Teaching & Learning
- Use of AI in graded academic work is governed by the course syllabus and instructor policy
- If students are unsure whether AI assistance is allowed, they must ask the instructor before starting the work
- Students must submit their own work within course guidelines, and unauthorized AI use may be treated as cheating
All work submitted—including tests, papers, and computer programs—must represent the student's own work as generated within the specific guidelines of the course syllabus.
Cheating–including plagiarism, fabrication, the unauthorized use of technology (including artificial intelligence (AI)), or any kind of unethical or dishonest behavior–may subject a student to severe penalties, up to and including dismissal.
Faculty Responsibilities: Instructors must include an Academic Honesty statement in their syllabi that aligns with the course's delivery method. This statement must outline the instructor’s class policy for acceptable uses of AI and specify penalties for misconduct, such as zero credit for an assignment or failure in the course.
Student Responsibilities: Students are responsible for understanding and abiding by the Academic Honesty requirements for each course. If a student is unsure about the propriety of outside assistance or AI use, they must consult the instructor before work commences.
- AI use during exams and other assessments is not set by a single blanket rule beyond the requirement that submitted work follow the course syllabus
- Unauthorized AI use in tests is treated as cheating, while assessment methods and technology-free experiences may be determined within programs and courses
All work submitted—including tests, papers, and computer programs—must represent the student's own work as generated within the specific guidelines of the course syllabus.
Cheating–including plagiarism, fabrication, the unauthorized use of technology (including artificial intelligence (AI)), or any kind of unethical or dishonest behavior–may subject a student to severe penalties, up to and including dismissal.
Choose teaching practices, assignments, projects or intentionally technology-free experiences that build that learning.
Determine how the program will know whether students can meet the outcome, including appropriate assessment methods.
- Its materials emphasize critical evaluation, source awareness, and human judgment when students use AI tools
- The university supports students learning with and about AI, including academic support and AI literacy development, but it does not state a specific university-wide rule for personal study use
Students need to evaluate sources, understand how information is produced, recognize uncertainty and bias, and take responsibility for the claims they make. AI adds new tools and new questions to that work, but it does not replace the fundamentals of critical inquiry.
Writing and Communication Center
Supporting students writing with, and about, AI.
Tool access, guidance and hands-on learning.
Students learn to critically evaluate AI-generated content, recognize its limitations and biases, and rely on their own judgment, including knowing when AI isn’t the right tool.
- There is no AI policy specific to code generation tools
- Programming work is covered under the general academic honesty rule that computer programs must be the student's own work under the course syllabus, and unauthorized AI use may be penalized unless allowed by the instructor's syllabus policy
All work submitted—including tests, papers, and computer programs—must represent the student's own work as generated within the specific guidelines of the course syllabus.
Cheating–including plagiarism, fabrication, the unauthorized use of technology (including artificial intelligence (AI)), or any kind of unethical or dishonest behavior–may subject a student to severe penalties, up to and including dismissal.
Faculty Responsibilities: Instructors must include an Academic Honesty statement in their syllabi that aligns with the course's delivery method. This statement must outline the instructor’s class policy for acceptable uses of AI and specify penalties for misconduct, such as zero credit for an assignment or failure in the course.
Research
- The university states that students may apply AI tools in research and that authorship and drafting are active topics in its academic AI work, but it does not provide a formal rule for AI use in research papers, theses, dissertations, or manuscripts in the provided sources
Students apply AI tools in their coursework, projects, and research, and connect what they practice in class to the work ahead.
Authorship, drafting and the writing process in an age of generation.
- However, the provided sources do not set a formal university-wide research data or analysis policy
- The university indicates that AI may be used in research and specifically references AI in data analysis, with an expectation that human reasoning remains central
Students apply AI tools in their coursework, projects, and research, and connect what they practice in class to the work ahead.
Using AI in data analysis while keeping scientific reasoning intact.
Academic Integrity
- The provided sources do not give a university-wide citation or attribution format for disclosing AI use in submitted work
- The university requires instructors to state acceptable AI use and penalties in their syllabi, and students must follow those course-specific rules
Faculty Responsibilities: Instructors must include an Academic Honesty statement in their syllabi that aligns with the course's delivery method. This statement must outline the instructor’s class policy for acceptable uses of AI and specify penalties for misconduct, such as zero credit for an assignment or failure in the course.
Student Responsibilities: Students are responsible for understanding and abiding by the Academic Honesty requirements for each course. If a student is unsure about the propriety of outside assistance or AI use, they must consult the instructor before work commences.
- The provided sources do not state a position on AI detection tools specifically
- The process includes instructor discussion, reporting, student notification, appeal or substantive review, and possible further sanctions for repeated or severe violations
- Undisclosed or unauthorized AI use can be enforced through the academic honesty process as academic misconduct, with penalties ranging from assignment sanctions to dismissal
Cheating–including plagiarism, fabrication, the unauthorized use of technology (including artificial intelligence (AI)), or any kind of unethical or dishonest behavior–may subject a student to severe penalties, up to and including dismissal.
When a faculty member identifies potential academic misconduct, they must first address it directly with the student, consistent with the individual course's syllabus policy.
Penalties, appropriate to the severity of the infraction, may include resubmission of the same or a modified assignment, reduced or zero credit for the assignment, or failure in the course.
In all cases where a consequence has been delivered for academic dishonesty, the faculty member must submit a report (via the Maxient reporting system) within five (5) business days of discussing the issue with the student.
Additional Sanctions: Based on frequency (recurrence) or intensity (egregiousness) of academic dishonesty violations, the Associate Dean may impose further actions, such as educational programs, meetings with chairs/deans, or referral to the University Conduct Board.
If the student’s academic dishonesty violation could result in a sanction of suspension or dismissal on the grounds of academic misconduct, the Associate Dean refers the case to the UCB.
Institutional & Administrative
- Faculty and staff are actively involved in shaping AI use in academics, including learning outcomes, assignments, assessment, and teaching practices
- Instructors are required to publish course-level AI rules in their syllabi, but the provided sources do not set explicit rules for staff or faculty use of AI in grading, recommendation letters, or administrative communications
Faculty and staff across campus help colleagues set learning outcomes, try new teaching practices, and decide where AI should and should not be used.
Faculty AI Fellows lead AI work within their own disciplines. They work with department colleagues on learning outcomes, assignments and assessment, and share what they learn across campus.
Faculty Responsibilities: Instructors must include an Academic Honesty statement in their syllabi that aligns with the course's delivery method. This statement must outline the instructor’s class policy for acceptable uses of AI and specify penalties for misconduct, such as zero credit for an assignment or failure in the course.
- The university indicates that approved AI tools and guidance are available internally on myJCU, but the provided public sources do not identify the specific approved platforms
- The privacy policy states that the university follows its web privacy policy, IT Acceptable Use Policy, Sensitive Data and Cybersecurity Policy, and FERPA for information handling
Current students, faculty, and staff can find approved tools, guidance, and internal resources on myJCU.
Your use of the Website indicates your acceptance of this Web Privacy Policy, all applicable laws, JCU’s IT Acceptable Use Policy and JCU’s Sensitive Data and Cybersecurity Policy .
The University also complies with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), which prohibits the release of education records without student permission, except in limited circumstances.
- John Carroll has an institution-level academic AI strategy centered on discipline-specific teaching and learning, guided by four principles and coordinated through Academic Affairs
- The university describes an organized structure involving the provost, Teaching Innovation + Enrichment, Faculty AI Fellows, and cross-campus partners to develop learning outcomes, practices, and assessment around AI
John Carroll is building a discipline-specific approach to teaching and learning in an AI-enabled world: what students should understand, where they practice those skills, how learning is assessed, and when human-centered or technology-free approaches remain essential.
These four principles guide John Carroll’s academic response to artificial intelligence.
1. 01
### We recognize that AI has fundamentally changed the environment in which college students learn.
### We form critical thinkers and ethical actors.
### We prepare students for an AI-enabled workforce.
### We affirm an approach to AI rooted in our Jesuit Values.
She leads academic strategy, faculty affairs, and academic support units. John Carroll’s work on teaching and learning with artificial intelligence sits in Academic Affairs, alongside Faculty AI Fellows, staff thought partners, and Teaching Innovation + Enrichment.
She coordinates the University’s academic AI work. The effort brings together Faculty AI Fellows and partners across Information Technology Services, Grasselli Library, the Writing and Communication Center, First-Year Writing and Speaking, and academic programs to strengthen teaching and student learning.
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 John Carroll University's AI Policies
John Carroll University has defined AI policies in 11 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 92%.
The university requires instructors to state acceptable AI use and penalties in their syllabi, and students must follow those course-specific rules. The provided sources do not give a university-wide citation or attribution format for disclosing AI use in submitted work.
Undisclosed or unauthorized AI use can be enforced through the academic honesty process as academic misconduct, with penalties ranging from assignment sanctions to dismissal. The process includes instructor discussion, reporting, student notification, appeal or substantive review, and possible further sanctions for repeated or severe violations. The provided sources do not state a position on AI detection tools specifically.
The university indicates that approved AI tools and guidance are available internally on myJCU, but the provided public sources do not identify the specific approved platforms. The privacy policy states that the university follows its web privacy policy, IT Acceptable Use Policy, Sensitive Data and Cybersecurity Policy, and FERPA for information handling.