Teaching & Learning
- The policy applies broadly to assignments and other academic work and frames unauthorized AI use as cheating and plagiarism
- Kettering University treats submitting AI-generated work as academic dishonesty when a student presents it as their own without authorization or acknowledgment
Submitting artificial intelligence generated work as one’s own without acknowledgment is considered academic dishonesty.
Cheating is an act of deception by which a student misleadingly demonstrates that he/she has mastered information or skills in an academic exercise or degree requirement. This may include, but is not limited to, using unauthorized materials, information, study aids, or collaboration on an examination or other academic work.
Plagiarism is the process of taking someone else’s work and/or ideas and submitting it as one’s own in an academic exercise. This includes direct copying, paraphrasing, and summarizing source information and AI generated content without appropriate acknowledgement.
- Kettering University prohibits unauthorized use of materials, information, study aids, or collaboration during examinations and other academic work
- The exam policy does not mention AI by name in this section, but unauthorized AI use during exams would fall under the cheating rule if not permitted
Cheating is an act of deception by which a student misleadingly demonstrates that he/she has mastered information or skills in an academic exercise or degree requirement. This may include, but is not limited to, using unauthorized materials, information, study aids, or collaboration on an examination or other academic work.
Research
- The guidance also states that AI cannot be listed as an author, and authors must disclose generative AI use in a dedicated section if it assisted with writing or content generation
- Kettering University states in faculty guidance that generative AI can be useful for scholarly writing support such as copyediting and summarization, but authors remain responsible for the accuracy and originality of their manuscripts
Manuscript work (including copyediting and summarization): Generative AI can be useful in manuscript preparation and can serve as a tool to support scholarly work, but all parties should exercise caution and critically assess the quality and appropriateness of content generated.
Generative AI cannot be listed as an author or co-author of a manuscript. According to COPE, authors remain accountable for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of their work, and current AI tools cannot take responsibility for submitted content.
Authors are expected to disclose the use of generative AI in a dedicated section of the manuscript if it has been used to assist with writing, editing, or content generation.
- The guidance also warns against entering sensitive or confidential research data into AI systems and requires compliance with funder, institutional, and data-governance rules
- Kettering University faculty guidance permits generative AI to support tasks such as coding, data cleaning, analysis, and visualization, but requires faculty to review and validate outputs because AI-generated analyses may be inaccurate or misleading
Research and grant preparation: Generative AI tools can support coding, data cleaning, analysis, visualization, and grant preparation, but outputs should be reviewed carefully for errors, fabricated citations, or unsupported claims.
In research contexts, faculty should be especially cautious not to enter sensitive, proprietary, confidential, or unpublished data into generative AI systems, unless they are explicitly approved for such use by the institution and compliant with applicable sponsor, IRB, or data governance requirements.
Data analysis and interpretation: Faculty may use generative AI tools to assist with coding, data summarization, or the generation of visualizations. However, AI-generated analyses should not be accepted at face value and must be validated, as they may be incomplete, misleading, or based on hidden assumptions.
- Kettering University requires researchers to handle generative AI use in research with caution and to maintain human responsibility for integrity and compliance
- The guidance says AI cannot be credited as an author, manuscript use must be disclosed, and sensitive or regulated data cannot be entered unless institutionally approved and compliant with sponsor, IRB, or data-governance requirements
Generative AI cannot be listed as an author or co-author of a manuscript. According to COPE, authors remain accountable for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of their work, and current AI tools cannot take responsibility for submitted content.
Authors are expected to disclose the use of generative AI in a dedicated section of the manuscript if it has been used to assist with writing, editing, or content generation.
In research contexts, faculty should be especially cautious not to enter sensitive, proprietary, confidential, or unpublished data into generative AI systems, unless they are explicitly approved for such use by the institution and compliant with applicable sponsor, IRB, or data governance requirements.
Academic Integrity
- In faculty research guidance, authors must disclose generative AI use in a dedicated manuscript section when it assists with writing, editing, or content generation
- Kettering University requires acknowledgment when AI-generated work is used in student academic work; failing to acknowledge it is treated as academic dishonesty and plagiarism
Submitting artificial intelligence generated work as one’s own without acknowledgment is considered academic dishonesty.
Plagiarism is the process of taking someone else’s work and/or ideas and submitting it as one’s own in an academic exercise. This includes direct copying, paraphrasing, and summarizing source information and AI generated content without appropriate acknowledgement.
Authors are expected to disclose the use of generative AI in a dedicated section of the manuscript if it has been used to assist with writing, editing, or content generation.
- Kettering University enforces unauthorized or undisclosed AI use through its academic misconduct process
- Sanctions may include probation, suspension, dismissal, educational sanctions, and transcript notation; the policy materials provided do not state a position on AI-detection software
Submitting artificial intelligence generated work as one’s own without acknowledgment is considered academic dishonesty.
A student found responsible for academic misconduct is subject to a warning or one or more of the following sanctions:
1. Disciplinary Probation
2. Suspension
3. Dismissal
4. Exclusion
5. Revocation or withholding of degree
6. Transcript Hold
7. Educational sanctions / assignments as determined by the Office of Student Conduct & Academic Integrity
8. Any/all sanctions applied to student organizations will be outlined in the Code of Student Conduct.
Institutional & Administrative
- It also states generative AI must not be used to write recommendation letters without explicit disclosure and substantive human authorship
- Kettering University provides faculty guidance permitting generative AI for teaching preparation, assessment support, writing assistance, brainstorming, and administrative work, but faculty remain responsible for oversight and quality
- The guidance says instructors should clearly communicate course-specific AI expectations, review AI outputs for bias and accuracy, avoid relying on AI as the sole basis for grading or student decisions, and carefully protect confidential information
Teaching and course design: Faculty may use generative AI tools to support lesson planning, draft syllabi, create assignment prompts, generate examples, and develop instructional materials. Any generated content should be reviewed carefully for accuracy, inclusivity, and pedagogical appropriateness.
Assessment and feedback: AI tools may assist in generating quiz questions, rubrics, or preliminary feedback, but they should not be used as the sole basis for grading or evaluative decisions about student performance. Faculty remain responsible for final judgment and should ensure transparency and fairness.
Student use of AI in coursework: Faculty should clearly communicate expectations in their syllabi or assignments about whether, when, and how students may use generative AI tools.
Writing assistance and idea generation: Faculty may use AI tools to support brainstorming, writing drafts, or organizing ideas for administrative or professional purposes. However, any publicly distributed or high-stakes content should be reviewed carefully and edited to reflect the faculty member’s own intent and standards.
Recommendation letters and evaluative documents: Generative AI should not be used to write recommendation letters or other evaluative statements about students or colleagues without explicit disclosure and substantive human authorship. These documents carry significant professional and ethical responsibility and should reflect the faculty member’s authentic judgment.
Administrative efficiency and communication: Faculty may use AI tools for routine tasks such as summarizing meeting notes, drafting emails, or preparing reports, provided that confidential or sensitive information is not disclosed and outputs are reviewed for appropriateness and accuracy.
- Kettering University prohibits entering confidential, personal, health, financial, legal, and other sensitive institutional information into public or non-approved generative AI tools
- Faculty may only use such data in AI systems that are institutionally approved and compliant with privacy, security, and legal requirements, and the acceptable use policy separately bars disclosure of protected information without authorization
Faculty should not upload confidential, sensitive, or personally identifiable information (PII), including student education records, unpublished research data, personnel information, or proprietary institutional information, into public or non-approved generative AI tools.
Faculty should not input or upload sensitive personal information (such as student education records, employee files, health or financial information, or proprietary institutional data) into public or unvetted generative AI systems. Such data may only be used in AI systems that have been institutionally approved and are compliant with relevant privacy, security, and legal standards.
If faculty use institutionally approved AI tools, they should still be mindful of what data is retained, how outputs are stored, and whether prompts or interactions could be accessed by third parties.
Users shall not disclose to third parties any confidential or private information to which they have access, including but not limited to student and employee records, patient or health information, financial records, legal files, research data, and university strategic or proprietary documents, unless authorized and in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and university policies.
- Kettering University has faculty guidance that frames generative AI as a tool that can support teaching, scholarship, and service when used responsibly
- The document emphasizes transparency, human oversight, ethical judgment, and data protection, but the provided sources do not identify a broader university-wide AI strategy, committee, or formal governance structure
Generative AI tools are rapidly changing many areas of higher education, including teaching, scholarship, and service. These guidelines are intended to support faculty in making thoughtful, ethical, and professionally responsible decisions about if, when, and how to use such tools in ways that align with Kettering University values.
Faculty are encouraged to approach generative AI as a tool—not a substitute for professional expertise, disciplinary knowledge, or ethical judgment. Any use of AI should be transparent when appropriate, reviewed critically, and guided by applicable university policies and legal or professional standards.
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 Kettering University's AI Policies
Kettering University has defined AI policies in 10 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 83%.
Kettering University requires acknowledgment when AI-generated work is used in student academic work; failing to acknowledge it is treated as academic dishonesty and plagiarism. In faculty research guidance, authors must disclose generative AI use in a dedicated manuscript section when it assists with writing, editing, or content generation.
Kettering University enforces unauthorized or undisclosed AI use through its academic misconduct process. Sanctions may include probation, suspension, dismissal, educational sanctions, and transcript notation; the policy materials provided do not state a position on AI-detection software.
Kettering University prohibits entering confidential, personal, health, financial, legal, and other sensitive institutional information into public or non-approved generative AI tools. Faculty may only use such data in AI systems that are institutionally approved and compliant with privacy, security, and legal requirements, and the acceptable use policy separately bars disclosure of protected information without authorization.