Teaching & Learning
- The college does not set a single university-wide student rule for AI in coursework in these sources
- One Wooster source also states that using AI to complete coursework would violate the Code of Ethics
- Instead, course and assignment policies are left to faculty to define, with examples ranging from restrictive to permissive use and with task-specific rules recommended
The worry here is that students will use the AI to complete their coursework. While this would be against Wooster’s Code of Ethics, there is certainly a lot of room for experimentation and exploration among the student body.
Effective policies live in two places: the syllabus (course-level stance) and the assignment sheet (task-level rules).
* Restrictive (mitigate): No AI for idea generation or drafting; permitted for mechanics (grammar, formatting) with disclosure.
* Balanced (support): AI allowed for brainstorming, summarizing sources, citation help, and language feedback; not allowed to “write for you.” Acknowledge any use.
* Permissive (elevate): Broad AI use allowed across the workflow with explicit acknowledgement and full student accountability for accuracy and ethics.
Rather than a single rule, specify the level of AI support by activity.
- The sources do not provide a uniform institutional prohibition or permission for AI use in exams and assessments
- Instead, faculty are encouraged to redesign assessments and can choose formats that either reduce AI misuse or intentionally permit resource use under defined conditions
Alternative Assessment styles are becoming more popular among educators and students alike.
A Cheater’s Exam is an exam designed to let students cheat.
Why not only test them on their course content knowledge but also on their ability to deep deeper and grab more information, while giving them some practice with creating and citing their sources. You can have students limited to only the course readings and text, but be specific on the citations about exactly where they found the information, or give them free reign of the internet!
- These uses are presented as course-policy options rather than a mandatory university-wide student entitlement
- The sources include faculty guidance that AI may be allowed for supportive learning activities such as brainstorming, summarizing sources, citation help, language feedback, and similar early-stage assistance when an instructor permits it
* Balanced (support): AI allowed for brainstorming, summarizing sources, citation help, and language feedback; not allowed to “write for you.” Acknowledge any use.
Balanced syllabus statement (edit to fit): “In this course, AI tools may support early-stage work like brainstorming, summarizing sources, formatting citations, and language refinement. AI may not generate ideas or write sections of your assignments. You are responsible for the accuracy and ethics of any work you submit. Clearly acknowledge any AI assistance in your submission.”
Research
Academic Integrity
- Wooster's AI guidance recommends or requires, at the course-policy level, that students acknowledge, cite, and describe AI use when instructors allow it
- The sources frame this as something faculty should specify in the syllabus and assignment directions rather than as a single centralized rule across all courses
* How should students acknowledge AI assistance?
* Restrictive (mitigate): No AI for idea generation or drafting; permitted for mechanics (grammar, formatting) with disclosure.
* Balanced (support): AI allowed for brainstorming, summarizing sources, citation help, and language feedback; not allowed to “write for you.” Acknowledge any use.
* Permissive (elevate): Broad AI use allowed across the workflow with explicit acknowledgement and full student accountability for accuracy and ethics.
Always require students to cite and describe any AI use.
Balanced syllabus statement (edit to fit): “In this course, AI tools may support early-stage work like brainstorming, summarizing sources, formatting citations, and language refinement. AI may not generate ideas or write sections of your assignments. You are responsible for the accuracy and ethics of any work you submit. Clearly acknowledge any AI assistance in your submission.”
Permissive syllabus statement (edit to fit): “You may use AI tools throughout your workflow. Acknowledge any assistance, verify accuracy, and ensure sources are legitimate. You are accountable for the quality and ethics of your final work.”
- The sources say AI misuse should be handled through the standard academic integrity process, and they caution faculty not to rely on AI detectors as conclusive evidence
- One example policy states that prohibited AI use, if detected, is treated as plagiarism and disciplined accordingly, but that example is presented as a model course policy rather than a universal institutional rule
Unfortunately, because the AI is generating the work, traditional plagiarism scanners won’t work.
OpenAI, the creators of the ChatGPT are attempting to update their programming so that there is a digital watermark on any output created by the AI, with this watermark, programs like gptzero.me , crossplag, and many others allow you to check whether or not work was AI generated. While these programs are certainly mostly accurate, there are definitely instances in which the software misses the ChatGPT markers and will flag it as original, human-generated work.
Compare the submission to prior work for voice consistency, spot-check sources, and only treat detectors as advisory signals. Then meet with the student using your standard academic integrity process.
The use of generative AI, including ChatGPT and other large language models (LLMs), as well as AI-enabled writing assistants like Grammarly, is prohibited in this class. If detected, it will be treated as a form of plagiarism and disciplined accordingly.
Institutional & Administrative
- Faculty are also directed to follow college policies, applicable laws, and any department or program rules when using college technology services
- The sources explicitly encourage faculty to create course-level AI policies and consider using AI in teaching preparation, but they do not establish a binding university-wide rule for faculty or staff use in grading, feedback, or administrative work
There may also be ways for you to use ChatGPT as an educator to help you create more dynamic classrooms – faster!
Effective policies live in two places: the syllabus (course-level stance) and the assignment sheet (task-level rules).
Use of College-provided technology systems, applications, and services is governed by the College’s policies that guide student, staff, and faculty behavior and use of College-provided resources. These policies are included in the Scot’s Key , Faculty Handbook , Employee Handbook , The Handbook of Select College Policies , technology use policies for specific systems and applications , as well as department and program policies.
Use of College-provided technology systems, applications, and services is governed by applicable laws and regulations; College-provided technology systems, applications, and services must not violate any law or regulation, including those pertaining to information privacy and security.
- The college identifies Microsoft 365 Copilot as an available institutional tool, but does not provide AI-specific institutional data protection guidelines in the cited sources
## Where to find Microsoft 365 Copilot
- The AI guidance presented emphasizes course-level policy design and ethical, transparent use
- The sources show that the college is developing AI guidance through faculty-facing resources, workshops, policy examples, and course-design materials, but they do not identify a formal university-wide AI governance body or a comprehensive institutional AI strategy
These prompts anchor clear, humane policies and reduce confusion on day one.
Use the Course Impact Checklist to locate where AI touches your course and what to update first.
Academic Integrity
* Academic Honesty & the Code of Academic Integrity Policy explaining what constitutes academic dishonesty at the College of Wooster
* AI Policy Examples
General principles for use of generative AI
* Recommendations for how to maintain academic integrity, comply with AI policies, and ‘protect’ yourself from being accused of GenAI misuse
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 College of Wooster's AI Policies
College of Wooster has defined AI policies in 8 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 67%.
Wooster's AI guidance recommends or requires, at the course-policy level, that students acknowledge, cite, and describe AI use when instructors allow it. The sources frame this as something faculty should specify in the syllabus and assignment directions rather than as a single centralized rule across all courses.
The sources say AI misuse should be handled through the standard academic integrity process, and they caution faculty not to rely on AI detectors as conclusive evidence. One example policy states that prohibited AI use, if detected, is treated as plagiarism and disciplined accordingly, but that example is presented as a model course policy rather than a universal institutional rule.
The college identifies Microsoft 365 Copilot as an available institutional tool, but does not provide AI-specific institutional data protection guidelines in the cited sources.