Teaching & Learning
- Separately, OIT's strategic plan explicitly includes deploying emerging technologies such as AI tutors and learning analytics to support student outcomes
- The Office for Academic Affairs faculty guidance warns that GPT-based tools can produce persuasive errors and states they cannot be relied on for research, learning, and education
You cannot rely on ChatGPT-generated content for research, learning and education.
Partner with academic and student success units to deploy emerging technologies, such as AI tutors and learning analytics, that directly support student outcomes, including personalized instruction, supplemental learning, and career readiness.
- No student-facing policy for use on programming assignments is defined in the provided sources
- OIT includes GitHub Copilot on its AI Approved List as an AI programming assistance tool that is approved for use with restrictions, including that restricted tools should not be used with sensitive or restricted data
## Tools Approved for use with Restrictions:
### These services are available for use but should not be used with sensitive or restricted data.
* GitHub Copilot – AI programming assistance.
Research
- These principles also caution about journal and grantor policies that may restrict generative AI use
- The Barefield College of Arts & Sciences principles state that publications and grant applications produced with the aid of generative AI must be thoroughly edited to remove violations and inaccuracies, and emphasize that researchers remain responsible for the content they produce
Moreover, any publications or grant applications produced with the aid of generative AI must be thoroughly edited to remove any such violations as well as inaccuracies (whether outright inventions or inherent biases) that the application may have imported from its own much larger dataset.
Researchers should also be aware that a number of prominent journals (including Science and Nature) and grantors (e.g., the NIH) have put in place strict policies governing the use of generative AI; violation of these policies could well make a researcher’s work unpublishable or unfundable.
Fundamentally, all researchers remain responsible for the content they produce, whether with or without the aid of generative AI tools.
- These statements apply to faculty and student researchers who choose to incorporate generative AI in their work
- The Barefield College of Arts & Sciences principles warn that any data entered into a publicly-available AI becomes public and instruct researchers to scrub personal, proprietary, and other sensitive information to avoid FERPA, HIPAA, and research secrecy violations and intellectual property disputes
Any data put into a publicly-available AI will then itself become public, so researchers must scrub all personal (names, SSNs, health status, enrollment status), proprietary (patented, trademarked, copyrighted), and other sensitive information to avoid FERPA, HIPAA, and research secrecy violations or future intellectual property disputes.
- The Office for Academic Affairs faculty guidance also states that ChatGPT-generated content cannot be relied on for research
- The Barefield College of Arts & Sciences principles state that researchers must consider whether AI use will produce ethical conflicts, including breaches of academic integrity, methodological transparency, and civil and human rights, and reiterate that researchers remain responsible for the content they produce
Last, but most certainly not least, researchers must consider whether the use of AI will produce any ethical conflicts, including but not limited to breaches of academic integrity, methodological transparency, and civil and human rights.
Fundamentally, all researchers remain responsible for the content they produce, whether with or without the aid of generative AI tools.
You cannot rely on ChatGPT-generated content for research, learning and education.
Academic Integrity
- No university-wide student academic work citation or disclosure requirement is defined in the provided sources
- The Division of Strategic Communications guidelines require that if generative AI content depicting UA traditions is created for illustrative purposes, it must be clearly labeled as AI-generated, illustrative, or speculative only
If generative AI content depicting UA traditions, such as commencement ceremonies or sporting events, is ever created for illustrative purposes, it must be clearly labeled as AI-generated, illustrative, or speculative only.
- No mention of Turnitin, GPTZero, or AI detectors appears in the provided policy text excerpts reviewed
- The Office for Academic Affairs defines academic misconduct and academic dishonesty in general terms, but the provided sources do not define AI-specific detection tools or enforcement procedures for AI use
Academic misconduct includes all acts of dishonesty in any academically related matter and any knowing or intentional help or attempt to help, or conspiracy to help, another student commit an act of academic dishonesty.
Academic dishonesty includes, but is not limited to; each of the following acts when performed in any type of academic or academically – related matter, exercise or activity.
Institutional & Administrative
- The Office for Academic Affairs guidance states that faculty may experiment with generative AI tools in conjunction with course materials and assignments
- The UA Teaching Academy guidance states instructors should critically review and refine AI-generated assignments, rubrics, summaries, or practice questions to ensure quality and alignment with course objectives
Faculty may experiment with generative AI tools in conjunction with their course materials and assignments.
Instructors should critically review and refine any AI-generated assignments, rubrics, summaries or practice questions to ensure quality and alignment with course objectives.
- OIT publishes an AI Approved List that identifies tools approved without restrictions, tools approved with restrictions (including that they should not be used with sensitive or restricted data), and prohibited tools
- OIT also states that UA users must not disclose UA Sensitive or Restricted/PHI information to a third party without an agreement protecting this information, and that official UA-purpose AI use (even if free) requires submitting a request through UA IT
## Tools Approved for use with Restrictions:
### These services are available for use but should not be used with sensitive or restricted data.
UA users must not disclose UA Sensitive or Restricted/PHI information to a third party without an agreement protecting this information. For use of AI tools or systems for official UA purposes, even if they are free of charge, please submit a request through UA IT.
## Prohibited Tools:
- OIT also states it will collaborate with UA entities to evaluate and implement secure AI platforms as part of secure AI adoption
- OIT's strategic plan and Legends Portfolio describe an institutional strategy for evaluating and adopting AI, including evaluating AI embedded in Blackboard Ultra, hosting AI workshops with the UA Teaching Academy, and designing HPC/data center capacity to accommodate growing AI compute needs
OIT is actively evaluating AI technologies embedded within Blackboard Ultra, such as the AI Design Assistant, and is monitoring ongoing AI developments that could benefit UA faculty and students. In collaboration with the UA Teaching Academy, OIT hosts on-campus AI workshops to provide insights into how AI can be used in teaching and learning.
The future UA High Performance Computing and Data Center facility is being designed to accommodate growing AI compute needs, with power requirements for AI expected to be a primary driver of resource demand.
In support of secure AI adoption, OIT will collaborate with UA entities to evaluate and implement secure AI platforms tailored to their needs.
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 University of Alabama's AI Policies
University of Alabama has defined AI policies in 10 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 83%.
The Division of Strategic Communications guidelines require that if generative AI content depicting UA traditions is created for illustrative purposes, it must be clearly labeled as AI-generated, illustrative, or speculative only. No university-wide student academic work citation or disclosure requirement is defined in the provided sources.
The Office for Academic Affairs defines academic misconduct and academic dishonesty in general terms, but the provided sources do not define AI-specific detection tools or enforcement procedures for AI use. No mention of Turnitin, GPTZero, or AI detectors appears in the provided policy text excerpts reviewed.
OIT publishes an AI Approved List that identifies tools approved without restrictions, tools approved with restrictions (including that they should not be used with sensitive or restricted data), and prohibited tools. OIT also states that UA users must not disclose UA Sensitive or Restricted/PHI information to a third party without an agreement protecting this information, and that official UA-purpose AI use (even if free) requires submitting a request through UA IT.