own
● the unapproved use of generative AI (e.g., ChatGPT, image or code generators) to produce content submitted as one’s own work, including essays, problem sets, programming code, or artistic work, without proper citation or explicit instructor permission;
Research
Academic Integrity
- The catalog also requires students to acknowledge authorities quoted, cited, or consulted in written work
- When generative AI is used in submitted work, proper citation is required unless there is explicit instructor permission
● the unapproved use of generative AI (e.g., ChatGPT, image or code generators) to produce content submitted as one’s own work, including essays, problem sets, programming code, or artistic work, without proper citation or explicit instructor permission;
● failure to properly acknowledge authorities quoted, cited, or consulted in preparing written work (plagiarism);
- The catalog does not mention AI detection tools
- It states that students who violate the academic integrity policy can be penalized, faculty must report violations to the provost, a second report can lead to dismissal, and first-offense penalties can reach double the assignment value with no make-up option; a course failure may also result in WF
Students who are guilty of such academic violations can expect to be penalized.
● Faculty members must report any student who has violated the policy on academic integrity to the provost. Upon a second report against a student, action will be initiated and could lead to dismissal of the student.
● The maximum assessable penalty for the first offense shall not exceed double the original value of the assignment plus no option to make up the work in question.
● If this results in a course failure, it may result in WF for the course grade.
Institutional & Administrative
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 Anderson College's AI Policies
Anderson College has defined AI policies in 4 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 33%.
When generative AI is used in submitted work, proper citation is required unless there is explicit instructor permission. The catalog also requires students to acknowledge authorities quoted, cited, or consulted in written work.
The catalog does not mention AI detection tools. It states that students who violate the academic integrity policy can be penalized, faculty must report violations to the provost, a second report can lead to dismissal, and first-offense penalties can reach double the assignment value with no make-up option; a course failure may also result in WF.
No explicit data protection or approved AI platform policy is currently defined in the available policy sources.