Teaching & Learning
- UTA places student use of generative AI in coursework at instructor discretion
- Unauthorized use outside the instructor’s stated rules is treated as an academic integrity issue
- Faculty are expected to set course-specific AI rules in the syllabus, and the university provides multiple policy options ranging from prohibition to unrestricted use
It is crucial for students to understand that the use of Generative AI (GenAI) in course assignments and assessments must align with the guidelines established by the instructor. Unauthorized use of GenAI could result in breaches of academic integrity.
Consistent with this guidance, faculty should state in the course syllabus any allowed or limited use of GenAI Tools within the course within the context of this guidance.
The new UTA syllabus template updated in Summer 2024 for faculty (click here [MS Word Document]) contains updated policy options for creating your own course-specific AI policy statement.
The following four policy options (modified from AI policies by Duke University) are presented with consideration of how they may influence students' ability to meet their SLOs:
In this course, the focus is on developing independent critical thinking and mastering subject-specific content. To ensure that all submitted work accurately reflects personal understanding and original thought, the use of Generative AI (GenAI) tools in completing assignments or assessments is strictly prohibited.
While this course recognizes the potential benefits of Generative AI (GenAI) as a supplementary tool for certain learning activities, its use is restricted to specific assignments where GenAI's role is clearly defined and aligns with the course's Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs).
This course permits the use of Generative AI (GenAI) as a resource for completing assignments.
Students may freely use GenAI tools to assist in creating content and achieving learning objectives.
- UTA states that AI use in assessments must follow instructor-established rules
- The university does not set one uniform assessment rule across all courses; it defers to course policy
- Faculty may prohibit AI in assessments entirely, and unauthorized use can trigger academic integrity review
It is crucial for students to understand that the use of Generative AI (GenAI) in course assignments and assessments must align with the guidelines established by the instructor. Unauthorized use of GenAI could result in breaches of academic integrity.
In this course, the focus is on developing independent critical thinking and mastering subject-specific content. To ensure that all submitted work accurately reflects personal understanding and original thought, the use of Generative AI (GenAI) tools in completing assignments or assessments is strictly prohibited.
Any work found to be generated by AI will be subject to academic review.
- The university frames this as course-by-course discretion rather than a single student-wide rule
- UTA allows faculty to permit AI as a supplementary learning aid when it supports course learning outcomes
- The instructional guidance presents restricted and unrestricted models in which AI can be used for certain learning activities or more broadly, depending on the instructor’s syllabus policy
Restricted Use of GenAI: This policy is appropriate when GenAI can play a beneficial role in achieving certain SLOs, but may be counterproductive if used without constraints. Instructors may allow GenAI under specific conditions that support the SLOs, such as drafting phases of writing assignments or generating initial research insights, focusing on enhancing learning rather than substituting it.
While this course recognizes the potential benefits of Generative AI (GenAI) as a supplementary tool for certain learning activities, its use is restricted to specific assignments where GenAI's role is clearly defined and aligns with the course's Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs).
In this course, the integration of technology, including the use of Generative AI (GenAI), is encouraged to fulfill the course's Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs). Students may freely use GenAI tools to assist in creating content and achieving learning objectives.
Research
- Disclosure is required when appropriate or when required by the journal or sponsor
- The guidance is framed for the UTA research community rather than as a blanket ban
- UTA’s research guidance allows generative AI to be used in research-related writing such as proposal preparation, progress reports, and manuscripts, but users remain responsible for accuracy, authenticity, and integrity
Uses of GAI in research may involve proposal preparation, progress reports, data/statistical analysis, graphic generation, etc.
Proposers are responsible for the accuracy and authenticity of their proposal submission in consideration for merit review, including content developed with the assistance of generative AI tools.
Disclose use of GAI tools when appropriate or required (e.g., a journal that will accept a manuscript developed using GAI, provided such use is disclosed).
- The guidance also warns against research misconduct such as falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism
- Experimental data used with AI must be accurate, relevant, legally obtained, and consented where applicable
- UTA recognizes AI use in research data and statistical analysis, but requires researchers to exercise their own judgment and remain accountable for outcomes
Uses of GAI in research may involve proposal preparation, progress reports, data/statistical analysis, graphic generation, etc.
Do not rely on GAI tools in the stead of your own critical thinking and sound judgment.
Users of GAI are responsible and accountable for any actions or outcomes that result from their use and development of GAI tools.
Be alert to the potential for research misconduct (i.e., data falsification, data fabrication, and/or plagiarism) when using and developing GAI tools.
Ensure any experimental data used in connection with an GAI tool are accurate, relevant, legally obtained and, when applicable, have the consent of the individuals from whom the data were obtained.
- UTA’s research guidance requires AI use to be ethical, transparent, and consistent with research integrity, scientific rigor, and reproducibility
- Researchers are warned to avoid misconduct and are held responsible for the integrity of proposals and research reporting that involve AI assistance
- For NSF-related work specifically, proposal use should be indicated in the project description, and reviewers may not upload proposal content to non-approved AI tools
Use and develop GAI tools in a manner that is ethical, transparent, and mitigates potential biases.
Use and develop GAI tools in a manner that promotes institutional and research integrity, including scientific rigor and reproducibility.
Be alert to the potential for research misconduct (i.e., data falsification, data fabrication, and/or plagiarism) when using and developing GAI tools.
Proposers are responsible for the accuracy and authenticity of their proposal submission in consideration for merit review, including content developed with the assistance of generative AI tools.
Use of GAI in NSF proposals should be indicated in the project description.
NSF reviewers are prohibited from uploading any proposal content or review records to non-approved GAI tools (they must be behind NSF’s firewall) out of concern for potential violations of confidentiality and integrity principles of the merit review process.
Academic Integrity
- UTA also points users to citation style guidance from APA and Chicago
- The instructional materials tie disclosure to transparency needed for assessing student learning outcomes
- UTA requires disclosure or citation of AI use when an instructor adopts a cited-use course policy, and research guidance also requires disclosure when appropriate or required
Cited Use of GenAI: When transparency in the use of GenAI is necessary for assessing the attainment of SLOs, students should be required to disclose any GenAI assistance.
This course permits the use of Generative AI (GenAI) as a resource for completing assignments. However, transparency is crucial, and students are required to explicitly cite any GenAI tools they utilize in the creation of their work.
Disclose use of GAI tools when appropriate or required (e.g., a journal that will accept a manuscript developed using GAI, provided such use is disclosed).
Good citation style recommendations have been suggested by the American Psychological Association (APA) and the Chicago Manual of Style.
- The university’s academic integrity process can impose university sanctions after faculty referral
- UTA cautions faculty against relying on AI detection tools because of accuracy, privacy, and equity concerns
- At the same time, unauthorized student AI use may constitute a breach of academic integrity and work found to be AI-generated may be subject to academic review
While GenAI detection tools, such as those incorporated into or specialized software like ChatGPTZero, exist, reliance on these technologies should be approached with skepticism. The effectiveness and accuracy of such tools are currently limited, and their usage can raise significant ethical considerations:
• Accuracy Concerns: GenAI detection tools are known to generate false positives, particularly for second language learners or submissions that incorporate technical jargon. The inverse is also true; some AI-generated content may evade detection, undermining the reliability of these tools.
• Privacy Considerations: Submitting student work to external GenAI detection applications risks infringing upon students' rights to privacy and intellectual property.
• Equity Issues: Employing detection tools can lead to selective scrutiny, where some students may be unjustly penalized for their method of assistance.
Unauthorized use of GenAI could result in breaches of academic integrity.
Any work found to be generated by AI will be subject to academic review.
In general, if a student does not have a prior academic integrity violation, an outcome letter will be emailed to the student which will include any university sanctions that are appropriate for the specified violation.
Institutional & Administrative
- Faculty are also expected to communicate course AI rules in the syllabus
- UTA provides licensed tools for employees, including Copilot webchat and Adobe products
- UTA permits faculty and employees to use AI for instruction, course preparation, and other university functions, but requires compliance with university policies and, for most tools beyond MS Copilot, formal review and approval processes
This advisory, jointly produced by the Information Security Office, the Office of Legal Affairs and the AI Steering Committee gives the following guidance for UTA employees on how to use GenAI Tools safely, without putting personal, proprietary or university data at risk.
In all cases, GenAI Tools use must be consistent with UTA’s and other relevant policies.
Consistent with this guidance, faculty should state in the course syllabus any allowed or limited use of GenAI Tools within the course within the context of this guidance.
AI tools may be used in instruction, research, or course preparation at UTA when they meet accessibility, security, and curriculum relevance standards. Faculty must ensure AI tools are reviewed and approved through the appropriate required pathways, including TAPREQ, ISO, and EIR Accessibility.
Before using any AI resource, other than MS Copilot, for instruction, content creation, or integration into coursework, the following reviews are required:
As part of UTA’s license with Microsoft, employees can use the Microsoft Edge browser to access the free Copilot webchat. For a paid Copilot 365 paid license, faculty members may contact the OIT Service Desk for consultation.
UTA currently licenses Adobe Creative Cloud for all employees.
- Non-public data may be used only with tools installed on UTA-controlled computers or covered by vendor contracts that protect university data
- UTA also requires approval pathways for AI tools used in instruction, research, or coursework, while identifying MS Copilot and Adobe products as licensed options for employees
- UTA allows public AI tools only with publicly available or UTA-classified Public data, and it prohibits entering FERPA records, health information, proprietary information, or other Confidential/Controlled data into public models
GenAI Tools may be used with data that is publicly available or defined as Public by UTA’s Data Classification Standard (Login required).
In general, student records subject to FERPA, health information, proprietary information, and any other information classified as Confidential or Controlled under UTA’s Data Classification Standards must not be used within public AI models.
Any use of GenAI tools installed on a computer controlled by UTA or under a vendor contract that specifically protects university data and its use in the AI model may be designated as a permittable tool for use with non-public data classifications in accordance with relevant policies.
It is imperative that UTA employees understand that all content entered into, or generated by, a public GenAI tool are available to the public. There is currently no inherent data security and privacy protections when using a public GenAI tool.
AI tools may be used in instruction, research, or course preparation at UTA when they meet accessibility, security, and curriculum relevance standards. Faculty must ensure AI tools are reviewed and approved through the appropriate required pathways, including TAPREQ, ISO, and EIR Accessibility.
Before using any AI resource, other than MS Copilot, for instruction, content creation, or integration into coursework, the following reviews are required:
AI systems learn from user inputs, so refrain from sharing anything you want to keep private, like your workplace’s company data or your personal details.
As part of UTA’s license with Microsoft, employees can use the Microsoft Edge browser to access the free Copilot webchat.
UTA currently licenses Adobe Creative Cloud for all employees.
- UTA also states that it is exploring how generative AI can support business, research, and academic functions while managing risk
- UTA has an institutional AI governance structure and strategy materials that frame AI adoption as guided, risk-aware, and mission-focused
- The advisory was produced jointly by the Information Security Office, Office of Legal Affairs, and AI Steering Committee, and the faculty guidelines were approved by the AI Council
This advisory, jointly produced by the Information Security Office, the Office of Legal Affairs and the AI Steering Committee gives the following guidance for UTA employees on how to use GenAI Tools safely, without putting personal, proprietary or university data at risk.
While UTA is exploring all the ways in which GenAI can help us achieve our vision and mission, we must consider the inherent risks of using this technology.
Approved by AI Council on October 31st 20252
Welcome to the UTA guidelines for the considered use of generative AI (Gen AI) in instruction. This resource is crafted to foster informed decisions about leveraging GenAI in teaching and learning within UTA’s diverse academic landscape.
By embracing a balanced perspective, this document endeavors to support instructors in making judicious choices about when and how to integrate GenAI into their pedagogy, as well as when to exclude it, in favor of methods that better align with their educational objectives.
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 Texas at Arlington's AI Policies
University of Texas at Arlington has defined AI policies in 11 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 92%.
UTA requires disclosure or citation of AI use when an instructor adopts a cited-use course policy, and research guidance also requires disclosure when appropriate or required. The instructional materials tie disclosure to transparency needed for assessing student learning outcomes. UTA also points users to citation style guidance from APA and Chicago.
UTA cautions faculty against relying on AI detection tools because of accuracy, privacy, and equity concerns. At the same time, unauthorized student AI use may constitute a breach of academic integrity and work found to be AI-generated may be subject to academic review. The university’s academic integrity process can impose university sanctions after faculty referral.
UTA allows public AI tools only with publicly available or UTA-classified Public data, and it prohibits entering FERPA records, health information, proprietary information, or other Confidential/Controlled data into public models. Non-public data may be used only with tools installed on UTA-controlled computers or covered by vendor contracts that protect university data. UTA also requires approval pathways for AI tools used in instruction, research, or coursework, while identifying MS Copilot and Adobe products as licensed options for employees.