Teaching & Learning
- Michigan Tech does not set one uniform student rule for coursework and assignments; classroom use is determined by instructors and programs
- The university provides syllabus templates ranging from general permission to conditional permission to full prohibition, and it states that using generative AI in ways prohibited by the instructor is an academic integrity violation
Michigan Tech currently allows for instructors and programs to decide how GAI can and may be used in classroom settings.
The AI Working Group at Michigan Technological University has developed the following syllabus templates to guide instructors in establishing generative artificial intelligence (GAI) use policies within their courses. These templates, categorized into three tiers—General Permission, Conditional Permission, and Prohibition—are adaptable based on individual course requirements.
The use of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) tools and apps (e.g. ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Dall-e, etc.) is strictly prohibited in all coursework. The use of GAI in this course will be considered the use of an unauthorized aide, which is a form of cheating. Course instructors reserve the right to ask students to explain their process for creating their work at any time.
Use of generative artificial intelligence technologies (GAI) in ways that are prohibited by the instructor or that do not comport with University Policy 1.20: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools will also be regarded as an academic integrity violation.
- Michigan Tech states that students are not permitted to use AI during an exam unless their instructor has specifically granted permission
Can AI be used during an exam?
Not unless your instructor specifically allows it.
- More generally, use for class-related tasks depends on instructor permission
- Michigan Tech explicitly recognizes AI as a possible study tool for tutoring, practice, and clarification, but advises students to verify outputs because AI may be wrong
Can AI be used to create practice questions or clarify content from lectures?
This is a great way to leverage AI as a study tool. Just be aware that AI isn’t always correct; have a way to check the solutions it provides.
Can AI be used to help write papers, do homework, research for a paper, process data, etc?
AI can be used as a tool for some of these tasks if your instructor allows it.
- Michigan Tech does not issue a single university-wide rule specifically for student code generation in coursework
- Student guidance says attribution in code may use a disclosure statement and that exact guidelines should be confirmed with the instructor; syllabus guidance also makes course-level permission and transparency possible
For attribution in works like code, design, and mathematics, use a statement like "In completing this assignment, I utilized [AI Tool Name] to assist with [specific aspect, e.g., generating ideas, understanding concepts, outlining the report]" is often sufficient. Check with your instructor on exact guidelines.
The use of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) tools may be permitted or recommended for specific assignments in this course. Those assignments that allow or call for GAI use will be expressly listed as such and require proper citation and documentation according to [citation style] [3] AND/OR [journal or funding agency guide][4].
Transparency in AI tool usage is mandatory, and instructors reserve the right to ask students to explain their process for creating work at any time. This includes but is not limited to including prompt appendices, AI-generated outputs, and reflective analyses.
Research
- Faculty are advised to document where and how AI is used so they can demonstrate alignment with external requirements
- Michigan Tech permits use of generative AI in research writing and publication-related contexts only subject to sponsor and publisher requirements, and the author remains responsible for the final content
Research sponsors of all types are evolving in their approach to the use of generative AI tools in proposal, review, or report preparation. Publishers are also adjusting their policies to reflect their approach to the use of generative AI tools in publication preparation or review. Whenever generative AI tools are used, the author is always responsible for the final content.
It is the University’s policy for Michigan Tech faculty, staff, and students to comply with funding sponsor or publisher requirements for the use of generative AI tools in funding applications or reporting of research results.
When using GAI tools, faculty should:
* Document where and how GAI tools are used. The documentation may be needed to understand how its use aligns with policies from funding agencies and publishers.
- Researchers are also told to ensure results are accurate and repeatable, understand bias, and protect data under applicable privacy laws
- Michigan Tech allows publicly available data to be used in generative AI tools for research, but prohibits entry of protected, restricted, confidential, sponsor-controlled, NDA-covered, or certain human-subjects data
* Data that are publicly available may be used without restriction in generative AI tools.
* Any information whose release is prohibited including, but not limited to, HIPAA, FERPA, or Graham-Leach-Bliley protected information, or confidential, identifiable human subjects data, or human subjects data in violation of an approved IRB protocol.
* Any category of information identified as Controlled Unclassified Information by the United States National Archives, or any information explicitly identified by a sponsor as CUI.
* Any propriety or other restricted information covered by an executed Non-Disclosure Agreement, grant or contract agreement, or other agreement with an external party.
When using GAI tools, faculty should:
* Understand the limitations of such systems. Researchers need to ensure that systems report accurate and repeatable results. Researchers must understand the bias that may exist or be produced by such tools, in particular when working with human subjects data.
* Protect their data under any applicable data privacy laws, e.g., FERPA, HIPAA, Export Controls, etc.
- Michigan Tech requires compliance with funding sponsor and publisher rules for AI use in funding applications, proposal development, reports, and research results
- The university also states that the author is always responsible for final content and bars use of confidential human-subjects data or data that would violate an approved IRB protocol
Research sponsors of all types are evolving in their approach to the use of generative AI tools in proposal, review, or report preparation. Publishers are also adjusting their policies to reflect their approach to the use of generative AI tools in publication preparation or review. Whenever generative AI tools are used, the author is always responsible for the final content.
It is the University’s policy for Michigan Tech faculty, staff, and students to comply with funding sponsor or publisher requirements for the use of generative AI tools in funding applications or reporting of research results.
Faculty should also be aware of any guidance for the use of such tools in the proposal development process and on projects by their funding agency and publishers.
* Any information whose release is prohibited including, but not limited to, HIPAA, FERPA, or Graham-Leach-Bliley protected information, or confidential, identifiable human subjects data, or human subjects data in violation of an approved IRB protocol.
Academic Integrity
- Michigan Tech requires disclosure when AI use is a significant component of a final product or when the receiving instructor, publication, or other entity requires it, and it encourages disclosure more broadly
- In classroom settings, attribution requirements vary by instructor, but sample syllabus language makes transparency mandatory and may require citation, documentation, prompt appendices, AI outputs, and reflective analyses
Disclose use of AI tools as required by the entity receiving the AI-facilitated content, but in all cases where such use represents a significant component of the final product or deliverable (for the avoidance of doubt, this means more than 25% of the final product/deliverable).
MTU affiliates are encouraged to disclose any use of AI tools, and are required to do so if the use represents a significant component of the final product or deliverable.
Should the use of AI tools like Grammarly be disclosed in academic submissions?
Consult your instructor. Often people don’t expect tools that make surface-level adjustments to your work (like Grammarly or spell checkers) to be disclosed, but they do expect tools that help generate content to be disclosed.
How should AI generated content be attributed?
It depends on what citation style you are using and where your work is being shared or published. Some instructors or publications encourage you to acknowledge the use of ChatGPT but don’t require a full citation. Others may require a citation.
Transparency in AI tool usage is mandatory, and instructors reserve the right to ask students to explain their process for creating work at any time. This includes but is not limited to including prompt appendices, AI-generated outputs, and reflective analyses.
- Undisclosed or unauthorized AI use can be treated as cheating or as an academic integrity violation when it violates instructor rules or University Policy 1.20
- Michigan Tech says there are very few tools that can reliably determine whether work was produced by AI, so instructors may instead use other methods such as revision histories and contextual error checks
This will vary by instructor. At this time, there are very few tools that can reliably determine whether or not work has been produced by AI or with the help of AI.
Instructors have addressed this in several ways so far:
1. Altering assignments to incorporate the use of AI
2. Asking students to provide revision histories
3. Identifying errors in context or fact that a student attending class should recognize but AI would not (because it hasn’t been in your class!)
Use of generative artificial intelligence technologies (GAI) in ways that are prohibited by the instructor or that do not comport with University Policy 1.20: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools will also be regarded as an academic integrity violation.
The use of AI for assistance in completing other coursework is prohibited and constitutes cheating.
The use of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) tools and apps (e.g. ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Dall-e, etc.) is strictly prohibited in all coursework. The use of GAI in this course will be considered the use of an unauthorized aide, which is a form of cheating.
Institutional & Administrative
- Michigan Tech provides faculty and staff with AI resources and says the institution supports responsible use of generative AI in professional settings
- For teaching, instructors and programs decide how AI may be used in their classrooms, and faculty using AI in research are advised to document use, understand system limitations and bias, and protect data
Michigan Tech supports the responsible use of generative artificial intelligence tools in academic, professional, and research settings.
Michigan Tech currently allows for instructors and programs to decide how GAI can and may be used in classroom settings.
When using GAI tools, faculty should:
* Document where and how GAI tools are used. The documentation may be needed to understand how its use aligns with policies from funding agencies and publishers.
* Understand the limitations of such systems. Researchers need to ensure that systems report accurate and repeatable results. Researchers must understand the bias that may exist or be produced by such tools, in particular when working with human subjects data.
* Protect their data under any applicable data privacy laws, e.g., FERPA, HIPAA, Export Controls, etc.
- Michigan Tech instructs affiliates to avoid submitting tier 1 confidential or restricted university data to AI tools unless explicit contractual protections exist and written approval is obtained from designated officers
- The university states there is generally no expectation of privacy in AI tools, limits use to publicly available or non-sensitive data unless an exception applies, and identifies Google Gemini under MTU accounts as having Google Workspace for Education data protections
Avoid submitting MTU data classified as tier 1 (confidential or restricted)[1] with AI tools.
Generally, there is no expectation of privacy when using AI tools, as the data inputted to the tool may be used for training or other purposes and could potentially be shared as output to a subsequent request by an unaffiliated entity. As such, only publicly available or non-sensitive data should be shared with AI tools.
Where a contract or other legal agreement provides explicit protections to MTU data, tier 1 data may be permissible to be used with an AI tool, but only with the written consent of the Chief Information Officer, Chief Information Security Officer, or General Counsel.
Obtain the consent of data owners before sharing any data with AI tools.
The basic Google Gemini application is available to all MTU faculty, staff and students at no cost.
Data submitted to Gemini when logged into your MTU account is afforded the same data protections as all other data you create or store in Google Workspace for Education. Data you submit won’t be used or reviewed by anyone to improve AI models.
- The university also has a general AI policy and allows administrative units to devise their own AI-related policies and procedures as long as they are consistent with university policy
- Michigan Tech has an AI Working Group within Academic Affairs that was charged with preparing students for an AI-pervasive workforce, gathering campus input, developing resources, and making recommendations on policies, procedures, and best practices
This policy consists of five overarching considerations, along with context for each. Where possible, exception handling information is also provided. Administrative units of MTU may devise their own AI-related policies and procedures consistent with this policy and other applicable university policies, protocols, and procedures, as set forth in University Policy 1.01
Initial Charge:
* Identify ways in which we can best prepare students for a workforce in which AI will be omnipresent.
* Explore, document, and make recommendations relating to the opportunities and challenges that the rise in artificial intelligence bring to academic affairs at Michigan Tech.
* Organize a university listening event to hear concerns and opportunities that the campus community sees with the rise in access to artificial intelligence resources.
* Develop and maintain an adaptive web-based set of resources that can be used for reference by faculty, staff, and students. This includes removing or archiving outdated materials in this fast-paced area.
* Discuss issues relating to artificial intelligence and higher ed with the goal of bringing forward recommendations to the university as to how to navigate this new landscape, including developing recommendations relating to policies and procedures, as well as articulating best practices.
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 Michigan Technological University's AI Policies
Michigan Technological University has defined AI policies in 12 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 100%.
Michigan Tech requires disclosure when AI use is a significant component of a final product or when the receiving instructor, publication, or other entity requires it, and it encourages disclosure more broadly. In classroom settings, attribution requirements vary by instructor, but sample syllabus language makes transparency mandatory and may require citation, documentation, prompt appendices, AI outputs, and reflective analyses.
Michigan Tech says there are very few tools that can reliably determine whether work was produced by AI, so instructors may instead use other methods such as revision histories and contextual error checks. Undisclosed or unauthorized AI use can be treated as cheating or as an academic integrity violation when it violates instructor rules or University Policy 1.20.
Michigan Tech instructs affiliates to avoid submitting tier 1 confidential or restricted university data to AI tools unless explicit contractual protections exist and written approval is obtained from designated officers. The university states there is generally no expectation of privacy in AI tools, limits use to publicly available or non-sensitive data unless an exception applies, and identifies Google Gemini under MTU accounts as having Google Workspace for Education data protections.