Teaching & Learning
- Use of generative AI for course assignments is at instructor discretion
- When permitted, students may be required to disclose the tools used and the extent of use in each submission
- Students may use AI only when explicitly authorized by the instructor, and if no course policy is stated, students must assume AI-generated content in assignments is not permitted and may violate the Honor Code
Mississippi State University expects students to adhere to policies regarding academic integrity and only use generative AI tools such as Chat GPT (or similar tools) when explicitly authorized by the instructor When use of generative AI is permitted for course assignments, the student may be required to provide a declaration outlining the tools used and the extent of their use in each submission.
Individual instructors are encouraged to establish class-specific policies concerning the use of generative AI within their courses. The student must consult the syllabus for each class they are taking to determine if and to what degree generative AI is allowed.
In the absence of a stated policy in a course syllabus, students must assume that the inclusion of GAI-generated content in course activities, assignments, or examinations is not permitted and will be considered a violation of the university Honor Code.
- AI use in examinations and assessments is determined by the instructor, with a default prohibition when no syllabus policy is provided
- The university materials also advise instructors that assessments conducted under direct supervision are more likely to prevent AI use, and that instructors who want to prevent AI use should design assessments so AI use is not possible
In the absence of a stated policy in a course syllabus, students must assume that the inclusion of GAI-generated content in course activities, assignments, or examinations is not permitted and will be considered a violation of the university Honor Code.
Assessments and activities that are conducted under direct instructor supervision (e.g., oral examinations, in-class paper exams/quizzes, physical activities conducted in a scientific lab) are more likely to prevent the possibility of GAI use.
Instructors with the goal of preventing GAI use should design assessments and activities so that the use of GAI is not a possibility.
We will be using Honorlock, an online proctoring service, to proctor your exams this semester.
- The university does not set a separate university-wide student policy specifically for personal study use of AI; instead, classroom use is governed by instructor-specific rules
- The working group materials describe AI as potentially useful for informal language practice, explaining writing issues, and simplifying complex texts, but these statements are framed as guidance and best practices rather than a binding student policy
Currently, individual instructors are encouraged to establish class-specific guidelines concerning the use of generative AI within their courses. The student must consult the syllabus for each class they are taking to determine if and to what degree generative AI is allowed.
GAI tools can recognize, explain, and fix simple grammar errors, but they can also edit and explain more nuanced writing considerations, such as more precise terminology, use of “tone,” and formatting recommendations. These tools can also serve as conversational partners for informal language practice, aiding language learners and multilingual students who are mastering the basics of writing.
Programs like ChatGPT can effectively condense and simplify longer texts provided by the user, assisting them with reading and research. These applications can also help in making complex texts easier to understand by providing clear explanations based on the source material.
- There is no separate university-wide rule specifically for programming assignments; AI use for coding in coursework falls under the same instructor-authorization model as other class work
- The working group materials note that AI can help develop code and solve problems in programs such as Excel, R, Python, Stata, and Mathematica, but any actual student use in coursework depends on course-specific instructor policy
Mississippi State University expects students to adhere to policies regarding academic integrity and only use generative AI tools such as Chat GPT (or similar tools) when explicitly authorized by the instructor
Individual instructors are encouraged to establish class-specific policies concerning the use of generative AI within their courses. The student must consult the syllabus for each class they are taking to determine if and to what degree generative AI is allowed.
Helps with the design and application of computer programming and code.
GAI tools like ChatGPT can be used to develop computer code for specific applications. GAI tools can also suggest potential methods for solving user problems in specific programs (e.g., Excel, R, Python, Stata, Mathematica).
Research
- No formal university-wide research-writing policy for manuscripts, theses, or dissertations is defined in the provided sources
- The Honor Code materials state that students' submitted work must be their own and specifically include research papers, and the working group report notes a recommendation to form a future group on research, scholarship, and grantsmanship, indicating this area was not yet fully addressed
Students will be required to state their commitment to the honor code on examinations, research papers, and other academic work.
These rules make clear that a student’s submitted work must be their own. This principle includes content created by generative artificial intelligence (GAI) tools without authorization from the instructor.
Form a “Working Group on GAI Research, Scholarship, and Grantsmanship” to address immediate concerns and opportunities as developments in GAI impact MSU’s research enterprise.
- The university does not define a research-specific AI policy for data analysis, statistical processing, or synthetic data in the provided sources
- However, the Honor Code procedures prohibit making up data or results and prohibit including fictitious data in a data set without proper disclosure for the purpose of misrepresenting analysis results
2. Fabrication: Making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
a. Intentionally inventing any information or citation in any academic exercise.
b. “Inventing” information in any laboratory experiment, report of results, or academic exercise.
c. Inventing data for an experiment that was not conducted or including fictitious data to a data set without proper disclosure of such and for the purpose of misrepresenting the results of the analysis.
- No explicit university policy is defined in the provided sources for AI use in grant proposals, IRB applications, or research ethics declarations
- The working group report instead recommends creating a future working group on research, scholarship, and grantsmanship, which indicates these research-specific integrity issues were identified for later development rather than governed by a current policy here
Form a “Working Group on GAI Research, Scholarship, and Grantsmanship” to address immediate concerns and opportunities as developments in GAI impact MSU’s research enterprise.
Academic Integrity
- When instructors permit AI use, disclosure and citation requirements may apply at the course level rather than through a single fixed university-wide rule
- Students may be required to submit a declaration describing the tools used and the extent of use, and the working group guidance says instructors should specify how AI-generated content must be cited and how it will be evaluated
When use of generative AI is permitted for course assignments, the student may be required to provide a declaration outlining the tools used and the extent of their use in each submission.
If an instructor allows the inclusion of AI-generated content in student submissions, it is helpful to specify exactly how such content must be cited and how such content will be considered when evaluating student performance.
For information on citation consult, MSU Libraries’ Citation Guides at https://guides.library.msstate.edu/citationguides.
- The syllabus also states that some courses may use Honorlock to proctor exams
- Undisclosed or unauthorized AI use can be treated as an Honor Code violation, especially where no syllabus policy authorizes it
- Enforcement relies on existing academic misconduct procedures, and the working group recommends that a future standing committee report on best practices for detecting and reporting dishonesty involving AI
In the absence of a stated policy in a course syllabus, students must assume that the inclusion of GAI-generated content in course activities, assignments, or examinations is not permitted and will be considered a violation of the university Honor Code.
Ignorance of the rules does not exclude any member of the MSU community from the requirements or the processes of the Honor Code.
Empower the Standing Committee to report on the best practices for detecting and reporting academy dishonesty involving GAI.
We will be using Honorlock, an online proctoring service, to proctor your exams this semester.
Institutional & Administrative
- The provided sources give faculty guidance for classroom use of AI rather than a formal binding policy on grading, feedback, recommendation letters, or administrative communications
- The working group was explicitly charged with defining best practices for AI in teaching from the faculty perspective, and it recommends a future working group to address staff and professional employment uses
2) To define a set of best practices regarding responsible uses of GAI in the classroom, both from the faculty teaching perspective and a student learning perspective.
In response to the second charge, the working group consulted best practice documents from peer institutions and explored research and scholarship on the possibilities and limitations that GAI poses for instruction and student learning.
Form a “Working Group on GAI Staff and Professional Employment” to address immediate concerns and opportunities as developments in GAI impact the daily professional work at the University.
- The university sets clear data protection limits for AI use
- The guidance also warns users to treat AI tools like posting data on a public website
- Only publicly available information may be entered into generative AI tools by default, and use of MSU proprietary or confidential information requires tools that have undergone a security risk review and are covered by a university contract addressing data protection and training-model use
AI tools and services should be viewed as posting data on a public website. Only publicly available information (data that has no legal or other requirement for confidentiality, integrity, or availability under the Freedom of Information Act) may be used in generative AI tools and services. Users should expect these AI tools and services to use input data for its training, including the derivative use of any data submitted.
If students, faculty, staff, or affiliates need to authenticate to access source information, it is an indicator that permission from the respective division VP may be needed to use this information in AI tools and services.
For any MSU proprietary or confidential information, University students, faculty, staff and affiliates:
Must use products or services that have undergone a comprehensive security risk review based on use case and data classification by MSU Chief Information Security Officer.
Must use products or services that have a university contract in place that protects university data and specifically addresses how MSU information will be used by training models and if it is accessible to any external parties.
- Mississippi State has institution-level AI governance activity through its Provost’s Office working group and recommendations for continuing oversight
- The report recommends establishing a standing university committee on AI and university policy, along with additional working groups for research, staff employment, and extension, and a submission portal for faculty resources
On August 2, 2023, Provost David Shaw began the process of putting together a Working Group on Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) for Teaching and Learning.
1) Form a “University Standing Committee on GAI and University Policy” that meets at least once a semester to review and revise MSU policy and update public-facing material on AI as necessary.
3) Form a “Working Group on GAI Research, Scholarship, and Grantsmanship” to address immediate concerns and opportunities as developments in GAI impact MSU’s research enterprise.
4) Form a “Working Group on GAI Staff and Professional Employment” to address immediate concerns and opportunities as developments in GAI impact the daily professional work at the University.
5) Form a “Working Group on GAI Extension” to address immediate concerns and opportunities as developments in GAI impact extension faculty and services.
6) Develop a “GAI and Teaching Submission Portal” where MSU faculty can share resources and assignments that integrate GAI successfully.
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 Mississippi State University's AI Policies
Mississippi State University has defined AI policies in 12 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 100%.
When instructors permit AI use, disclosure and citation requirements may apply at the course level rather than through a single fixed university-wide rule. Students may be required to submit a declaration describing the tools used and the extent of use, and the working group guidance says instructors should specify how AI-generated content must be cited and how it will be evaluated.
Undisclosed or unauthorized AI use can be treated as an Honor Code violation, especially where no syllabus policy authorizes it. Enforcement relies on existing academic misconduct procedures, and the working group recommends that a future standing committee report on best practices for detecting and reporting dishonesty involving AI. The syllabus also states that some courses may use Honorlock to proctor exams.
The university sets clear data protection limits for AI use. Only publicly available information may be entered into generative AI tools by default, and use of MSU proprietary or confidential information requires tools that have undergone a security risk review and are covered by a university contract addressing data protection and training-model use. The guidance also warns users to treat AI tools like posting data on a public website.