How to Create a Solid A.I. Statement for Your Syllabus 

      Integrating generative AI tools into your classroom requires clear communication with students about expectations and boundaries. A well-crafted AI policy in your syllabus not only sets standards for academic integrity but also guides students on ethical and proactive AI use. There is no single “right” policy; the right one is the one that you can commit to, communicate clearly, and assess fairly. Before writing your statement, consider exploring the following useful resources to guide content and wording: 

1. Examples of content-specific syllabi statements
   
2. Website for simple generation of statements 
   

Below are examples of different perspectives on A.I. use: against, avoid, and adopt.  

Against: AI use is restricted 

Choosing to restrict AI use is a legitimate pedagogical decision. There are courses such as developmental writing, clinical skills labs, oral communication, hands-on technical programs, where the thinking process itself is the learning outcome. If AI generates the product, the learning does not occur. That said, a no-AI policy is also the hardest to enforce without clarity and consistency. The key is specificity: not just "no AI," but what counts as AI, what the consequences are, and how you'll handle gray areas like grammar checkers or auto complete. 

Sample Syllabus Statement 

The use of artificial intelligence tools (such as ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, Gemini, or similar tools) is not allowed in this course. All submitted works must reflect your own thinking and be written in your own words. Using AI to generate, rewrite, summarize, outline, or otherwise produce course content, whether in full or in part, counts as academic dishonesty and will be addressed under Kirkwood’s Academic Integrity Policy. This policy supports the core goal of the course: developing your own skills. Tools such as spell-check and basic grammar support built into Word or Google Docs are permitted. If you are unsure whether a tool is allowed, ask before submitting your work.

In Practice 

Avoid: Limited AI Use  

A partial‑use policy (“some AI is okay”) is currently the most common approach, and the most likely to lead to inconsistency if not intentionally designed. Without clear boundaries, students often interpret limited permission as broad approval. Partial‑use policies work best when they: 

1.       Distinguish phases of work (e.g., brainstorming vs. drafting), 
   
2.       Separate task types (research vs. writing vs. calculation), or 
3.       Define AI’s role (assistant vs. author). 
   

Equally important is a disclosure requirement. Asking students to document their AI use supports accountability and helps them develop metacognitive awareness of when AI assists learning, and when it replaces it. Here is an example A.I. Disclosure Statement. 

Sample Syllabus Statement 

Artificial intelligence tools may be used in this course only in the specific ways outlined for each assignment. Assignment instructions will clearly state whether AI is allowed and for what purpose. When AI use is permitted, you must include a brief AI Disclosure Statement with your submission, describing how the tool was used. Any AI use beyond what is explicitly allowed for an assignment, including using AI to draft or rewrite content, will be treated as academic dishonesty. You remain responsible for all submitted work. This includes checking AI output for accuracy and revising it meaningfully. Any errors or inaccuracies in AI-generated content are your responsibility. 

In Practice 

Adopt: AI as a Professional and Analytical Tool 

Sample Syllabus Statement 

Artificial intelligence tools are permitted and encouraged in this course. You may use AI for any stage of your work: research, brainstorming, drafting, editing, formatting, and problem-solving. Using AI tools effectively is a professional skill, and this course treats it as one.  However: you are responsible for everything you submit. This means you must verify the accuracy of AI-generated content, critically evaluate AI output rather than accepting it uncritically, and add meaningful analysis, judgment, and original thinking beyond what AI alone produces. Submitting AI output without meaningful engagement - in other words, using AI as a replacement for your own thinking rather than a tool to support it — will result in a grade that reflects the lack of original contribution.  All submitted work must include a brief note at the end describing how AI was used (one to three sentences is fine). This is not punitive — it's professional practice. In the workforce, being transparent about your tools is a mark of credibility. 

In Practice 

The resources below may help you identify typical assignments that align with this policy. 

1. AI Pedagogy Project from Harvard’s MetaData AI Assignments Example  
   
2. Building bridges of knowledge (BBK). The City University of New York. 
   

The assignments include tasks that involve, criticize, and evaluate AI outputs. Students critically analyze AI outputs, for example: conducting an “interview” with a historical figure generated by AI. AI tools may be part of the assignment, but equivalent materials must be available for students who choose not to use AI.