FACULTY AND STAFF AI GUIDELINES

A policy statement on AI is mandatory in your syllabus.

Examples of suggested statements »

As you define your AI syllabus statement, we encourage you to clearly articulate your reasoning behind your approach to students. Your rationale should be grounded in the intellectual goals of your course, values of your discipline, and your broader learning objectives, particularly as they relate to critical thinking and skill development.

Generative AI is increasingly shaping how work gets done across industries and is likely to be more pervasive in the workplace going forward. Students will benefit from understanding not only when it is appropriate to use AI tools, but why those decisions matter. We encourage you to consider what kind of AI tools and uses employers in your field already expect from graduates or may expect in the near future.

Some of the questions you might ask yourself are:

• What will students lose (or gain) by using generative AI in your course?
• What do you want students to understand about AI and their intellectual development?
• What other competencies/skills are employers in your field beginning to expect?
• Although students may already use generative AI, it does not mean that they understand the limitations of the tool or how to use it properly.

Please check with your instructor on when and where GenAI use is allowed.

Faculty are encouraged to balance innovation with equity. Not all students may have access to premium AI tools, and some platforms may not be accessible for students with disabilities. When possible, prioritize free and inclusive tools. As you consider Generative AI use from an assessment perspective, some questions you may wish to consider are:

• What do your existing assignments and assessments actually measure?
• Are they providing meaningful evidence of whether students are achieving the course’s stated learning outcomes?
• How could the use (restriction) of AI support (hinder) the way students demonstrate their knowledge, skills, and critical thinking?
• Are you able to use GenAI to better assess the course’s learning outcomes?
• What are some ways instructors can design assignments that gradually introduce AI tools?
• How might this step-by-step approach support students in developing critical thinking about AI’s role in their work?

Generative AI can assist with:

• Designing syllabi, discussion questions, quizzes, and rubrics
• Drafting announcements or communications for large classes
• Explaining complex concepts in multiple formats for diverse learners
• Providing a more personalized learning experience in your class
• Depicting scenarios or cases that might be used as a tool to aid in skill development, e.g. critical thinking and analytical skills.

We recommend that when you utilize Generative AI in your course design, that you are transparent in its use with your students.

To promote academic integrity and reduce over-reliance on generative AI tools, instructors are encouraged to adopt the following strategies:

• Design assignments in progressive phases — starting with no AI use to build foundational skills, then allowing AI-assisted brainstorming or editing, and finally analyzing a fully AI-generated version — so students can critically engage with generative AI, compare outputs, and reflect on both the strengths and limitations of these tools in their learning process.
• Design in-class learning experiences (e.g., discussions, labs, real-world problem-solving) that require spontaneous thinking and reduce opportunities for inappropriate AI use.
• Where appropriate, encourage collaborative learning such as peer review, small group work, and scaffolded team projects, where interpersonal engagement supports deeper understanding.
• Use process-based assessments that highlight student thinking over time — such as requiring drafts, revision histories, or self-reflections — making it easier to identify authentic learning and limit unauthorized AI-assisted work.

These approaches not only reinforce original work but also help students engage more intentionally with AI when it is allowed, emphasizing critical thinking and accountability.

Instructors should avoid relying solely on AI detection tools, as they are often unreliable. For example, research on AI detection software from MIT highlights the prevalence of high false positive and negative rates. Also, another study from Stanford found that detection software may be biased against certain types of learners, e.g. non-native speakers.

If AI misuse is suspected, speak directly with the student first, just as with any other academic integrity concern. Please review UWS Chapter 14 procedures or contact the UW-Whitewater Dean of Students Office for additional clarity.

Use supporting materials like writing samples, version histories, or revision drafts when evaluating suspected misconduct.

We highly recommend that instructor feedback on an entire student's work should not be automated. AI can assist with generating ideas for praise, considering additional approaches, and offering stylistic or grammatical suggestions to a specific paragraph.

Protect personal information: Avoid inputting sensitive or personally identifiable information into AI platforms, as these tools may store and utilize your data beyond your control. These could lead to FERPA violations.

• Example: Types of Personally Identifiable Information (PII) include names, Social Security numbers, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, and financial or medical records.
• Intellectual property: Your own IP could be utilized or saved by AI platforms, so share work cautiously.

Protect university information: Aside from personal information, refrain from inputting any university or Universities of Wisconsin information into any AI platform that may be deemed sensitive, confidential, or proprietary.

Respect others' privacy: Do not upload or share others' work, including student assignments or unpublished research, with AI tools without explicit consent.

• Third-party AI detection services: Accurate AI detection will remain difficult. Instructors who chose to use a third-party detection service, one that the university does not have an enterprise license with, must get explicit student consent to submit any student work that is for a grade. Doing so without student consent may constitute a FERPA violation.

Review privacy policies: Before using any AI tool, familiarize yourself with its data handling and privacy policies to make informed decisions about your data.

Recognize limitations: AI tools may produce biased, inaccurate, or exclusionary content.

Foster belonging: Be mindful of how AI-generated material affects diverse learners.

Promote equity: Students using free AI tools should not be penalized for lack of access to paid versions.

AI use should be clearly disclosed and cited when appropriate. Instructors and staff must communicate expectations around acceptable AI use, including what counts as misuse or misconduct. All users are responsible for the content they generate with AI, even if it is inaccurate or controversial.