Teaching & Learning
- Use of AI in coursework is at instructor discretion
- Faculty are told they can set expectations for AI use in course work, and the syllabus statement says AI use in a course requires instructor approval
- The faculty guideline also says instructors should establish clear policies for appropriate and inappropriate uses and may either restrict/prohibit AI or invite its use for specific assignments
It is important for faculty to know they can set expectations for use of AI tools to complete course work in the courses they teach.
faculty must be explicit with their expectations on use of assistive technologies.
“...In no event may students cheat, copy, or plagiarize the work of others. The use of
artificial intelligence tools (AI) in this course is subject to approval of the course
instructor. When drawing from various resources for assignments, students shall
provide proper citations, footnotes, and bibliographic information...”
As instructors determine the extent to which AI tools may serve the learning goals of their courses, it will be important to not only establish clear policies for appropriate and inappropriate uses of AI but also to make a point to discuss those policies, and the thinking and values that guide them, regularly with students as the semester progresses.
If you plan to limit or prohibit use of AI, be clear about your reasoning.
If you plan to invite students to use AI, set clear expectations:
- Instructors may permit AI use to enhance AI literacy and model proper use in discipline-specific ways
- The faculty guideline supports classroom discussion and instructional use of AI to build students’ AI literacy and critical thinking, but it does not set a standalone university-wide student policy for private study use
Alternatively, other faculty members might permit the use of AI to enhance students' AI literacy.
In this case, one might model proper AI use based on one's discipline.
Asking students to wrestle with these deeper questions builds their critical thinking skills and helps equip them to think more carefully about the ethical uses of AI, how they want to incorporate it into their education, and how they view the information they glean from it.
Building in class time for students to practice using it or collaborate by working in groups can give them hands-on practice while you’re there to answer questions.
- AI-assisted coding is discussed as a capability of generative AI, but no university-wide student coding rule is defined
- Because AI use in coursework is subject to instructor approval, coding-related use falls under course-level faculty expectations rather than a uniform institutional permission rule
• Quickly processing large amounts of data and aid with coding.
• Generating boilerplate code
It is important for faculty to know they can set expectations for use of AI tools to complete course work in the courses they teach.
“...In no event may students cheat, copy, or plagiarize the work of others. The use of
artificial intelligence tools (AI) in this course is subject to approval of the course
instructor. When drawing from various resources for assignments, students shall
provide proper citations, footnotes, and bibliographic information...”
Research
- It also notes editing and overcoming writer’s block as possible benefits of AI
- The university does not define a research-writing AI policy, but the faculty guideline warns that sharing manuscripts with generative AI may create publisher-agreement risks
• Editing or overcoming writer’s block.
o Sharing a manuscript might violate publisher agreements.
- No research-specific AI data-analysis policy is defined
- The faculty guideline notes that AI can process large amounts of data and that some assignments may involve evaluating an AI’s interpretation of statistical data, but these statements are presented as general or classroom guidance rather than research policy
• Quickly processing large amounts of data and aid with coding.
In a sociology class, one might require students to assess an AI's interpretation of statistical data to enhance their comprehension of the concepts.
- The research page requires training and approval for human and animal research, but no AI-specific research integrity rule is defined
- Samford’s research integrity page states general research misconduct and compliance standards, but it does not specifically address AI in grant proposals, IRB applications, or research ethics declarations
Federal Regulations define Research Misconduct as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research or in reporting research results.
Samford is committed to operating with integrity in full compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and policies.
All investigators involved in human subject and animal research are required to complete education focused on the appropriate use of humans and/or animals in research, prior to receiving Institutional Review Board (IRB) and Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) approval for specific research protocols.
Academic Integrity
- Students must provide citations, footnotes, and bibliographic information when drawing from resources for assignments
- The faculty guideline further recommends that instructors consider AI-contribution disclosure statements and suggests documenting where AI was used, what prompts were used, and keeping a record of that use
“...In no event may students cheat, copy, or plagiarize the work of others. The use of
artificial intelligence tools (AI) in this course is subject to approval of the course
instructor. When drawing from various resources for assignments, students shall
provide proper citations, footnotes, and bibliographic information...”
Whether or not AI is allowed for use in assignments, educators might consider requiring AI-contribution disclosure statements as part of submitted assignments, especially because plagiarism detectors have difficulty keeping pace with software developments.
o Documentation of usage: One strategy for teaching them to use the technology thoughtfully is to have them footnote or otherwise document where they used it to generate part of an assignment and to name what prompts they used.
Most tools keep track of user prompts and the answers they generate, but students should be keeping a record of their use and be willing to share their process of arriving at a particular solution or response.
Many instructors are advocating treating it in the same way as other preexisting text students might incorporate into their writing and to document it as such.
- The 2025 draft guideline says AI detection software is not recommended for investigating suspected misuse and should not be used to make academic integrity decisions
- Faculty are advised to use multiple strategies, begin with dialogue, and if responsibility is determined, follow the course syllabus and student handbook while preserving documentation and confidentiality
Despite the availability of various tools claiming to detect AI-generated content (e.g., Turnitin’s AI detection, GPTZero, WinstonAI, Scribbr), faculty should exercise caution in relying on them.
For this reason, the use of AI detection software is not recommended as a method for investigating potential misuse of AI tools in student work. Such software may be misleading and should not be used to make academic integrity decisions.
Instead, faculty should consider a combination of the following strategies, which align more closely with pedagogical best practices and institutional values.
Taking the recommendations offered in this guideline into account, it is likely best to begin with dialogue and expressing your concerns with the student in a non-accusatory manner.
If responsibility is determined, refer to your course syllabus and the student handbook for guidance on how to proceed. Ensure proper documentation and confidentiality is preserved.
Institutional & Administrative
- It also tells faculty not to share personal or confidential information with generative AI tools
- The faculty guideline allows and encourages faculty consideration of AI for teaching-related purposes such as brainstorming assignments, assessments, and classroom modeling, while emphasizing that faculty must set clear expectations for student use
There are numerous benefits with using AI, including:
• Editing or overcoming writer’s block.
• Increasing productivity by reducing repetitive work.
• Quickly processing large amounts of data and aid with coding.
• Improving instruction by brainstorming assignment ideas and assessments.
It is important for faculty to know they can set expectations for use of AI tools to complete course work in the courses they teach.
faculty must be explicit with their expectations on use of assistive technologies.
o Teaching: Identify the range of capabilities of the tools by defining appropriate and inappropriate uses, one assignment at a time.
o Modeling: Spend class time demonstrating how AI can be used for a task.
• Privacy matters:
o Do not share personal or confidential information.
- The reviewed sources do not identify approved AI platforms or a formal data-classification framework specific to AI
- Samford provides privacy-related cautions for AI use, including not sharing personal or confidential information and warning that shared content may become part of AI training data or outputs
• Privacy matters:
o Do not share personal or confidential information.
o Sharing a manuscript might violate publisher agreements.
o Any content shared with generative AI tools may be incorporated into their training data or outputs.
Samford University technology policies are those policies particularly related to technology issues affecting broad populations of the university.
Examples of some of the policies addressed are:
* Confidentiality-Security Agreement
- Samford has an institutional AI governance structure reflected in a Provost task force and a later revision by the Academic Technology and Learning Committee
- The academic affairs materials present the faculty AI guideline as an institutionally developed framework grounded in university core values rather than a formal enterprise AI strategy or roadmap
Faculty Guideline on Academic Use of Artificial Intelligence
Prepared by the Provost’s Task Force on Artificial Intelligence – Fall 2023
The University Core Values direct and illuminate our approach to interacting with AI tools at Samford.
This guideline is structured in a question-and-answer format, to describe a “how to” approach for faculty when interacting with AI in the academic setting.
Document History
Date Comment
April 7, 2025 Revised by Academic Technology and Learning Committee
- Reversed recommendation regarding AI detection tools based on current best practices.
- Added resource for engaging students suspected of unauthorized AI use in coursework.
October 27, 2023 Initial document prepared by Provost’s Task Force on Artificial Intelligence.
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 Samford University's AI Policies
Samford University has defined AI policies in 11 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 92%.
Students must provide citations, footnotes, and bibliographic information when drawing from resources for assignments. The faculty guideline further recommends that instructors consider AI-contribution disclosure statements and suggests documenting where AI was used, what prompts were used, and keeping a record of that use.
The 2025 draft guideline says AI detection software is not recommended for investigating suspected misuse and should not be used to make academic integrity decisions. Faculty are advised to use multiple strategies, begin with dialogue, and if responsibility is determined, follow the course syllabus and student handbook while preserving documentation and confidentiality.
Samford provides privacy-related cautions for AI use, including not sharing personal or confidential information and warning that shared content may become part of AI training data or outputs. The reviewed sources do not identify approved AI platforms or a formal data-classification framework specific to AI.