Teaching & Learning
- As a sample course policy, students may be allowed to use AI tools on assignments only if instructor permission is obtained in advance; otherwise, students are expected to complete assignments without substantive assistance from automated tools
- The university indicates that expectations for student use of generative AI in coursework should be made clear to students and aligned with CTAL guidance, with course-level policies determining whether AI is prohibited, permitted with prior permission, permitted with acknowledgement, or permitted without acknowledgement
Expectations regarding the use of Generative AI should be clear to students and consistent with the guidelines the Center for Teaching and Assessment of Learning adopts in the “Considerations for Using and Addressing Advanced Automated Tools in Coursework and Assignments,” available at https://ctal.udel.edu/advanced-automated-tools/
In each course, at least four possible approaches seem plausible in terms of student use of these tools:
1. 1. Prohibit all use of these tools
2. Allow their use only with prior permission
3. Allow their use only with explicit acknowledgement
4. Freely allow their use without any need for acknowledgement
Students are allowed to use advanced automated tools (artificial intelligence or machine learning tools such as ChatGPT or Dall-E 2) on assignments in this course if instructor permission is obtained in advance. Unless given explicit permission to use those tools, each student is expected to complete each assignment without substantive assistance from others, including automated tools.
- The university does not define a specific, university-wide rule for student use of AI during exams and formal assessments in the provided sources
- CTAL guidance referenced by the university indicates course policies may prohibit AI use or allow it under specified conditions, and the academic integrity faculty resource includes “Unauthorized assistance on an assignment, quiz or test” with “Some use of generative artificial intelligence” as criteria associated with academic dishonesty outcomes
In each course, at least four possible approaches seem plausible in terms of student use of these tools:
1. 1. Prohibit all use of these tools
2. Allow their use only with prior permission
3. Allow their use only with explicit acknowledgement
4. Freely allow their use without any need for acknowledgement
Some use of generative artificial intelligence
Unauthorized assistance on an assignment, quiz or test
- The writing center also characterizes generative AI as potentially useful for several learning-related purposes (e.g., understanding how a topic has been discussed, identifying keywords, generating genre models, translating text, revising for clarity, and editing)
- The university writing center states it welcomes conversations with students about the advantages and drawbacks of using generative AI as part of reading, researching, drafting, revising, and editing processes, and that students will not be penalized for discussing AI use with a writing center tutor
Because the writing center’s goal is to empower students to learn effective writing and communication strategies, we welcome conversations with students about the advantages and drawbacks of using generative AI as part of their reading, researching, drafting, revising, and editing processes.
Students: you will never be penalized for discussing the use of AI with a writing center tutor.
The UD Writing Center recognizes that LLM-based generative AI can be useful in helping students:
* Understand how a question or topic has been discussed by others in order to inform the student’s own position;
* Identify keywords about a topic that will lead to better searches in the library’s databases;
* Generate models of different genres of writing a student can compare their own draft to;
* Translate pieces of text written in another language;
* Suggest how to revise a wordy passage for clarity and concision;
* Edit their own writing to conform to standard American academic English.
- The university’s directive prohibits using generative AI to generate malicious content and requires that any AI-generated code be reviewed by qualified personnel to verify it contains no malicious elements
- Beyond this security requirement, the provided sources do not define coursewide rules specific to using AI for programming assignments (e.g., debugging or code completion), leaving AI-use expectations to be set at the course level
University users must not use Generative AI tools to generate malicious content, such as malware, viruses, worms, and trojan horses that may have the ability to circumvent access control measures put in place by the University, or any other third-party entity, to prevent unauthorized access to their respective networks. Any code generated using Generative AI must be reviewed by qualified personnel to verify it does not contain any malicious elements.
Research
- The directive also identifies research-related materials (e.g., research papers and funding proposals under confidential review) as Level II/III data examples, and prohibits using Level II/III University Information with publicly available generative AI tools
- The university’s directive requires transparency when using generative AI to produce written materials or other work products and requires users not to present AI output as their own, including confirming accuracy and avoiding plagiarism or intellectual property violations
University users must be transparent and disclose the use of Generative AI used to produce written materials or other work products and must not hold out output generated by Generative AI tools as their own. If the output includes any quote, paraphrase, or borrowed ideas from the output of Generative AI tools or services, University Users must confirm that the output is accurate and not plagiarize another party’s existing work or otherwise violate another party’s intellectual property rights.
Material under confidential review, including research papers and funding proposals;
Only University Information classified as Level I, in conjunction with other publicly available information, may be used with Publicly Available Generative AI. Using Level II or Level III University Information with Publicly Available AI is prohibited.
- The directive also requires users to confirm the accuracy of information generated by generative AI using other sources and to check outputs for bias before relying on them
- The university’s directive restricts what University Information may be used with different categories of generative AI, including prohibiting the use of Level II/III University Information with publicly available generative AI tools
Only University Information classified as Level I, in conjunction with other publicly available information, may be used with Publicly Available Generative AI. Using Level II or Level III University Information with Publicly Available AI is prohibited.
University users must confirm the accuracy of information generated by Generative AI using other sources.
University users must check the output of the Generative AI for bias by determining whether the data input into, and the output of, Generative AI tools produces decisions that may result in a disparate impact to individuals based on their protected classifications under applicable law, such as race, ethnicity, national origin, age, sexual orientation, or disability status. Any output that is indicative of a potential bias should not be relied upon.
- It also states that entering research into a generative AI tool or service could constitute premature disclosure that compromises invention patentability
- The university’s directive warns that entering copyrighted material into generative AI may be a copyright violation and that feeding copyrighted material into AI could train it to output works that violate intellectual property rights
- The directive further identifies “material under confidential review” (including research papers and funding proposals) as sensitive (Level II/III) examples and prohibits using Level II/III University Information with publicly available generative AI
Entering copyrighted material into a Generative AI tool or service may effectively result in the creation of a digital copy, which is a copyright violation. Feeding copyrighted material information into a Generative AI tool or service could “train” the AI to output works that violate the intellectual property rights of the original creator. In addition, entering research into Generative AI tool or service could constitute premature disclosure, compromising invention patentability.
Material under confidential review, including research papers and funding proposals;
Only University Information classified as Level I, in conjunction with other publicly available information, may be used with Publicly Available Generative AI. Using Level II or Level III University Information with Publicly Available AI is prohibited.
Academic Integrity
- The university’s directive requires university users to be transparent and disclose generative AI use in written materials or other work products and prohibits presenting AI output as one’s own; it also requires confirming accuracy and avoiding plagiarism or intellectual property violations
- CTAL provides sample syllabus language indicating that, in some courses, AI use on assignments may be permitted only if it is “properly documented and credited,” including an example citation format and an additional requirement that students include a brief description of how the tool was used
University users must be transparent and disclose the use of Generative AI used to produce written materials or other work products and must not hold out output generated by Generative AI tools as their own.
Students are allowed to use advanced automated tools (artificial intelligence or machine learning tools such as ChatGPT or Dall-E 2) on assignments in this course if that use is properly documented and credited. For example, text generated using ChatGPT-3 should include a citation such as: “Chat-GPT-3. (YYYY, Month DD of query). “Text of your query.” Generated using OpenAI. https://chat.openai.com/” Material generated using other tools should follow a similar citation convention.
If a tool is used in an assignment, students must also include a brief (2-3 sentences) description of how they used the tool e.g., what specific tool was used, what prompt and settings were used to generate material, and how that material was incorporated into the assignment.
- The provided sources do not define a specific university position on the use of AI-detection tools (e.g., Turnitin AI detection) for enforcement
- The academic integrity faculty resources include “Some use of generative artificial intelligence” as part of criteria for determining levels of academic dishonesty and list possible academic penalties, including a lowered grade, failing grade, lowered final course grade, and transcript notation outcomes (e.g., “Grade of X***”)
Some use of generative artificial intelligence
Grade of X***
Failure of a course with a notation on the transcript that indicates the failure was due to academic dishonesty
Academic penalty
* Redo assignment
* Lowered grade on assignment
* Failing grade on assignment
* Lowered grade on assignment
* Failing grade on assignment
* Lowered final course grade
* Final course grade of F
* Final course grade of X
Institutional & Administrative
- The directive also requires users to confirm accuracy using other sources and to check AI output for bias before relying on it
- The university’s directive applies to faculty and staff and requires transparency and disclosure when generative AI is used to produce written materials or other work products, and requires not presenting AI output as one’s own
This Directive applies to the use of Generative AI by faculty, staff, students, affiliates, and other University stakeholders (collectively, “University Users”) in the performance of their functions for, at, or on behalf of the University requiring the use of University Information, defined below, or the use of the University’s systems or assets.
University users must be transparent and disclose the use of Generative AI used to produce written materials or other work products and must not hold out output generated by Generative AI tools as their own.
University users must confirm the accuracy of information generated by Generative AI using other sources.
University users must check the output of the Generative AI for bias by determining whether the data input into, and the output of, Generative AI tools produces decisions that may result in a disparate impact to individuals based on their protected classifications under applicable law, such as race, ethnicity, national origin, age, sexual orientation, or disability status. Any output that is indicative of a potential bias should not be relied upon.
- The directive also states that generative AI in beta testing will not be used with university systems/assets or University Information until assessed through the Technology Request process
- The directive prohibits using Level II or Level III University Information with publicly available generative AI, and allows Level II/III data to be used only with UD-vetted generative AI assessed and approved for such use
- The university requires that only UDIT-vetted and approved generative AI may be used with university systems or assets or with University Information, and requires a Technology Request for AI that has not been previously reviewed; absent approval, such AI may not be used with university systems/assets or University Information
Only Generative AI that UD Information Technologies (UDIT) has vetted and approved, in consultation with other relevant University departments, as appropriate, may be used with University systems or assets or with University Information (“UD-vetted Generative AI”).
If a University User wants to acquire Generative AI that has not been previously reviewed, prior to acquiring it, a Technology Request must be submitted to UDIT. UDIT will route the request to other appropriate University departments and resources to assist in validating the vendor’s product and to verify that the proposed contract does not introduce undue risk to the University. Absent approval, the Generative AI may not be used with University systems or assets or University Information.
Generative AI that is still in BETA testing will not be used with University systems or assets or with University Information until assessed for risk through the University’s Technology Request process.
Only University Information classified as Level I, in conjunction with other publicly available information, may be used with Publicly Available Generative AI. Using Level II or Level III University Information with Publicly Available AI is prohibited.
University Information classified as Level II or Level III may only be used with UD-vetted Generative AI that has been assessed and approved for such use by UDIT as a part of a Technology Request review.
- The directive states that UDIT must vet and approve generative AI tools for use with university systems/assets or University Information, and that a Technology Request process is required for tools not previously reviewed
- The university states it supports responsible use of generative AI while identifying privacy, confidentiality/IP, inaccuracy/liability, and bias/discrimination risks, and it establishes requirements for appropriate use through a directive that applies broadly to university stakeholders
The University supports the responsible use of Generative Artificial Intelligence tools and services (collectively, “Generative AI”). However, these tools have notable limitations and present new risks that must be taken into consideration when using these technologies.
This Directive applies to the use of Generative AI by faculty, staff, students, affiliates, and other University stakeholders (collectively, “University Users”) in the performance of their functions for, at, or on behalf of the University requiring the use of University Information, defined below, or the use of the University’s systems or assets.
This Directive specifies the requirements for the appropriate use of Generative AI at the University.
Only Generative AI that UD Information Technologies (UDIT) has vetted and approved, in consultation with other relevant University departments, as appropriate, may be used with University systems or assets or with University Information (“UD-vetted Generative AI”).
If a University User wants to acquire Generative AI that has not been previously reviewed, prior to acquiring it, a Technology Request must be submitted to UDIT.
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 Delaware's AI Policies
University of Delaware has defined AI policies in 12 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 100%.
The university’s directive requires university users to be transparent and disclose generative AI use in written materials or other work products and prohibits presenting AI output as one’s own; it also requires confirming accuracy and avoiding plagiarism or intellectual property violations. CTAL provides sample syllabus language indicating that, in some courses, AI use on assignments may be permitted only if it is “properly documented and credited,” including an example citation format and an additional requirement that students include a brief description of how the tool was used.
The provided sources do not define a specific university position on the use of AI-detection tools (e.g., Turnitin AI detection) for enforcement. The academic integrity faculty resources include “Some use of generative artificial intelligence” as part of criteria for determining levels of academic dishonesty and list possible academic penalties, including a lowered grade, failing grade, lowered final course grade, and transcript notation outcomes (e.g., “Grade of X***”).
The university requires that only UDIT-vetted and approved generative AI may be used with university systems or assets or with University Information, and requires a Technology Request for AI that has not been previously reviewed; absent approval, such AI may not be used with university systems/assets or University Information. The directive prohibits using Level II or Level III University Information with publicly available generative AI, and allows Level II/III data to be used only with UD-vetted generative AI assessed and approved for such use. The directive also states that generative AI in beta testing will not be used with university systems/assets or University Information until assessed through the Technology Request process.