Teaching & Learning
- Use of generative AI in graded coursework is at instructor discretion rather than governed by a single blanket permission
- If AI use violates an instructor's directions, it can be treated as academic misconduct under the student academic integrity policy
- IU advises instructors to set and communicate course-specific expectations, and students are responsible for following those expectations
There is no one answer to this question as acceptable use depends on the learning goals and activities in each course. We believe that instructional staff are best positioned to decide whether and how students should use AI in their courses.
If your instructor's syllabus or assignment prompt is unclear, ask your instructor for guidance before using AI.
A student must not adopt or reproduce ideas, words, or statements of another person without appropriate acknowledgment.
A student must give credit to the originality of others and acknowledge an indebtedness whenever:
a. Directly quoting another person's actual words, whether oral or written;
b. Using another person's ideas, opinions, or theories;
c. Paraphrasing the words, ideas, opinions, or theories of others, whether oral or written;
d. Borrowing facts, statistics, or illustrative material; ore. Offering materials assembled or collected by others in the form of projects or collections without acknowledgment.
- IU does not have a separate, university-wide policy for AI use in examinations; it is governed by the same principle of instructor discretion that applies to coursework more broadly
- The university advises instructors to design assessments so AI use is either irrelevant or intentionally integrated, and to state clearly in their syllabus or assessment instructions whether AI is allowed, encouraged, required, or prohibited for specific exams and assessments
For assessment, instructors should design assessments for which the use of generative AI is either (a) irrelevant, (b) encouraged but not required, or (c) required. ...instructors should clearly state their expectations for the use of GAI in their syllabi, including for assessments.
If you are using traditional, high-stakes assessments like closed-book in-class exams or essays, you might decide to prohibit AI use and use tools like Respondus Monitor to proctor exams.
- The guidance is framed as study support rather than submission of AI output as one's own graded work
- IU explicitly permits students to use AI as a learning aid for studying, understanding concepts, generating practice materials, and getting feedback on drafts, while cautioning that AI can be wrong and should be used critically
Here are some examples of ways AI could support your learning:
Summarize your notes in a way that makes them easier to review.
Generate test questions or flashcards.
Explain a complex concept in simpler terms.
Help troubleshoot or debug computer code.
Provide feedback on your writing.
Create a study schedule.
AI can provide useful support for learning, but it has limits. It can make mistakes, misrepresent facts, or overlook context. Always think critically and verify information, especially if you're using it to study or complete assignments.
- IU states that whether students may use AI in programming work depends on the instructor and course goals
- Student-facing guidance also allows AI to help troubleshoot or debug code as a study aid, but this does not override course-specific restrictions on graded programming assignments
There is no one answer to this question as acceptable use depends on the learning goals and activities in each course. We believe that instructional staff are best positioned to decide whether and how students should use AI in their courses.
Help troubleshoot or debug computer code.
Research
- IU does not provide a university-wide rule in the supplied sources specifically authorizing or banning AI for drafting or editing scholarly manuscripts
- The closest institution-level research guidance is that researchers remain responsible for the accuracy and integrity of their work and should follow responsible conduct standards
Indiana University expects all members of the IU research community to adhere to the highest standards of integrity in all aspects of research.
Responsible Conduct of Research training promotes research integrity and compliance with federal regulations, laws, and institutional policies and procedures.
- The provided sources do not define a research-specific policy on using AI for data analysis or synthetic data generation
- However, IU does impose data-handling limits on AI tools: sensitive university data should only be used with approved enterprise tools and according to data classification rules
The university's recently expanded access to approved generative AI tools means more flexibility than ever in choosing platforms, but not all tools have the same security standards or approval status.
Restricted data is classified as critical and highly sensitive. Its unauthorized disclosure, alteration, or destruction could cause significant harm to the university, individuals, or affiliated entities.
University-internal data is data intended for official use within the university. While it is not classified as public, unauthorized disclosure, alteration, or destruction could still inconvenience university operations or violate privacy expectations.
- IU requires the research community to maintain high standards of integrity and treats fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism as research misconduct
- The supplied sources do not set AI-specific rules for grant proposals, IRB submissions, or ethics declarations, but they do place AI-related research activity under general research integrity and responsible conduct expectations
Indiana University expects all members of the IU research community to adhere to the highest standards of integrity in all aspects of research.
Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.
Responsible Conduct of Research training promotes research integrity and compliance with federal regulations, laws, and institutional policies and procedures.
Academic Integrity
- IU requires acknowledgment of others' ideas, words, and materials under its academic integrity rules, which can apply when AI-generated material is used in student work
- In addition, IU advises instructors to explain in their syllabi how students should document AI use, indicating that disclosure expectations may vary by course rather than being fully standardized university-wide
A student must not adopt or reproduce ideas, words, or statements of another person without appropriate acknowledgment.
A student must give credit to the originality of others and acknowledge an indebtedness whenever:
a. Directly quoting another person's actual words, whether oral or written;
b. Using another person's ideas, opinions, or theories;
c. Paraphrasing the words, ideas, opinions, or theories of others, whether oral or written;
d. Borrowing facts, statistics, or illustrative material; ore. Offering materials assembled or collected by others in the form of projects or collections without acknowledgment.
Instructors should be clear about how they expect students to cite and document their use of generative AI.
- IU's supplied sources emphasize normal academic misconduct enforcement rather than endorsing a specific AI-detection system
- Undisclosed or unauthorized AI use can be pursued through existing academic integrity procedures when it amounts to plagiarism or other misconduct
Violation of the standards of academic conduct or requirements of an instructor are subject to academic penalty by the instructor and/or disciplinary action by the university.
A student must not adopt or reproduce ideas, words, or statements of another person without appropriate acknowledgment.
Institutional & Administrative
- The sources also show university-supported AI access for faculty and staff and emphasize that instructional staff should decide student-use rules in their own courses
- IU encourages faculty and staff to explore AI for teaching and work tasks, but expects intentional human oversight and course-policy clarity when AI is used in instruction
We believe that instructional staff are best positioned to decide whether and how students should use AI in their courses.
Faculty should clearly communicate their expectations for AI use in their courses.
Staff and faculty can now access ChatGPT Edu at no cost through IUexpand, IU's online course platform.
Google Gemini is now available at no cost to all Indiana University students, faculty, and staff through the university's enterprise license with Google.
- IU distinguishes between approved enterprise AI platforms and other tools, and it ties AI use to university data-classification rules
- Sensitive institutional data must not be entered into unapproved tools; approved access includes enterprise offerings such as ChatGPT Edu and Google Gemini, with separate handling expectations for restricted and university-internal data
The university's recently expanded access to approved generative AI tools means more flexibility than ever in choosing platforms, but not all tools have the same security standards or approval status.
Staff and faculty can now access ChatGPT Edu at no cost through IUexpand, IU's online course platform.
Google Gemini is now available at no cost to all Indiana University students, faculty, and staff through the university's enterprise license with Google.
Restricted data is classified as critical and highly sensitive. Its unauthorized disclosure, alteration, or destruction could cause significant harm to the university, individuals, or affiliated entities.
University-internal data is data intended for official use within the university. While it is not classified as public, unauthorized disclosure, alteration, or destruction could still inconvenience university operations or violate privacy expectations.
- IU has a formal institutional AI governance structure and strategy process through its Generative AI Task Force and broader university AI initiatives
- The university's materials describe organized leadership, task-force reporting, pilot programs, and expansion of institutionally supported AI tools and training
The Indiana University Generative AI Task Force was charged with making recommendations to the President and Provost related to the use of generative AI in teaching, research, and administrative work.
This report presents the final recommendations of the Indiana University Generative AI Task Force.
Indiana University is strengthening its national leadership in artificial intelligence with a broad range of initiatives focused on research, teaching and learning, and the university's operations.
IU launched a pilot of ChatGPT Enterprise this fall for approximately 100 users, including faculty and staff from every campus and several students.
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 Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI)'s AI Policies
Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) has defined AI policies in 12 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 100%.
IU requires acknowledgment of others' ideas, words, and materials under its academic integrity rules, which can apply when AI-generated material is used in student work. In addition, IU advises instructors to explain in their syllabi how students should document AI use, indicating that disclosure expectations may vary by course rather than being fully standardized university-wide.
IU's supplied sources emphasize normal academic misconduct enforcement rather than endorsing a specific AI-detection system. Undisclosed or unauthorized AI use can be pursued through existing academic integrity procedures when it amounts to plagiarism or other misconduct.
IU distinguishes between approved enterprise AI platforms and other tools, and it ties AI use to university data-classification rules. Sensitive institutional data must not be entered into unapproved tools; approved access includes enterprise offerings such as ChatGPT Edu and Google Gemini, with separate handling expectations for restricted and university-internal data.