Vind brononderbouwde AI-beleidsrecords van universiteiten

Acceptable Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Academic Coursework Policy

Thinking about using generative AI like ChatGPT or Bing for your coursework?

Guidelines on using Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) for Coursework

The use of AI tools in coursework

Using Gen-AI in coursework and Assessment

For Stanford Graduate School of Business (GSB) MBA and MSx courses, instructors may not ban student use of AI tools for take-home coursework, including assignments and exams. Instructors may choose whether to allow AI for in-class work. For PhD and undergraduate courses, GSB follows the university-wide Generative AI Policy Guidance from the Office of Community Standards.

For UWA coursework assessments, AI tools may only be used where the Unit Coordinator explicitly permits them; permitted use must be cited, referenced, and clearly acknowledged.

UNSW College recommends Microsoft Copilot as the only generative AI platform for staff and students, as it provides commercial data protection and is the only platform recommended where generative AI use is allowed in coursework and assessment.

Columbia Business School requires students to disclose to faculty their use of generative AI platforms and the manner of use in coursework.

Yale expects faculty to give clear instructions on permitted AI use and attribution, and expects students to follow instructor guidelines for coursework.

ASU Provost FAQs direct students to confer with their instructor about class policy before using AI tools in coursework.

For Adelaide University coursework assessment, the Assessment Procedure states that course coordinators will ensure students are informed about appropriate use of generative AI and similar tools in the course.

The Provost's GenAI syllabus guidance says instructors may allow or prohibit GenAI in courses, and that coursework use requires written instructor permission and may not occur except as explicitly authorized by the instructor.

Instructors must not require students to enter their own work into unlicensed AI tools or use such tools in assignments; unlicensed tools may be used optionally by students at the instructor's discretion, but Penn-licensed tools should be used for mandatory coursework components.

King's College London does not require students to reference generative AI as an authoritative source in the reference list, but does require explicit acknowledgement of AI tool use in coursework.

Texas A&M CTE syllabus guidance recommends a hybrid approach that establishes clear course or assignment expectations for generative AI use, reinforces that AI use in coursework is governed by the Aggie Honor Code, and provides faculty support guidance.

For the 2025/26 transition year, University of Bath teaching guidance says course documentation should keep ABC labels and add a short AI-use statement to B and C coursework briefs.

UC San Diego's Academic Integrity Policy says students may not let academic work or academic credit be completed for them by another human or by machine/artificial intelligence, and may not use unauthorized aids including artificial intelligence in coursework or assessments.

Illinois Enterprise GenAI transparency guidance says students need to be transparent about AI use in coursework and cite AI tools according to faculty expectations.

Duke student-facing AI guidance says whether a student may use AI in coursework depends on instructor permission; unauthorized generative AI use is considered academic misconduct under the Duke Community Standard.

Iowa State Student Conduct guidance says suspected AI-generated coursework referrals will be reviewed similarly to other forms of academic misconduct.

University of Alberta teaching guidance says instructors or programs determine whether students may use AI in coursework and for what purposes, rather than applying a blanket university-wide yes/no rule.

Adam Mickiewicz University has Rector order 426/2023/2024 setting rules for student use of AI systems in education, including theses and coursework/assessment work.

KIT ZML says its KI-Policy and form-generator tools are not official or mandatory KIT requirements; final rules for coursework remain with the relevant faculty and instructor.

As of July 2025, a Provost syllabus memo stated that URI did not have a university-wide policy governing generative AI use in coursework, while offering optional AI syllabus statements for faculty.

Westminster student guidance says students must disclose any use of GenAI for assessed coursework and remain responsible for the originality, accuracy, and integrity of their work.

For coursework, UMD tells students to assume GenAI use for assignments and assessments is not allowed unless the syllabus or assignment instructions specify otherwise.

MSU guidelines say students may use generative AI tools for coursework or research activities only when the instructor or research advisor explicitly permits that use.

Rutgers OIT guidance says AI use in academic settings typically varies by discipline, course, or instructor; students should not consider AI tools permissible for coursework unless instructors clearly state or communicate permission.

LUH student guidance says students should clarify with instructors how AI tools may be used for coursework or exams and remain responsible for lawful, responsible, and transparent use or non-use of AI tools; the ZQS page itself is explicitly non-binding.