Teaching & Learning
- The unauthorized use of generative artificial intelligence for academic work may be considered a violation of Loyola University Chicago's Academic Integrity Policy
- Individual faculty members or programs determine whether and for which assignments AI is permitted and communicate expectations for appropriate use and attribution
- Undergraduate policy prohibits using generative AI to complete assignments without prior instructor permission, Arrupe College treats AI use as plagiarism, and Stritch School of Medicine treats presenting AI-produced work as one's own as an academic integrity violation unless allowed by faculty or the course/clerkship/elective director
The unauthorized use of generative artificial intelligence for any academic work may be considered a violation of Loyola University Chicago’s Academic Integrity Policy. Individual faculty members or programs will determine whether and for which assignments generative AI is permitted and will communicate their expectations with regard to appropriate use and proper attribution.
Use generative artificial intelligence to complete or write assignments or exams, partially or fully, without prior permission of the instructor.
Plagiarism, including the use of artificial intelligence
The acquisition of academic work in whole or in part from any source (from textbooks and journal articles to web resources to generative AI to third parties such as ghost writers) and the subsequent presentation of those materials as the student's own work ... constitutes an academic integrity violation, unless otherwise allowed by the faculty and/or course/clerkship/elective director.
- Arrupe College states that acts of academic dishonesty will result at minimum in an F for the assignment or exam
- For undergraduate students, generative artificial intelligence use on exams is prohibited unless the instructor gives prior permission
- In the Stritch School of Medicine materials, presenting AI-produced answers on an assessment or exam as one's own is an academic integrity violation unless faculty or the course/clerkship/elective director allow it, and individual assessments and exams may impose additional syllabus-specific requirements
6. Use generative artificial intelligence to complete or write
assignments or exams, partially or fully, without prior permission
of the instructor.
At minimum, acts of academic dishonesty will result in the student receiving a grade of “F” for the assignment or exam.
• Individual assessments and exams may have additional, specific requirements related to original
work that should be clearly defined by the faculty in the course/clerkship/elective syllabus.
The acquisition of academic work in whole or in part from any source (from textbooks and journal articles to
web resources to generative AI to third parties such as ghost writers) and the subsequent presentation of
those materials as the student's own work (whether that material is paraphrased or copied in verbatim or
near-verbatim form, including answers used to complete an assessment or exam) constitutes an academic
integrity violation, unless otherwise allowed by the faculty and/or course/clerkship/elective director.
- The university encourages students to use AI as a learning and study tool
- Guidance from the Faculty Center for Ignatian Pedagogy suggests students can use AI as a study partner to quiz themselves or explain concepts differently
- The Stritch School of Medicine similarly encourages students and faculty to explore AI for creating and analyzing ideas, while stating that AI should be used as a guide and not as a replacement for critical thinking and writing
There are many ways that you can use AI to help you learn, such as asking it to quiz you on course material, rephrase a difficult reading, or explain a concept in a different way.
we
encourage students and faculty to explore how generative Artificial Intelligence (“generative AI”) tools may
create, analyze, and evaluate new concepts and ideas that inspire them to generate their own academic
work.
• But it is not a substitute for your own critical thinking and writing skills.
• Suggestions provided by generative AI tools (e.g. ChatGPT, Google Bard, Microsoft Bing, DALL-E,
LaMDA, etc.) should be used as a guide and not a replacement for your own ideas and writing.
- While there is no university-wide AI policy specific to code generation, the Faculty Center for Ignatian Pedagogy provides sample syllabus guidance for coding classes
- That guidance distinguishes acceptable uses, such as autocompleting boilerplate code, from academic integrity violations, such as pasting an assignment into an AI and submitting the solution as one's own
Some good use cases include: ... using a linter, asking your editor’s AI to autocomplete a line of boilerplate code... Some examples of Academic Integrity violations are: Pasting an assignment into an AI and passing off the solution as your own. In general, using AI to do your thinking for you is not allowed.
Research
- The university's general academic integrity approach applies to research writing, with AI use generally prohibited unless permitted by faculty or the program
- Department-specific policies exist: the School of Psychology states that using AI to generate text submitted as the student's own work is plagiarism, and Stritch School of Medicine identifies using AI for assignments and assessments, including research-based work, as a violation when the work is presented as the student's own without authorization
The use of artificial intelligence to generate text which is then submitted as the student’s own work constitutes plagiarism and is a violation of the academic integrity policy.
if a student has another person/entity do any substantive portion of an assignment or assessment
for them, which includes hiring a person or a company to write essays and drafts and/or other
assignments and assessments, research-based or otherwise, and using artificial intelligence tools
(e.g. ChatGPT, Google Bard, etc.).
- No AI-specific policy on research data collection, analysis, statistics, synthetic data, or interpretation is defined in the provided sources
- The undergraduate and Arrupe academic integrity materials prohibit fabrication of data generally, but they do not set AI-specific rules for research data and analysis
3. Students may not fabricate data.
All experimental data, observations, interviews, statistical surveys,
and other information collected and reported as part of academic
work must be authentic. Any alteration, e.g., the removal of statistical
outliers, must be clearly documented. Data must not be falsified in
any way.
Fabricating data
- As part of responsible and ethical AI use, the university prohibits entering private or protected data into public generative AI tools
- University guidance warns that information entered into a public AI should be treated as public, and Loyola data, including student data protected by FERPA, should not be entered into consumer or public AI systems; the university recommends enterprise-protected tools instead
Loyola data, including student data protected by FERPA, should not be entered into consumer or public generative AI tools... As of fall 2023, Loyola recommends our community only use generative AI tools like Microsoft Copilot (formerly Bing Chat Enterprise) that include enterprise-level data protection.
Confidentiality and Privacy: Information entered into a public AI should be considered public. Do not enter any of Loyola's private data, including student names, grades, or personal identifiers.
Academic Integrity
- Disclosure and attribution requirements for AI use are determined at the faculty, course, or program level
- The university-wide academic integrity statement says faculty or programs will communicate expectations for proper attribution
- Specific programs such as the Stritch School of Medicine and the School of Psychology explicitly require transparency about AI use, including disclosure or citation of AI tools, and Stritch states that failure to disclose AI use is a conduct violation
Individual faculty members or programs will determine whether and for which assignments generative AI is permitted and will communicate their expectations with regard to appropriate use and proper attribution.
The Stritch School of Medicine (SSOM) will ask students to disclose if assignments were completed, in part
or all, through generative AI tools. Failure to disclose the use of generative AI tools will be a Student Code of
Conduct violation and result in review by that course/clerkship/elective director and the SSOM Student
Promotion Committee.
Students should be transparent about their use of artificial intelligence in their academic work. This includes citing the use of artificial intelligence tools in their work in accordance with APA style guidelines.
- Consequences for AI-related academic misconduct are handled through standard academic integrity procedures
- For detection, Turnitin's AI writing detection capability is enabled by default for all submissions in the Loyola environment, but the university states that the AI detection score must not be used as a standalone measure of academic dishonesty and should be treated as only one piece of a broader investigation
Turnitin's AI writing detection capability is on for all submissions in the Loyola environment by default. This setting cannot be changed by instructors.
However, Loyola does not endorse the use of Turnitin's AI writing detection score as a standalone measure of academic dishonesty. Any potential instance of academic dishonesty must be investigated by the instructor, and the AI detection score should be taken as one piece of a larger puzzle. Faculty are encouraged to review the guidance on responding to the AI detection score.
Institutional & Administrative
- Faculty are central to implementing AI policy at the course level
- The Course Syllabus Policy also allows instructors to explain their policy on the use of artificial intelligence
- The university's academic integrity statement assigns faculty or programs responsibility for determining whether and how generative AI is permitted in their courses and for communicating expectations on appropriate use and attribution
Individual faculty members or programs will determine whether and for which assignments generative AI is permitted and will communicate their expectations with regard to appropriate use and proper attribution.
An instructor may also explain their policy on the use of artificial intelligence.
- The university has a defined data protection policy for AI use
- The university recommends using tools with enterprise protections, such as Microsoft Copilot (formerly Bing Chat Enterprise)
- Loyola data, including student data protected by FERPA, must not be entered into consumer or public generative AI tools that lack enterprise-level data protection
Loyola data, including student data protected by FERPA, should not be entered into consumer or public generative AI tools that do not offer enterprise-level data protection. As of fall 2023, Loyola recommends our community only use generative AI tools like Microsoft Copilot (formerly Bing Chat Enterprise) that include enterprise-level data protection.
- Loyola University Chicago's AI approach is coordinated through multiple university offices rather than a single standalone AI governance policy
- The Office of the Provost has issued a university-wide Statement on Academic Integrity and Use of Artificial Intelligence, establishing a framework in which faculty determine course-level rules
- This is supported by Information Technology Services, which provides AI platform and tool guidance, and the Faculty Center for Ignatian Pedagogy, which provides instructional resources and guidance
This statement will be updated as our institutional experience with generative AI evolves.
Loyola's Information Technology Services (ITS)... a catalog of applications and features powered by generative AI and guidance on their use at the university.
The Faculty Center for Ignatian Pedagogy is providing this page with information, resources, and upcoming opportunities to help you think through what AI, specifically text generators like ChatGPT, might mean for your course design and teaching.
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 Loyola University Chicago's AI Policies
Loyola University Chicago has defined AI policies in 12 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 100%.
Disclosure and attribution requirements for AI use are determined at the faculty, course, or program level. The university-wide academic integrity statement says faculty or programs will communicate expectations for proper attribution. Specific programs such as the Stritch School of Medicine and the School of Psychology explicitly require transparency about AI use, including disclosure or citation of AI tools, and Stritch states that failure to disclose AI use is a conduct violation.
Consequences for AI-related academic misconduct are handled through standard academic integrity procedures. For detection, Turnitin's AI writing detection capability is enabled by default for all submissions in the Loyola environment, but the university states that the AI detection score must not be used as a standalone measure of academic dishonesty and should be treated as only one piece of a broader investigation.
The university has a defined data protection policy for AI use. Loyola data, including student data protected by FERPA, must not be entered into consumer or public generative AI tools that lack enterprise-level data protection. The university recommends using tools with enterprise protections, such as Microsoft Copilot (formerly Bing Chat Enterprise).