Office of the Provost
Info For:

Resources and Draft Policy on Academic Integrity and AI

September 20, 2023

Dear Colleagues,

As shared in the Provost’s Office message on August 11, this summer I created and charged a Provost’s Office Working Group on developing a Policy for Academic Integrity with Artificial Intelligence (AI). The charges were to i) develop an academic integrity policy pertaining to the use of AI to complement our current Academic Integrity policy and conduct process and ii) develop materials to aid students and instructors on the use of AI in the classroom. These policies and supporting materials were presented to Faculty Senate on August 15 and are currently undergoing expedited review with the Office of Compliance, Policy and Privacy Services.

Draft Policy

The Academic Integrity Policy Pertaining to Artificial Intelligence is expected to be approved by the end of October. To provide guidance in the interim, you can review the draft policy on the Provost’s Office policy page.

Resources & Supporting Materials

Accompanying the policy are three supporting appendices, each with helpful resources and guidance that I encourage you to review:

Policy Summary

There are several components to the policy, which are summarized below.

  • Section IV-B: Policy on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities for Use of AI. The policy confirms the right of the instructor to specify the permitted use of AI and incurs the responsibility on the instructor to communicate permitted use of AI with the students. Finally, recognizing AI technologies lie on a spectrum of assistance (c.f., Appendix A), the policy identifies certain standard tools that are, by default, acceptable for student use, unless the instructor clarifies to the contrary.  
  • Section IV-C: Policy on Student Rights and Responsibilities for Use of AI. The policy underscores the responsibility of the student to adhere to the permitted use of AI tools in each class, as specified by the instructor. In those cases when AI is permitted, the policy mandates students cite usage of the tool (c.f., Appendix B). Finally, students are responsible for the work they submit that has been created in part or in whole with the assistance of AI tools.
  • Section IV-D: Use and Misuse of AI Detection Tools. The policy underscores the severe limitations of current AI detection tools, e.g., TurnItIn. These tools should not be used, or should be used only with extreme caution, on account of their unreliability. Towards that end, this tool has been turned off on the Drexel campus. Moreover, “evidence” from such tools should only be part of an instructor’s case when accusing a student of academic misconduct.  

Philosophy Underlying the Policy

Section IV-A Background lists three points that informed the creation of this draft policy:

  • Value of AI in Education. We recognize the incredible value of AI tools in education, when used appropriately. These tools can be used in certain classes to help prepare students for today’s workforce, but these tools may well not be helpful in other classes.  
  • Rapidly changing landscape of AI tools. We recognize the landscape of tools is changing quickly. The intent is for the policy to be somewhat technology-agnostic, and for the three appendices to be more frequently updated to reflect changes in the technology landscape.
  • Primacy of instructor preference on suitable use of AI tools in coursework. We recognize the faculty member holds the right to decide if/how such tools are to be used in the classroom. 

Acknowledgement

I want to acknowledge and thank the members of the working group for their diligent efforts.

  • Steven Weber, PhD, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Curriculum and Education, Provost's Office, Co-Chair 
  • Anne Converse Willkomm, MFA, Associate Dean, Graduate College, Co-Chair
  • Fran Cornelius, PhD, Assistant Dean for Teaching, Learning, and Engagement and Clinical Professor, College of Nursing and Health Professions
  • Kapil Dandekar, PhD, Associate Dean for Enrollment Management and Graduate Education and Professor, College of Engineering 
  • Joseph Hawk, Executive Director of Assessment and Accreditation, Provost's Office 
  • Anna Moronski, Director of Student Conduct & Care, Office of the Dean of Students
  • Becka Rich, JD, Assistant Dean for the Law Library and Technology Services and Assistant Teaching Professor, Thomas R. Kline School of Law 
  • Ali Shokoufandeh, PhD, Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Operations and Professor, College of Computing & Informatics 
  • Sarah Ulrich, EdD, Associate Dean of Teacher Education and Undergraduate Affairs and Clinical Professor, School of Education
  • Michael Wagner, PhD, Department Head of Digital Media and Professor, Westphal College of Media Arts & Design, and Faculty Senate Member
  • Scott Warnock, PhD, Associate Dean of Undergraduate Education and Professor, College of Arts and Sciences 
  • Chris Weyant, PhD, Associate Dean for Undergraduate Affairs and Teaching Professor, College of Engineering

If you have any questions that cannot be addressed by the policy or its supporting materials, please contact Vice Provost Steve Weber at steven.weber@drexel.edu or Associate Dean Anne Converse Willkomm at acw334@drexel.edu.

Thank you,

Paul E. Jensen
Executive Vice President
Nina Henderson Provost