Teaching & Learning
- AI use for graded or ungraded course assignments is at instructor discretion
- The university also states that submitting work not produced by the individual, including AI-generated content, can constitute academic misconduct
- Students must have explicit instructor permission to use generative AI on assignments; otherwise, they are told to assume such use may violate academic integrity rules
Academic misconduct occurs when a student engages in an action that is deceitful, fraudulent, or dishonest regarding any type of academic assignment that is intended to or results in an unfair academic advantage. In this context, the term “assignment” refers to any type of graded or ungraded work that is submitted for evaluation for any course.
Academic misconduct includes but is not limited to cheating, collusion, falsification, misrepresentation, unauthorized collaboration on assignments, copying another student’s work, using or providing unauthorized notes or materials, turning in work not produced by the individual (which may include use of artificial intelligence content generation not limited to text, images, design, art, video, audio, or computer code), attempting to get credit for a single instance of work submitted for more than one course, and plagiarism.
The specific use of AI on assignments is left up to the individual instructor and should be articulated on course syllabi and in the instructions for individual assignments. If instructors do not give explicit permission to use GenAI students should assume that its use may constitute a violation of the Academic Integrity Policy of Jacksonville University.
- Because AI use in academic settings is left to faculty, using AI during exams or assessments would depend on instructor authorization; without permission, it may violate policy
- The university does not set a separate AI-specific exam rule, but it treats use of unauthorized resources or communication during tests, quizzes, and other restricted assessments as academic misconduct
In general, the Academic Integrity Policy stated in this document and elsewhere in Jacksonville University publications and websites leaves the use of AI in an academic setting up to the faculty.
Specific examples of academic misconduct include, but are not limited to the following:
* Using unauthorized notes or other unauthorized resources for an exam or assignment.
* Sharing information about a test or quiz with others if you take the test or quiz earlier than other students.
* Using any method to communicate with a prohibited resource during a test, quiz, or other restricted-access assignment.
- However, students must still follow instructor and class policies, obtain professor approval before using AI content in courses, credit AI use in submitted work, and use AI as a resource rather than a final product
- The university encourages students to build AI literacy and describes some study-support uses of AI as responsible, such as clarifying concepts, brainstorming, and using a virtual chatbot or tutor for exam preparation
As an independent scholar, you are encouraged to investigate AI use in your field; you are encouraged to build your own AI literacy, both as an academic practitioner and a member of society, including how your chosen field and profession are currently using AI to enhance and augment their practices.
2. Typical use of Generative AI for Ideation—Sometimes we need to think more about a topic, plan accordingly, and brainstorm. AI can be an effective thought partner in these situations. This includes:
• Brainstorming ideas for a project
• Coming up with ways to expand on your existing knowledge
• Clarifying concepts and ideas
• Suggesting titles, structure, and themes for a project
• Generating imagery to accompany your work
• Using a virtual chatbot and tutor to help study for upcoming exams
CR IT ICAL NOTE :
Even in these established cases, it is important to note once again that no AI content should be used in your courses without professor approval; no AI should be used in a way that circumvents the learning process at Jacksonville University. No AI should be used without crediting its use in submitted work, and you should always work to use AI as a resource, not the final product.
- The university includes computer code within the types of AI-generated content that may count as work not produced by the individual
- It does not provide a separate coding policy; instead, use of AI for programming assignments is governed by instructor permission, and students should assume it may violate policy if explicit permission is not given
Academic misconduct includes but is not limited to cheating, collusion, falsification, misrepresentation, unauthorized collaboration on assignments, copying another student’s work, using or providing unauthorized notes or materials, turning in work not produced by the individual (which may include use of artificial intelligence content generation not limited to text, images, design, art, video, audio, or computer code), attempting to get credit for a single instance of work submitted for more than one course, and plagiarism.
The specific use of AI on assignments is left up to the individual instructor and should be articulated on course syllabi and in the instructions for individual assignments. If instructors do not give explicit permission to use GenAI students should assume that its use may constitute a violation of the Academic Integrity Policy of Jacksonville University.
Research
Academic Integrity
- Citation format may vary by professor, and students are told to consult the professor about preferred citation methods
- Students are expected to be honest, open, and transparent about AI use and to cite or reference AI-assisted contributions
- If no formal citation rules are provided, students should clearly label AI-assisted contributions, explain AI's role, and foreground their own scholarship
Instructors are expected to provide clear information regarding class assignments; however, it is ultimately a student’s responsibility to understand the amount of collaboration allowed in a specific assignment, to understand how to cite sources, and to never assume that working with others or using the student’s previous work or the work of others is acceptable without instructor permission.
As with any non-original contributions to our learning, it is our responsibility to cite and reference all non-original thoughts. In the age of AI, it is even more important to be proactive in being honest, open, and transparent with your AI use in all assignments, dealings, and processes. As each professor will have different expectations, it is important to consult with your professor on preferred method of citation.
If your professor has no formal citation rules, clearly label AI-assisted contributions, explain its role, and highlight your own knowledge and scholarship.
No AI should be used without crediting its use in submitted work
- The provided sources do not define a policy on AI detection tools specifically
- The university requires instructors to report all acts of academic misconduct and provides formal misconduct procedures and penalties
- Enforcement can include instructor-assigned course penalties and university-level sanctions such as mandatory educational instruction, probationary watch list placement, suspension, or expulsion
It is the responsibility of instructors to report all acts of misconduct, even if they believe those acts to be unintentional, so that students can benefit from special educational instruction and assistance to help ensure that they avoid committing such acts again in the future. If the instructor is unsure whether a violation has occurred, the instructor is to consult with the Chair of the Academic Integrity Council.
By reporting acts of academic misconduct through the Academic Misconduct Notification Form (available to instructors via the MyJU portal) at the time that they are detected, discovered, or known (hereafter referred to as the discovery date), instructors initiate a process that allows students to either accept all penalties or exercise the right to challenge the instructor’s determination of academic misconduct in a timely manner with the Academic Integrity Council.
There are two levels of penalties for incidents of academic misconduct.
1. A course-level penalty, which is assigned by the instructor, in line with the policies on the instructor’s syllabus.
2. A concurrent university-level penalty, which will include educational instruction and assistance, but may include placing the student on a probationary watch list, suspension, or even expulsion from the university, depending on the type of violation and/or the type and number of previous violations.
Upon discovery of an act of academic misconduct, the assigning of a course-level penalty is up to the discretion of the instructor.
Institutional & Administrative
- Instructors are also expected to provide clear assignment information and to report misconduct
- The provided sources do not set broader rules for faculty AI use in grading, feedback, recommendation letters, or administrative communications
- Faculty have discretion to allow or disallow AI use in their courses and are expected to communicate those rules in syllabi and assignment instructions
In general, the Academic Integrity Policy stated in this document and elsewhere in Jacksonville University publications and websites leaves the use of AI in an academic setting up to the faculty.
The specific use of AI on assignments is left up to the individual instructor and should be articulated on course syllabi and in the instructions for individual assignments.
Instructors are expected to provide clear information regarding class assignments; however, it is ultimately a student’s responsibility to understand the amount of collaboration allowed in a specific assignment, to understand how to cite sources, and to never assume that working with others or using the student’s previous work or the work of others is acceptable without instructor permission.
It is the responsibility of instructors to report all acts of misconduct, even if they believe those acts to be unintentional, so that students can benefit from special educational instruction and assistance to help ensure that they avoid committing such acts again in the future.
- The sources do not identify an approved university AI platform list
- The student AI guidance includes privacy and data-handling restrictions for AI use
- Students are told not to upload personally identifiable information, not to upload class materials without explicit instructor permission, not to compromise their own or others' data privacy, and not to upload content they do not own or lack permission to use
Not all AI platforms are the same, especially as regards privacy of your information. In general, you should assume that any information provided to an AI system may be used to further train and develop the AI model. Even when dealing with platforms that promise data privacy and security, you should always consider the information you are feeding AI. In general:
• Do not upload any personally identifiable information into AI.
• Do not upload any class materials to AI unless you have the explicit permission of your instructor.
• Do not use AI in a way that would compromise your data and privacy, or the data and privacy of others.
• Do not upload content that is not yours to AI unless you have permission. This includes copyrighted work of others.
- The provided sources do not identify a formal AI committee, task force, or governance roadmap
- Jacksonville University states that it is taking a humanity-first approach to AI and aims to prepare learners to use AI ethically and responsibly
- The student guidance frames this as an institutional stance centered on human judgment, verification, bias awareness, and substantive human revision
In accordance with the information stated above, Jacksonville University acknowledges the importance of meeting this AI opportunity head-on. In doing so, we aspire to prepare learners with the skills needed to excel in an AI‐infused world and the humanity required to do so ethically and responsibly.
At Jacksonville University, we endorse a humanity-first approach to AI. What this means is, while you may consult AI as appropriate, you should always start, and end, any AI process with an infusion of your own natural humanity, knowledge, and skills. This could include the following:
• Verifying all content for accuracy and currency.
• Identifying and addressing bias and misrepresentation with AI.
• Never submitting something that is 100% AI generated as your final product unless instructed to do so by your professor.
• Making substantive revisions of AI output and infusing your own scholarly tone and perspective.
• Never misrepresenting AI work as your own.
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 Jacksonville University's AI Policies
Jacksonville University has defined AI policies in 9 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 75%.
Students are expected to be honest, open, and transparent about AI use and to cite or reference AI-assisted contributions. Citation format may vary by professor, and students are told to consult the professor about preferred citation methods. If no formal citation rules are provided, students should clearly label AI-assisted contributions, explain AI's role, and foreground their own scholarship.
The university requires instructors to report all acts of academic misconduct and provides formal misconduct procedures and penalties. Enforcement can include instructor-assigned course penalties and university-level sanctions such as mandatory educational instruction, probationary watch list placement, suspension, or expulsion. The provided sources do not define a policy on AI detection tools specifically.
The student AI guidance includes privacy and data-handling restrictions for AI use. Students are told not to upload personally identifiable information, not to upload class materials without explicit instructor permission, not to compromise their own or others' data privacy, and not to upload content they do not own or lack permission to use. The sources do not identify an approved university AI platform list.