Teaching & Learning
- Course-level AI rules are set by individual faculty, and students must follow the policy stated in each course
- Unauthorized AI use is treated as cheating under the academic integrity policy, but instructors may also prohibit AI entirely, require prior permission, or allow limited use with citation and without letting AI constitute the whole submission
The faculty are responsible for offering clear guidance to students on where your course stands with regards to A.I. since different courses may have different guidelines.
The unauthorized use of AI generative software currently falls under the cheating category of the Academic Integrity Policy.
Collaboration with AI text composition software (like ChatGPT) is not permitted in this course.
Please obtain permission from me before collaborating with peers or AI generative software (like ChatGPT for text or Midjourney for images) on assignments for this course.
You may collaborate with AI generative software (like ChatGPT for text) on assignments for this course but they must not constitute the entirety of your assignment, and they must be properly cited to distinguish their role using the course-sanctioned citation method. Citation models for AI are evolving, so please refer to the syllabus for current examples.
- The examples explicitly note that some assignments may never allow AI, including an in-class writing exercise
- The university does not set a single AI rule for exams and assessments in the provided materials; instead, faculty are told to define course-specific rules
The faculty are responsible for offering clear guidance to students on where your course stands with regards to A.I. since different courses may have different guidelines.
"The AI Assessment Scale: From No AI to Full AI," by Leon Furze, 2023 - introduces a sliding scale to clarify for students which assignments might never allow AI (such as an in-class writing exercise) or which might use limited amounts of AI (for brainstorming or drafting outlines from student notes).
- AI use for learning support is not governed by a single university-wide student rule in the provided sources; it depends on the instructor's course policy
- Where instructors allow AI, students may use chatbots for early-stage idea development or source-finding, but they are expected to cite AI-derived material and verify information independently
The faculty are responsible for offering clear guidance to students on where your course stands with regards to A.I. since different courses may have different guidelines.
Using AI chatbots to produce initial drafts of claims. Students should cite the entirety of the AI chatbot version of the claim in a footnote or endnote so the instructor can compare/contrast the final, student-written claim from the first draft by the AI chatbot.
Using AI Chatbots (especially in search engines like Bing) to identify sources for reference in a student’s argument. Note that AI chatbots may return inauthentic sources and falsehoods that the Chatbot mistakenly believes to be true, so students should be warned to double-check the authenticity of the source and citation by trying to find it using library.colum.edu.
Information presented in the output of an AI is not a primary source of information. It should always be fact checked against other sources.
- Code generation is addressed only as a course-level possibility, not a uniform rule
- If an instructor allows it, AI-generated code drafts may be used only when the student subsequently edits or redrafts them, and the AI use must be declared in the final submission with the original draft available to the instructor if required
Using AI chatbots or other generative software to produce initial drafts of code, imagery, or sketches that the student subsequently edits, alters, or redrafts into their own creative endeavor. The use of software must be declared in the final submission's description and the student should be prepared to include or share the original, software-generated draft with the instructor depending on the assignment requirements.
Research
Academic Integrity
- When AI use is permitted, students are expected to disclose and cite it
- The materials say all content taken from AI should be cited, AI use may need to be declared in the final submission, and applicants submitting AI-augmented admissions materials must explain where AI was used, how it contributed, and why it was used
They should cite ALL content taken from an AI to avoid academic misconduct.
Citing the use of an AI text generator is not the same as citing the source of a piece of information.
You may collaborate with AI generative software (like ChatGPT for text) on assignments for this course but they must not constitute the entirety of your assignment, and they must be properly cited to distinguish their role using the course-sanctioned citation method.
The use of software must be declared in the final submission's description and the student should be prepared to include or share the original, software-generated draft with the instructor depending on the assignment requirements.
AI-augmented work may be submitted if its use is transparent and properly credited. Applicants should indicate where AI was used, how it contributed to the work, and why it was incorporated into their creative process.
- Undisclosed or unauthorized AI use is enforced through the academic integrity process and is currently categorized as cheating
- The materials direct faculty to begin with a conversation with the student and then follow academic integrity procedures, while also warning that AI detection tools are biased and can falsely accuse non-native English speakers
The unauthorized use of AI generative software currently falls under the cheating category of the Academic Integrity Policy.
Concerns with unauthorized use of AI should begin with a conversation between the student and faculty member and follow the steps in the Academic Integrity Policy.
If they appear to be in violation please follow the procedures in the Academic Integrity Policy.
Please be aware that AI detection tools are biased against students who do not speak English as their first language, falsely accusing them of cheating.
Institutional & Administrative
- Faculty are required to set and communicate course AI policies to students
- The university provides sample syllabus language and encourages instructors to explain their policy in class, specify whether AI is authorized, define citation expectations, and state how first and second offenses will be handled
The faculty are responsible for offering clear guidance to students on where your course stands with regards to A.I. since different courses may have different guidelines.
If you have not already, please add a policy on using AI generative software to your syllabus and take a few minutes in class to explain your policy.
On the other hand, you may want to authorize some degree of A.I. in your course, in which case you need to clearly indicate how and under what circumstances, as well as whether/how you want that A.I. use to be cited.
Faculty should inform students of the Citation Challenges for AI generative software.
- However, the text provided here does not specify approved platforms, prohibited platforms, or detailed data classification rules
- The provided sources reference a separate institutional security and privacy policy for AI that defines when AI can be used, when consent is required, how consent is obtained, how AI use should be communicated, and ethics around use
Columbia College Chicago's Security and Privacy for Artificial Intelligence policy defines Artificial Intelligence (AI), in which situations it can be used, when consent is required and how it can be acquired, how to communicate it is in use, and the ethics around its usage.
- The materials therefore show an emerging governance approach, but no broader institutional strategy or roadmap is defined in the provided texts
- The university has identifiable AI governance activity through an AI Taskforce that supplies sample classroom policies, and the institution states it may revise academic integrity policy as AI practices evolve
Some sample policies suggested by the AI Taskforce at Columbia College:
However, we remain committed to exploring potential changes to the policy, as necessary, in the future.
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 Columbia College Chicago's AI Policies
Columbia College Chicago has defined AI policies in 9 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 75%.
When AI use is permitted, students are expected to disclose and cite it. The materials say all content taken from AI should be cited, AI use may need to be declared in the final submission, and applicants submitting AI-augmented admissions materials must explain where AI was used, how it contributed, and why it was used.
Undisclosed or unauthorized AI use is enforced through the academic integrity process and is currently categorized as cheating. The materials direct faculty to begin with a conversation with the student and then follow academic integrity procedures, while also warning that AI detection tools are biased and can falsely accuse non-native English speakers.
The provided sources reference a separate institutional security and privacy policy for AI that defines when AI can be used, when consent is required, how consent is obtained, how AI use should be communicated, and ethics around use. However, the text provided here does not specify approved platforms, prohibited platforms, or detailed data classification rules.