Teaching & Learning
- Use of AI in graded coursework is governed primarily by instructor discretion
- Faculty are told to state in the syllabus whether AI use is prohibited, restricted, or allowed, and the academic integrity materials say unauthorized use of AI on assignments can constitute cheating or plagiarism when it misrepresents authorship or exceeds what the instructor permitted
Faculty should make a policy statement in the syllabus that clearly explains the rationale for the use/non-use of GenAI in the course and on assignments.
For guidance in developing a syllabus policy, we have assembled several examples of policy statements from Miami faculty and from faculty from other institutions. Policies range from complete prohibition to varying levels of use and disclosure.
Examples:
No use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) Permitted
Some use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) Permitted
Examples of assignment-specific policies
Students may use AI in this course only when expressly permitted by the instructor, and only within the boundaries established.
Under the Academic Integrity Policy, students are responsible for understanding instructors’ expectations regarding the use of AI in any particular course or assignment. Unless expressly allowed by the instructor, presenting work generated by AI as one’s own may constitute plagiarism, unauthorized assistance, or another form of academic dishonesty.
Unauthorized use of AI tools can violate this principle when a student submits work as their own that was generated in whole or in part by an artificial intelligence tool, without the knowledge or approval of the instructor.
Using AI-generated content without proper acknowledgment, when such acknowledgment is required by the instructor or the nature of the assignment, may constitute plagiarism.
Cheating includes:
using unauthorized notes, study aids, or information from another person on an examination; using unauthorized technology during an examination; obtaining or disseminating another student's work; using any device (electronic or otherwise) to gain an unfair advantage; using artificial intelligence in a manner not approved by the instructor; or submitting the same work for more than one evaluative opportunity without prior written permission from all instructors involved.
- AI use in exams and formal assessments is not broadly permitted; it is treated as misconduct when used without instructor approval
- The university’s academic integrity policy explicitly includes using AI in a manner not approved by the instructor within cheating, and faculty guidance recommends that instructors define permitted and prohibited AI use in their course policies
Students may use AI in this course only when expressly permitted by the instructor, and only within the boundaries established.
Cheating includes:
using unauthorized notes, study aids, or information from another person on an examination; using unauthorized technology during an examination; obtaining or disseminating another student's work; using any device (electronic or otherwise) to gain an unfair advantage; using artificial intelligence in a manner not approved by the instructor; or submitting the same work for more than one evaluative opportunity without prior written permission from all instructors involved.
Faculty should make a policy statement in the syllabus that clearly explains the rationale for the use/non-use of GenAI in the course and on assignments.
- There is no single university-wide student entitlement to use AI for tutoring or studying regardless of course rules
- The university encourages faculty to engage students in learning about AI and offers AI as a possible learning aid, but student use for study support is still subject to instructor-established boundaries in each course
Faculty should make a policy statement in the syllabus that clearly explains the rationale for the use/non-use of GenAI in the course and on assignments.
Students may use AI in this course only when expressly permitted by the instructor, and only within the boundaries established.
How can I engage students in thoughtful conversations about AI and encourage them to reflect critically on the role of this technology in their learning and future professions?
The support for AI literacy on this site is based on the newly revised AAC&U AI Literacy Framework.
- No university-wide rule specifically addressing AI code generation for programming assignments is defined
- Any such use would fall under the broader course-level rule that AI use is only allowed when the instructor expressly permits it and within the boundaries set for the assignment
Students may use AI in this course only when expressly permitted by the instructor, and only within the boundaries established.
For guidance in developing a syllabus policy, we have assembled several examples of policy statements from Miami faculty and from faculty from other institutions. Policies range from complete prohibition to varying levels of use and disclosure.
Research
- AI may not be listed as an author, students remain fully responsible for the work, and any substantive use must be disclosed in the manuscript
- Graduate thesis and dissertation writers may use generative AI only in limited support roles such as formatting or copyediting and only with advisor guidance
Miami University permits graduate students to use generative artificial intelligence (GAI) tools in the preparation of theses and dissertations only in ways that support, but do not replace, the student’s own intellectual contributions.
Acceptable use of GAI may include assistance with formatting, language editing, citation management, or other limited tasks as approved by the student’s advisor or dissertation/thesis committee.
GAI tools may not be credited as authors or co-authors of any thesis, dissertation, or associated publication.
Students are fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of all work submitted.
Any substantive use of GAI in the development of a thesis or dissertation must be clearly disclosed in an acknowledgment, methods section, or other appropriate location, as determined by the academic program or advisor.
- The university does not provide a research-specific rule on AI for data analysis across all research contexts in the listed sources
- For theses and dissertations, any AI use is limited to supportive roles rather than replacing the student’s own intellectual contribution, and institutional responsible-use guidance requires users to validate AI outputs and avoid entering sensitive data into public tools
Miami University permits graduate students to use generative artificial intelligence (GAI) tools in the preparation of theses and dissertations only in ways that support, but do not replace, the student’s own intellectual contributions.
Students are fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of all work submitted.
YOU are responsible for validating all GenAI output and are expected to critically evaluate the content and use generated by GenAI.
Do not upload or submit non-public Miami University data to Public GenAI.
- No separate university-wide policy on AI in grant proposals or IRB applications is defined in the provided sources
- Research-integrity expectations are defined most clearly for theses and dissertations: students retain full responsibility for originality, accuracy, and integrity, AI cannot be credited as an author, and substantive AI use must be disclosed
GAI tools may not be credited as authors or co-authors of any thesis, dissertation, or associated publication.
Students are fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of all work submitted.
Any substantive use of GAI in the development of a thesis or dissertation must be clearly disclosed in an acknowledgment, methods section, or other appropriate location, as determined by the academic program or advisor.
Academic Integrity
- Faculty are encouraged to spell out disclosure expectations in syllabus policies, including varying levels of use and disclosure
- Disclosure of AI use is required when the instructor or program requires it, and graduate thesis/dissertation policy requires disclosure of substantive AI use
For guidance in developing a syllabus policy, we have assembled several examples of policy statements from Miami faculty and from faculty from other institutions. Policies range from complete prohibition to varying levels of use and disclosure.
Using AI-generated content without proper acknowledgment, when such acknowledgment is required by the instructor or the nature of the assignment, may constitute plagiarism.
Any substantive use of GAI in the development of a thesis or dissertation must be clearly disclosed in an acknowledgment, methods section, or other appropriate location, as determined by the academic program or advisor.
- The provided sources define enforcement through existing academic misconduct rules rather than through a distinct AI-detection regime
- Unauthorized AI use may be treated as plagiarism, unauthorized assistance, or cheating, but no explicit institutional rule on the use or reliability of AI detection tools is defined in the listed materials
Unless expressly allowed by the instructor, presenting work generated by AI as one’s own may constitute plagiarism, unauthorized assistance, or another form of academic dishonesty.
Unauthorized use of AI tools can violate this principle when a student submits work as their own that was generated in whole or in part by an artificial intelligence tool, without the knowledge or approval of the instructor.
Cheating includes:
using unauthorized notes, study aids, or information from another person on an examination; using unauthorized technology during an examination; obtaining or disseminating another student's work; using any device (electronic or otherwise) to gain an unfair advantage; using artificial intelligence in a manner not approved by the instructor; or submitting the same work for more than one evaluative opportunity without prior written permission from all instructors involved.
Institutional & Administrative
- Faculty and staff may use AI tools, including Miami-supported tools, but they remain responsible for verifying outputs and protecting confidential data
- For teaching, faculty are advised to set syllabus policies, think critically about appropriate use, and there is labor-management language establishing faculty participation in shaping AI’s role in instruction and academic work
Miami University faculty and staff can sign in to Google Gemini using their Miami account.
YOU are responsible for validating all GenAI output and are expected to critically evaluate the content and use generated by GenAI.
Faculty should make a policy statement in the syllabus that clearly explains the rationale for the use/non-use of GenAI in the course and on assignments.
The parties agree that faculty shall maintain primary responsibility for decisions regarding curriculum, pedagogy, grading, and other matters traditionally within the scope of faculty professional judgment, including the appropriate use of artificial intelligence in teaching and academic work.
The University agrees to consult with the Faculty Alliance regarding significant changes to university-wide policies affecting faculty use of artificial intelligence in academic settings.
- Miami provides institutionally supported AI platforms and imposes data-protection limits based on whether a tool is public or university approved
- Users must not enter non-public university data into public AI tools, and the guidance distinguishes public generative AI from university-approved generative AI with stronger privacy and security protections
Miami University faculty and staff can sign in to Google Gemini using their Miami account.
Do not upload or submit non-public Miami University data to Public GenAI.
Public GenAI: Freely available GenAI tools not approved by Miami University where prompts and/or interactions may be used to train Large Language Models or by the GenAI provider for other purposes.
University Approved GenAI: Enterprise or institutionally licensed GenAI tools approved by Miami University that adhere to the University Data Security Policy and have contractual, privacy, or security protections in place.
Restricted data should only be entered into a University Approved GenAI solution after proper authorization and after all required controls are in place.
Regulated data should not be entered into any GenAI solution unless explicitly approved in writing by the Information Security Office and the appropriate data steward.
- Miami has an institutional AI governance structure and strategy that includes a formal AI task force and responsible-use guidance
- The university’s governance documents emphasize faculty involvement, consultation on policy changes, and institution-wide planning for AI adoption and oversight
MOU AI Task Force
The University and the Faculty Alliance agree to establish a joint task force on artificial intelligence.
The task force shall examine the implications of artificial intelligence for teaching, research, service, faculty workload, student learning, academic integrity, and other matters of mutual concern.
The task force shall develop recommendations for policies, guidelines, and best practices regarding the use of artificial intelligence at Miami University.
This best-practice guidance establishes a framework for the responsible use of generative artificial intelligence at Miami University.
The University agrees to consult with the Faculty Alliance regarding significant changes to university-wide policies affecting faculty use of artificial intelligence in academic settings.
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 Miami University (Ohio)'s AI Policies
Miami University (Ohio) has defined AI policies in 12 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 100%.
Disclosure of AI use is required when the instructor or program requires it, and graduate thesis/dissertation policy requires disclosure of substantive AI use. Faculty are encouraged to spell out disclosure expectations in syllabus policies, including varying levels of use and disclosure.
The provided sources define enforcement through existing academic misconduct rules rather than through a distinct AI-detection regime. Unauthorized AI use may be treated as plagiarism, unauthorized assistance, or cheating, but no explicit institutional rule on the use or reliability of AI detection tools is defined in the listed materials.
Miami provides institutionally supported AI platforms and imposes data-protection limits based on whether a tool is public or university approved. Users must not enter non-public university data into public AI tools, and the guidance distinguishes public generative AI from university-approved generative AI with stronger privacy and security protections.