Teaching & Learning
- AI use in coursework is governed by academic honesty expectations and by instructor permission
- Presenting AI-generated work as personal work without permission or acknowledgment is treated as academic dishonesty
- Students may use AI only when it is authorized for the assignment or course, and work submitted as one’s own must accurately represent the student’s own contribution
We acknowledge the many ways that AI can support, supplement, and stimulate the intellectual process of writing. However, using AI unethically or irresponsibly can diminish writers' educational experience and usurp the communication and critical thinking practice that educators seek to provide.
It is never okay to copy and paste generated text from any source, including AI, and present it as your own.
When an assignment allows or requires the use of AI, such use should be acknowledged directly, specifically and transparently.
Misrepresenting one’s own role or the role of others in one’s coursework is academic dishonesty and subject to penalties by the instructor and the university. Examples include, but are not limited to: ... Submitting work prepared in whole or in part by another person and claiming it as one’s own ...
As a student, you are accountable for your actions. Any violations of academic integrity policies or inappropriate use of AI are your responsibility.
- The university does not state an AI-specific exam rule in the provided sources, but it does prohibit unauthorized assistance during tests and other academic work
- Whether AI is allowed in a given assessment depends on authorization from the instructor or applicable rules; unauthorized use would fall under academic dishonesty
Giving or receiving unauthorized aid, such as using unauthorized information during an exam or collaborating on assignments without permission.
Misrepresenting one’s own role or the role of others in one’s coursework is academic dishonesty and subject to penalties by the instructor and the university.
- AI may be used as a support tool, yet users must verify outputs and avoid relying on AI in ways that replace their own learning or create inaccurate work
- The university allows that AI can support learning and writing development, but it warns students to use it responsibly and remain accountable for the results
We acknowledge the many ways that AI can support, supplement, and stimulate the intellectual process of writing.
Just because AI can be used in a certain way doesn’t mean it should be, and even if it should, it should always be understood as supplemental to your own work as a writer, not as replacing your role.
As a student, you are accountable for your actions. Any violations of academic integrity policies or inappropriate use of AI are your responsibility.
Always check and verify any output generated by AI before using it. You are accountable for any output generated by AI. AI can produce false or misleading responses.
- The provided sources do not set a programming-specific AI rule
- Any AI use for coding assignments is therefore addressed only through the university’s general academic integrity and accountability rules, including the need for authorization where required and student responsibility for submitted work
As a student, you are accountable for your actions. Any violations of academic integrity policies or inappropriate use of AI are your responsibility.
Misrepresenting one’s own role or the role of others in one’s coursework is academic dishonesty and subject to penalties by the instructor and the university.
Research
- The university’s AI guidance focuses on data protection rather than research-method permissions
- Users are told not to enter confidential, personal, or regulated institutional data into publicly available AI systems, and to recognize that prompts and outputs may be retained or used for model training
DO NOT put any private, personal, or institutional data into an AI engine that is publicly available, especially anything protected by FERPA, HIPAA, Intellectual Property, Financial aid, HR records, etc.
When interacting with publicly available generative AI tools like Gemini or ChatGPT, all information entered into the generative AI tool can be visible and potentially retained by the generative AI tool provider.
OpenAI’s current AI Policy states that prompts and generated content from users of publicly available services like ChatGPT may be used to train the AI model. If you need to share sensitive or private information with OpenAI services, use OpenAI EDU to safeguard your data.
- The provided sources do not establish AI-specific rules for grant proposals, IRB applications, or research ethics declarations
- The only relevant institutional rule is that confidential or protected data should not be entered into public AI tools, which would also apply in research contexts involving sensitive information
DO NOT put any private, personal, or institutional data into an AI engine that is publicly available, especially anything protected by FERPA, HIPAA, Intellectual Property, Financial aid, HR records, etc.
The purpose of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) is to protect the rights and welfare of human research participants, and to ensure that Calvin researchers conducting studies involving human participants comply with federal regulations and Calvin policy.
Academic Integrity
- Disclosure is required when AI use is allowed or required in an assignment
- The university directs students to acknowledge AI use directly, specifically, and transparently, and its writing guidance provides a recommended disclosure format with the tool name and how it was used
When an assignment allows or requires the use of AI, such use should be acknowledged directly, specifically and transparently.
One way to achieve this is to include a Writer's Memo or Writer's Reflection in which writers indicate the software used and explain where, when and to what extent they consulted AI in their work.
For help brainstorming and generating ideas for this report, I consulted [AI Generator Name]. Specifically, I used AI to help me [add details of your use of the generator]. While AI was useful in helping me think through [x], all ideas, words, and organization in the final draft are my own.
- The provided sources do not set a university position on specific AI detection tools
- Undisclosed or unauthorized AI use can be handled through the university’s academic integrity enforcement process
- Instructors may impose course-level penalties and refer serious or repeated cases to the dean, with possible sanctions up to suspension or expulsion
Academic dishonesty is a serious offense because it threatens the integrity of the university community. It may result in severe penalties, including suspension or expulsion from the university.
Misrepresenting one’s own role or the role of others in one’s coursework is academic dishonesty and subject to penalties by the instructor and the university.
When dishonesty is serious enough to warrant failure of the course or a co-curricular sanction such as probation or suspension, the dean of the school in which the course is offered or the vice president for student life oversees disciplinary procedures.
As a student, you are accountable for your actions. Any violations of academic integrity policies or inappropriate use of AI are your responsibility.
Institutional & Administrative
- Faculty and staff may use AI tools, but they are responsible for protecting data and reviewing outputs before use
- The guidance emphasizes not entering confidential institutional information into public AI systems and maintaining accountability for any AI-generated content used in university work
All students, faculty, and staff at Calvin can access AI tools through our approved vendors Microsoft, Google, OpenAI and Zoom.
DO NOT put any private, personal, or institutional data into an AI engine that is publicly available, especially anything protected by FERPA, HIPAA, Intellectual Property, Financial aid, HR records, etc.
Always check and verify any output generated by AI before using it. You are accountable for any output generated by AI. AI can produce false or misleading responses.
- Calvin identifies approved AI vendors for campus use and prohibits entering private, personal, or institutional data into publicly available AI tools
- The guidance specifically highlights regulated and sensitive categories such as FERPA, HIPAA, intellectual property, financial aid, and HR data, and notes that public AI providers may retain prompts and outputs for training
All students, faculty, and staff at Calvin can access AI tools through our approved vendors Microsoft, Google, OpenAI and Zoom.
DO NOT put any private, personal, or institutional data into an AI engine that is publicly available, especially anything protected by FERPA, HIPAA, Intellectual Property, Financial aid, HR records, etc.
When interacting with publicly available generative AI tools like Gemini or ChatGPT, all information entered into the generative AI tool can be visible and potentially retained by the generative AI tool provider.
OpenAI’s current AI Policy states that prompts and generated content from users of publicly available services like ChatGPT may be used to train the AI model. If you need to share sensitive or private information with OpenAI services, use OpenAI EDU to safeguard your data.
- The clearest institution-wide position is a practical guidance framework focused on responsible use, accountability, and data security
- Calvin has institution-level AI guidance and a set of approved vendors, but the provided sources do not describe a formal AI governance committee, enterprise strategy, or adoption roadmap
All students, faculty, and staff at Calvin can access AI tools through our approved vendors Microsoft, Google, OpenAI and Zoom.
Always check and verify any output generated by AI before using it. You are accountable for any output generated by AI. AI can produce false or misleading responses.
DO NOT put any private, personal, or institutional data into an AI engine that is publicly available, especially anything protected by FERPA, HIPAA, Intellectual Property, Financial aid, HR records, etc.
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 Calvin College's AI Policies
Calvin College has defined AI policies in 11 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 92%.
Disclosure is required when AI use is allowed or required in an assignment. The university directs students to acknowledge AI use directly, specifically, and transparently, and its writing guidance provides a recommended disclosure format with the tool name and how it was used.
Undisclosed or unauthorized AI use can be handled through the university’s academic integrity enforcement process. Instructors may impose course-level penalties and refer serious or repeated cases to the dean, with possible sanctions up to suspension or expulsion. The provided sources do not set a university position on specific AI detection tools.
Calvin identifies approved AI vendors for campus use and prohibits entering private, personal, or institutional data into publicly available AI tools. The guidance specifically highlights regulated and sensitive categories such as FERPA, HIPAA, intellectual property, financial aid, and HR data, and notes that public AI providers may retain prompts and outputs for training.