Teaching & Learning
- Use of AI in graded coursework is governed by existing academic integrity rules rather than a single university-wide permission rule
- Students may not present AI-generated work as their own without attribution, and specific use in assignments is left to faculty direction through syllabus and assignment-specific expectations
The student's name on any written work, quiz or exam, shall be regarded as assurance that the work is the result of the student's own independent thought and study and is stated in the student's own words, except as quotation marks, references, or footnotes acknowledge the use of other sources or words attributable to another person.
Generative AI technologies can challenge traditional definitions of plagiarism and cheating but existing definitions still apply. Use of AI-generated content in any context should be treated with ethical considerations and proper citation.
Faculty are encouraged to clearly communicate their expectations and guidelines regarding the use of AI in the course syllabus and assignment instructions.
- The university materials reviewed do not provide a separate AI-specific exam rule, so expectations depend on the general misconduct policy and faculty instructions
- AI use during exams and assessments is controlled by academic integrity rules that require submitted work to reflect the student's own work unless sources are acknowledged
Cheating means the improper taking or tendering of any information or material which shall be used to determine academic credit.
The student's name on any written work, quiz or exam, shall be regarded as assurance that the work is the result of the student's own independent thought and study and is stated in the student's own words, except as quotation marks, references, or footnotes acknowledge the use of other sources or words attributable to another person.
Faculty are encouraged to clearly communicate their expectations and guidelines regarding the use of AI in the course syllabus and assignment instructions.
- Guidance emphasizes ethical use and proper citation, with faculty expected to state course-level expectations
- The university provides educational resources that support learning about and with AI, but the reviewed materials do not set a formal university-wide rule specifically authorizing or restricting AI for personal study help
Whether you're a student wondering if and how to use AI in your classwork, a faculty member deciding how to approach the use of AI in your teaching, or simply interested in learning more about the potential and pitfalls of AI in educational settings, this self-paced online resource is for you.
Use of AI-generated content in any context should be treated with ethical considerations and proper citation.
Faculty are encouraged to clearly communicate their expectations and guidelines regarding the use of AI in the course syllabus and assignment instructions.
Research
- The materials focus on data protection, academic integrity, and IRB-related confidentiality rather than manuscript preparation rules
- The reviewed sources do not set a university-wide rule on using AI to draft, edit, or format research manuscripts, theses, or dissertations
not defined
- Researchers must not input regulated or sensitive university data into public AI tools unless privacy and security conditions are met
- IRB guidance also requires researchers to consider whether AI or cloud tools transmit data externally and to disclose that use when applicable
OpenAI's Terms of Use state that users retain rights to their content but may use prompts and content to train or improve their models unless user opts out. Therefore, any data inputted into OpenAI may be viewed by OpenAI and has the potential to be shared with others.
As such, University policy and standards regarding the use and storage of sensitive/confidential data applies when using these tools. For all publicly available GenAI tools, you must not include or upload any regulated or sensitive/confidential information.
NOTE: If data or specimens from living individuals are sent to cloud-based services or AI tools to perform analysis or storage, this is considered sharing data with a third-party. Researchers should describe in the protocol whether the use of these tools includes access to or provision of human data and/or biospecimens.
- IRB guidance requires disclosure when AI or cloud-based tools are used with human data or biospecimens and treats such use as third-party data sharing
- More broadly, AI-generated content should be used with ethical consideration and proper citation, but the reviewed sources do not provide a separate grant-proposal or manuscript-authorship rule
NOTE: If data or specimens from living individuals are sent to cloud-based services or AI tools to perform analysis or storage, this is considered sharing data with a third-party. Researchers should describe in the protocol whether the use of these tools includes access to or provision of human data and/or biospecimens.
Use of AI-generated content in any context should be treated with ethical considerations and proper citation.
Academic Integrity
- Faculty are expected to communicate course-specific AI expectations in syllabi and assignment instructions
- The university requires acknowledgment when a student uses words or sources attributable to another source, and its AI guidance states that AI-generated content should be properly cited
The student's name on any written work, quiz or exam, shall be regarded as assurance that the work is the result of the student's own independent thought and study and is stated in the student's own words, except as quotation marks, references, or footnotes acknowledge the use of other sources or words attributable to another person.
Use of AI-generated content in any context should be treated with ethical considerations and proper citation.
Faculty are encouraged to clearly communicate their expectations and guidelines regarding the use of AI in the course syllabus and assignment instructions.
- Undisclosed or improper AI use can be handled under the university's academic misconduct process for cheating and plagiarism
- The reviewed sources do not state a university position on AI detection software, but they do specify sanctions and procedures for academic dishonesty
In the event that an instructor believes that a student may have engaged in academic misconduct, the instructor should inform the student of the concerns and, whenever possible, arrange an informal conference with the student and the instructor.
An instructor who has determined that a student has engaged in academic misconduct may take any of the following actions: assign a grade of F or zero for the assignment or examination; assign a grade of F for the course; or recommend additional sanctions to the appropriate academic administrator.
Plagiarism means copying language, structure, ideas, data, or images from another source and attributing the work to one's own efforts.
Institutional & Administrative
- Faculty are encouraged to set and communicate course-level expectations for AI use
- For university employees, public AI tools may be used only with low-risk data, and the university-approved Microsoft Copilot with Enterprise Data Protection may be used with internal and certain confidential data if legal and policy requirements are met
Faculty are encouraged to clearly communicate their expectations and guidelines regarding the use of AI in the course syllabus and assignment instructions.
Employees may input or upload non-confidential and non-sensitive data (those classified as Public) into all GenAI tools.
Employees may input or upload Internal and confidential or sensitive data (those classified as Level I and Level II) to Microsoft Copilot only where all other legal and policy requirements are met.
- The university has explicit data-classification rules for AI tools
- Public data may be used in all generative AI tools, but regulated or sensitive/confidential information must not be entered into publicly available tools; Microsoft Copilot is the approved option for Internal, Level I, and Level II data when other legal and policy requirements are satisfied
Employees may input or upload non-confidential and non-sensitive data (those classified as Public) into all GenAI tools.
University regulated data and sensitive/confidential data may be put into GenAI tools only if contract language is in place and the technology has been reviewed to ensure acceptable privacy and security controls. At this time Microsoft Copilot with Enterprise Data Protection is the only GenAI tool that has this level of data protection.
Employees may input or upload Internal and confidential or sensitive data (those classified as Level I and Level II) to Microsoft Copilot only where all other legal and policy requirements are met.
As such, University policy and standards regarding the use and storage of sensitive/confidential data applies when using these tools. For all publicly available GenAI tools, you must not include or upload any regulated or sensitive/confidential information.
- The university has an institutional AI resource initiative led through the Office of the Provost and formal operational guidance issued by IT governance documents
- The materials present AI as an area for campus learning and guided adoption, but they do not identify a distinct university-wide AI committee or standalone strategic framework in the reviewed sources
This project was undertaken by the Office of the Provost to provide the University of Maine System community with an accessible, foundational understanding of Artificial Intelligence and the emerging impact of AI in educational settings.
This article provides guidance for University of Maine System users on the use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools such as ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, Claude, Gemini, DALL-E, Midjourney and other GenAI services.
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 Maine's AI Policies
University of Maine has defined AI policies in 11 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 92%.
The university requires acknowledgment when a student uses words or sources attributable to another source, and its AI guidance states that AI-generated content should be properly cited. Faculty are expected to communicate course-specific AI expectations in syllabi and assignment instructions.
Undisclosed or improper AI use can be handled under the university's academic misconduct process for cheating and plagiarism. The reviewed sources do not state a university position on AI detection software, but they do specify sanctions and procedures for academic dishonesty.
The university has explicit data-classification rules for AI tools. Public data may be used in all generative AI tools, but regulated or sensitive/confidential information must not be entered into publicly available tools; Microsoft Copilot is the approved option for Internal, Level I, and Level II data when other legal and policy requirements are satisfied.