Teaching & Learning
- The university also states that if there is no explicit permission, use of AI for graded or assessable learning outcomes is not permitted
- For graded coursework and assignments, AI use is generally prohibited unless an instructor explicitly and formally allows or encourages it
- In the PA program, absent a clear statement from the course director, generative AI is treated like unauthorized assistance, and substantially completing an assignment with AI is not permitted
Students are encouraged to use AI tools in the same way that they might responsibly use the internet generally or other types of software. If an instructor explicitly and formally states that the use of AI is allowed or encouraged for a particular element of a course, then that instructor’s directions are a student’s authoritative guide.
Conversely, if an instructor explicitly and formally states that the use of AI is not allowed for a particular element of a course, then that instructor’s directions are the authoritative guide.
Lacking their instructor's explicit and formal encouragement or permission, however, or with no other guidance, for assignments, exams, essays, or any other graded work, the use of AI tools to achieve graded or otherwise assessable learning outcomes in a course is not permitted at George Fox University.
Absent a clear statement from a course director, the use of or consultation with generative AI shall be treated analogously to assistance from another person or disallowed resource (and thus would be forbidden under the same circumstances as any other form of academic dishonesty). In particular, using generative AI tools to substantially complete an assignment, paper, exam, or any other course element is not permitted.
- AI use in exams and other formal assessments is prohibited unless the instructor has explicitly and formally permitted it
- The PA program separately states that using generative AI to substantially complete an exam or other course element is not permitted unless a course director clearly states otherwise
Conversely, if an instructor explicitly and formally states that the use of AI is not allowed for a particular element of a course, then that instructor’s directions are the authoritative guide.
Lacking their instructor's explicit and formal encouragement or permission, however, or with no other guidance, for assignments, exams, essays, or any other graded work, the use of AI tools to achieve graded or otherwise assessable learning outcomes in a course is not permitted at George Fox University.
Absent a clear statement from a course director, the use of or consultation with generative AI shall be treated analogously to assistance from another person or disallowed resource (and thus would be forbidden under the same circumstances as any other form of academic dishonesty). In particular, using generative AI tools to substantially complete an assignment, paper, exam, or any other course element is not permitted.
- The university also cautions students to verify AI outputs and remain responsible for their own learning and accuracy
- Students are told to check for instructor permission when class activities or assignments are involved, and to disclose AI use where permission exists
- The university encourages students to use AI in ways that support learning and mastery, such as concept clarification, reciprocal questioning, feedback, and study support
Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems are powerful tools that are growing more common even as we continue learning more about their abilities and limitations. We encourage students to keep this key question in mind when deciding how to use AI:
Am I using AI in a way that helps me learn and develop mastery?
Read the George Fox University AI statement and follow these guidelines from the statement:
* Exercise responsibility for the content you create and stay engaged in the learning process (with or without AI).
* Check for instructor permission about AI use (related to learning outcomes of class activities/assignments).
* Where permission exists, make sure to disclose any use of AI for class activities or assignments (by formal citation, less formal attribution, and/or a framing statement as appropriate).
* If an instructor has not explicitly invited use of AI, ask permission before utilizing AI for ANY assignments.
Note: AI systems can provide incomplete or false information ("hallucinations"). Double-check any AI output and be sure the responses make sense and you understand any steps that are presented. You are ultimately responsible for your learning and the accuracy of information.
Encourage Students to Use AI
How can students use AI in a way that reduces cognitive atrophy and enhances student learning? For example, students might use a vetted AI tool to develop conceptual understanding of a topic by asking clarifying questions and critical thinking questions. They might use an AI tool as a reciprocal teaching tool, where a chatbot asks the students clarifying questions as they get closer to understanding a theory. Students might use AI tools for feedback on their work or trends in what to study.
The chatbots can then function as a quizmaster to improve retention of course content through a recall and rehearsal process.
- In the PA program, GitHub is specifically listed among AI tools covered by the prohibition on substantially completing assignments, papers, exams, or other course elements with generative AI
- The university does not provide a separate university-wide coding policy, but its general academic rule applies: AI use for graded work is not permitted unless an instructor explicitly and formally allows it
Lacking their instructor's explicit and formal encouragement or permission, however, or with no other guidance, for assignments, exams, essays, or any other graded work, the use of AI tools to achieve graded or otherwise assessable learning outcomes in a course is not permitted at George Fox University.
The types of materials that would fall under the category of “AI tools” for this purpose include, but are not limited to, things like ChatGPT, Bard, Claude, GitHub, Copy.ai, Rephrase.ai, and many more, as well as the text-generative aspects of popular tools such as (but again, not limited to) Grammarly, i.e., GrammarlyGO.
In particular, using generative AI tools to substantially complete an assignment, paper, exam, or any other course element is not permitted.
Research
Academic Integrity
- For admissions and university applications, students who use AI to compose materials must formally acknowledge that use
- The student guidance also says that where permission exists, AI use for class activities or assignments should be disclosed through citation, attribution, and/or a framing statement
- The university requires students to disclose and cite AI-generated content when it rises to the level of academic citability, and failure to do so is treated as plagiarism and academic dishonesty
In any case, if a student does use AI tools to generate responses, phrases, outlines, text, images, or any other content that rises to the level of academic citability as it would generally be understand in the discipline or course in question, then the student must still disclose that fact and cite the AI program they use; failure to do so is plagiarism and will be treated formally as academic dishonesty, according to the GFU Academic Handbook.
Similarly, the George Fox University expectation for students applying for admission to any university degree or non-degree program, activity, scholarship, or any other formal university-related programming is that all written work is a student's own—i.e., not the product of an AI language tool. If or when students do persist in using AI language tools to compose such materials, again, they must formally acknowledge that use.
Students should acknowledge the use of generative AI and default to disclosing such assistance when in doubt.
Where permission exists, make sure to disclose any use of AI for class activities or assignments (by formal citation, less formal attribution, and/or a framing statement as appropriate).
Students should acknowledge the use of generative AI (other than incidental use) and default to disclosing such assistance when in doubt.
- Undisclosed or unauthorized AI use is handled through the university's academic dishonesty framework
- Faculty are instructed to follow the academic honesty violation process, which includes meetings, formal reporting for more serious cases, university review, and appeals
- The university equates unauthorized generative AI use with forbidden assistance from another person or disallowed resource, and violations can lead to penalties ranging from assignment failure to suspension or dismissal
In any case, if a student does use AI tools to generate responses, phrases, outlines, text, images, or any other content that rises to the level of academic citability as it would generally be understand in the discipline or course in question, then the student must still disclose that fact and cite the AI program they use; failure to do so is plagiarism and will be treated formally as academic dishonesty, according to the GFU Academic Handbook.
In general, the unauthorized use of generative AI shall be treated analogously to forbidden assistance from another person or disallowed resource, digital or otherwise (and thus would be forbidden under the same circumstances as any other form of academic dishonesty).
Penalties may include restitution, a failing grade on an individual paper or exam, loss of campus position or employment, a failing grade for the course, disciplinary probation, suspension, or dismissal.
A faculty member who suspects an academic honesty violation will attempt to schedule a meeting with the student to discuss the concern within five (5) working days of discovering the potential violation.
If the infraction is moderate to severe, shows clear intent, or the student is uncooperative, the faculty member will assess an initial penalty (such as a zero on the assignment) and submit an official Academic Dishonesty Report Form to the AAO within two (2) working days.
Absent a clear statement from a course director, the use of or consultation with generative AI shall be treated analogously to assistance from another person or disallowed resource (and thus would be forbidden under the same circumstances as any other form of academic dishonesty).
Penalties and/or remediation that may be applied to individual cases include one or more of the following:
● Conversation and counsel
● Written reprimand
● Requirement to redo work in question
● Requirement to submit additional work
● Lowering of grade on work in question
● Assigning the grade of F to work in question
● Recommendation for more severe punishment, up to and including probation or dismissal from the program and University.
Institutional & Administrative
- Institutionally, AI tools are also presented as available for teaching, research, and administrative tasks across campus
- Faculty are given guidance rather than a strict prohibition: they are encouraged to disclose when and how they use AI, model transparent AI practices for students, critically evaluate AI output, protect student information, and align AI use with course learning outcomes
In a spirit of discipleship and mentoring students in their discernment while using generative AI, the following guidelines provide some pedagogically-based practices for instructors at George Fox University.
Disclose When and How You Are Using AI
What is appropriate in your field, and what conventions need to be used and/or adapted? For example, this could be a syllabus statement at the beginning of the semester or formal citation on individual documents or activities you generate for class.
Model the Process You Want Students to Use in Their Own Work
How are you creating a culture of disclosure regarding AI? Be transparent about what you are doing and be clear about your expectations for students.
Critically Engage Output, Process and Source Databases
Where does the output/content come from? How does it get generated? How good, fair, representative, inclusive, and/or accurate is it? Evaluate the source(s) as you would any other referenced material. Contextualize and adapt both input (prompts) and output (content) to respond to these answers.
Protect Any Sensitive Student Information
How does an AI system or AI detection platform store input (including potentially student work)? Are students aware that you are sharing their intellectual property with a third-party AI tool? Do not enter student work into any platforms that do not comply with FERPA regulations. Do not give students’ intellectual property to a platform that may use it for training purposes.
Align AI Use (And Encouragement Of Students’ Use) With Learning Outcomes
How can instructors integrate AI usage into the curriculum in a way that aligns with course goals and learning outcomes while also being cognizant of the ways that AI continues to change the current context within their disciplines?
There are a range of cutting-edge Artificial Intelligence tools available through your George Fox Google account designed to enhance learning, teaching, research, and administrative tasks across our campus.
- It also states that George Fox does not have data protection agreements with other AI providers such as OpenAI/ChatGPT, Anthropic/Claude, or Apple Intelligence
- The university directs users toward institutionally provided Google AI tools and states that data protections in Google Workspace apply to Gemini, with data not used for AI training
- Faculty are additionally told not to enter student work into platforms that do not comply with FERPA and not to give students' intellectual property to platforms that may use it for training
Current AI service offerings include:
* Gemini within Google Workspace for Education Plus: This powerful AI assistant is available on it's own page - gemini.google.com .
* Gemini Premium for Education (Pilot Program): A select group of users are participating in a pilot program to explore the advanced capabilities of Gemini Premium for Education.
Using Google's Gemini AI and NotebookLM through our institutional services (the GFU account) means the same mechanisms used to protect and partition data within Google Workspace also apply to Gemini. Your data is not used for AI training.
George Fox University does not have data protection agreements with other AI providers such as OpenAI/ChatGPT, Anthropic/Claude, or Apple Intelligence.
Because of the University's license with Google, interactions with Gemini are more secure than when using other LLMs.
Do not enter student work into any platforms that do not comply with FERPA regulations. Do not give students’ intellectual property to a platform that may use it for training purposes.
- No formal AI committee or governance body is identified in the provided sources
- The university also describes campus-wide AI access through George Fox Google accounts and a pilot program for Gemini Premium for Education, indicating an institutional rollout strategy
- George Fox states an institution-wide approach that AI should sometimes play a role in learning and sometimes should not, emphasizing discernment, learning outcomes, and faith integration
George Fox University is committed to Christian faith integration and powerful learning outcomes for students—thinking, writing, learning, and communicating. We believe education is conducive to our flourishing as beings created in the image of God. At some points, artificial intelligence tools (AI) should play a role in this learning journey; at other points, they should not. Wisdom and discernment about the words and content we create remain important individually and in the community.
There are a range of cutting-edge Artificial Intelligence tools available through your George Fox Google account designed to enhance learning, teaching, research, and administrative tasks across our campus. Recognizing the transformative potential of AI, we provide access to several platforms tailored to different needs and levels of use.
Current AI service offerings include:
* Gemini within Google Workspace for Education Plus: This powerful AI assistant is available on it's own page - gemini.google.com .
* Gemini Premium for Education (Pilot Program): A select group of users are participating in a pilot program to explore the advanced capabilities of Gemini Premium for Education.
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 George Fox University's AI Policies
George Fox University has defined AI policies in 9 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 75%.
The university requires students to disclose and cite AI-generated content when it rises to the level of academic citability, and failure to do so is treated as plagiarism and academic dishonesty. The student guidance also says that where permission exists, AI use for class activities or assignments should be disclosed through citation, attribution, and/or a framing statement. For admissions and university applications, students who use AI to compose materials must formally acknowledge that use.
Undisclosed or unauthorized AI use is handled through the university's academic dishonesty framework. The university equates unauthorized generative AI use with forbidden assistance from another person or disallowed resource, and violations can lead to penalties ranging from assignment failure to suspension or dismissal. Faculty are instructed to follow the academic honesty violation process, which includes meetings, formal reporting for more serious cases, university review, and appeals.
The university directs users toward institutionally provided Google AI tools and states that data protections in Google Workspace apply to Gemini, with data not used for AI training. It also states that George Fox does not have data protection agreements with other AI providers such as OpenAI/ChatGPT, Anthropic/Claude, or Apple Intelligence. Faculty are additionally told not to enter student work into platforms that do not comply with FERPA and not to give students' intellectual property to platforms that may use it for training.