Teaching & Learning
- Use of generative AI for graded coursework is at instructor discretion and requires explicit instructor approval
- Submitting AI-generated work as one’s own without permission is treated as academic dishonesty under the Code of Academic Integrity, and the university notes there is no single university-wide AI policy beyond this integrity framework
At the University of Arizona, the use of generative AI tools—such as ChatGPT—in coursework is guided by the Code of Academic Integrity, which prohibits all forms of academic dishonesty. This includes submitting AI-generated work as your own without permission. While there is currently no single, university-wide policy specific to AI, instructors are encouraged to set clear expectations in their course materials.
You may only use AI tools for class assignments if your instructor has explicitly approved their use. Using AI without permission may violate the Code of Academic Integrity and could be treated as academic misconduct.
Ask before you use AI: You can only use AI for assignments if your instructor says it’s OK. Using AI without permission could be a violation of the Code of Academic Integrity and may be treated as academic misconduct.
Red: AI use is not allowed
Yellow: You can use AI, but only with permission
- The provided university sources do not define a specific, exam-focused rule for AI use (e.g., during quizzes/tests) beyond general instructor-set expectations and academic integrity guidance for coursework and assignments
not defined
- The university characterizes AI tools as potentially helpful for students’ classes but emphasizes that students must follow course rules with “permission and transparency.” The sources provided do not define a separate policy that explicitly permits or prohibits AI strictly for personal study or non-graded learning assistance independent of instructor/course expectations
AI tools like ChatGPT and Copilot can be helpful in your classes—but it’s important to know the rules. At the University of Arizona, academic honesty includes how you use AI. That means using these tools the right way, with permission and transparency.
- The provided sources do not define a separate, programming-specific policy beyond this instructor-controlled approach
- The university treats tools such as Copilot as within the general generative-AI-in-coursework framework: students may only use AI for assignments if their instructor explicitly approves it, and course policies may range from prohibited to encouraged depending on the instructor’s syllabus
AI tools like ChatGPT and Copilot can be helpful in your classes—but it’s important to know the rules.
Ask before you use AI: You can only use AI for assignments if your instructor says it’s OK. Using AI without permission could be a violation of the Code of Academic Integrity and may be treated as academic misconduct.
Include AI policies in your syllabus Clearly communicate how students can—and cannot—use tools like ChatGPT in your course. The university recommends using the Red-Yellow-Green model to set expectations:
Red: AI use is not allowed
Yellow: Use is allowed only with instructor permission
Green: AI use is encouraged, with proper attribution and guidelines
Research
- The provided university sources do not define a university-wide policy governing the use of AI for drafting, editing, or preparing research manuscripts (e.g., theses, dissertations, scholarly papers)
not defined
- The provided university sources do not define a university-wide policy governing AI use for research data collection, data analysis, statistical processing, synthetic data generation, or interpretation of research results
not defined
- One college-specific document for medical students states its AI-use policy emphasizes ethical considerations, proper citation, and HIPAA compliance in clinical documentation
- The provided university sources do not define a university-wide research-integrity policy specific to AI use in research ethics processes (e.g., IRB applications, grant proposals, ethics declarations)
This policy outlines principles and guidelines for the appropriate use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools, including but not limited to generative AI systems, machine learning platforms, and image recognition software, by medical students. It emphasizes ethical considerations, responsible usage, proper citation of AI tools, and HIPAA compliance in clinical documentation.
Academic Integrity
- At the university level, AI use in coursework is framed as requiring “permission and transparency,” with academic dishonesty including submitting AI-generated work as one’s own without permission
- In instructor-provided syllabus models, disclosure/acknowledgment of AI use may be required by course expectations, and the Red-Yellow-Green model includes a category where AI is encouraged with “proper attribution.”
At the University of Arizona, academic honesty includes how you use AI. That means using these tools the right way, with permission and transparency.
At the University of Arizona, the use of generative AI tools—such as ChatGPT—in coursework is guided by the Code of Academic Integrity, which prohibits all forms of academic dishonesty. This includes submitting AI-generated work as your own without permission.
Full Use of AI is Permitted and Human Oversight is Required: AI can be used and students are responsible for human oversight and evaluation of AI content
Disclosing AI Use: AI use must be acknowledged per course expectations you’ve set
Green: AI use is encouraged, with proper attribution and guidelines
- The university’s academic integrity code includes a formal sanctions process that can include grade penalties, transcript notation, failure in the course, degree revocation, and suspension/expulsion
- Separately, UCATT notes Turnitin’s AI writing detection indicator appears in Similarity Reports, that testing found reliability/consistency issues, that there is no opt-out so Turnitin submissions will be screened, and that the tool should not be used as definitive proof of misconduct
A faculty member may impose any one or a combination of the following sanctions: a written warning, loss of credit for the work involved, reduction in grade, notation of the violation(s) on the student’s transcript, a failing grade in the course, or revocation of a student’s degree. The faculty member may also impose a sanction of suspension or expulsion from the program, department, college, or University.
Turnitin has released an “AI writing detection indicator” that now appears in the Similarity Report for student submissions.
The UCATT D2L Consulting Team is currently testing this feature and is finding some reliability and consistency issues with its accuracy in generating AI-detection values. However, Turnitin has not provided an opt-out option, so any submissions to Turnitin will be screened for AI-generated text.
This tool is unreliable for detecting AI-generated text and should not be used as definitive proof of misconduct.
Institutional & Administrative
- The university recommends that faculty provide course-level guidance to students about generative AI use and consult UCATT syllabus guidance
- Faculty are encouraged to include AI policies in the syllabus and communicate what students can and cannot do using the Red-Yellow-Green model; the provided sources do not define institution-wide requirements for faculty using AI for grading, feedback, recommendation letters, or administrative communications
The University recommends that faculty provide guidance to their students about the use of technologies as a part of their course. If a student is unsure regarding the proper use of generative AI as a part of a course assignment, they should consult their faculty/instructor. Syllabus guidance for faculty is provided by the Center for Assessment, Teaching, and Technology (UCATT).
Include AI policies in your syllabus Clearly communicate how students can—and cannot—use tools like ChatGPT in your course. The university recommends using the Red-Yellow-Green model to set expectations:
Red: AI use is not allowed
Yellow: Use is allowed only with instructor permission
Green: AI use is encouraged, with proper attribution and guidelines
- As provided, the sources do not define specific data-classification rules, approved AI platforms, or prohibited platforms, beyond pointing to this guideline (UA login required)
- The provided sources reference an institutional "Information Security and Artificial Intelligence Technologies Guideline" for AI use, but the content is not included in the provided accessible text
For information on the use of AI at the University of Arizona, refer to the Information Security and Artificial Intelligence Technologies Guideline (UA login required).
Information Security and Artificial Intelligence Technologies Guidelines. (NetId required)
- The university states an overarching principle-based posture: AI should be developed and used with care and through practices that are legally sound, ethically grounded, and academically rigorous
- The provided sources do not define a formal university AI governance structure, committee, or an adoption roadmap, but they note that there is currently no single university-wide policy specific to AI and that guidance is supported through guidelines and collaborations
We believe that AI must be developed and used with care. That’s why the University of Arizona champions practices that are legally sound, ethically grounded, and academically rigorous. Our guidelines and collaborations ensure that AI efforts reflect our values and responsibilities as a public research institution.
While there is currently no single, university-wide policy specific to AI, instructors are encouraged to set clear expectations in their course materials.
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 Arizona's AI Policies
University of Arizona has defined AI policies in 12 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 100%.
At the university level, AI use in coursework is framed as requiring “permission and transparency,” with academic dishonesty including submitting AI-generated work as one’s own without permission. In instructor-provided syllabus models, disclosure/acknowledgment of AI use may be required by course expectations, and the Red-Yellow-Green model includes a category where AI is encouraged with “proper attribution.”
The university’s academic integrity code includes a formal sanctions process that can include grade penalties, transcript notation, failure in the course, degree revocation, and suspension/expulsion. Separately, UCATT notes Turnitin’s AI writing detection indicator appears in Similarity Reports, that testing found reliability/consistency issues, that there is no opt-out so Turnitin submissions will be screened, and that the tool should not be used as definitive proof of misconduct.
The provided sources reference an institutional "Information Security and Artificial Intelligence Technologies Guideline" for AI use, but the content is not included in the provided accessible text. As provided, the sources do not define specific data-classification rules, approved AI platforms, or prohibited platforms, beyond pointing to this guideline (UA login required).