Concordia University

Warunki i wyjątki

Sample statements require actual course adoption.

When expectations are stated clearly, all students are working from the same starting point, reducing the likelihood that some learners gain an advantage through hidden or assumed practices. Research such as Eslami (2024) shows that transparent, inclusive syllabi can reduce confusion by making hidden norms visible. Because each course has unique objectives and contexts, the CTL provides sample syllabus statements for different approaches: encouraged use, limited use, or prohibited use, that faculty can adapt. We also recommend linking course-level expectations with assignment-level guidance, since the role of GenAI may vary depending on the activity. Syllabus statements for GenAI use (adapted from UManitoba) Encouraged use: Students are encouraged to make use of technology, including generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools to contribute to their understanding of course materials. Students may use artificial intelligence tools, including generative AI, in this course as learning aids or to help produce assignments. However, students are ultimately accountable for the work they submit to be assessed and assigned grades. Students must submit, as an appendix with their assignments, any content produced by an artificial intelligence tool, and the prompt used to generate the content. Any content produced by an artificial intelligence tool must be cited appropriately. Students may choose to use generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools as they work through the assignments in this course carefully. This use must be documented in an appendix for each assignment. The documentation should include what tool(s) was/were used, how the tool(s) was/were used, and how the result(s) from the GenAI was/were incorporated into the submitted work. Limited use: Students may use generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools for creating an outline for an assignment, but the final submitted assignment must be original work produced by the individual student alone. Students may not use artificial intelligence tools for taking tests, writing research papers, creating computer code, or completing major course assignments. However, these tools may be useful when gathering information from across sources and assimilating it for understanding. Students may not use artificial intelligence tools for taking tests in this course, but students may use generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools for other assignments. Students may use the following, and only these, generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools in completing their assignments for this course: [Insert list]. No other GenAI technologies are allowed to be used for assessments in this course. If you have any question about the use of artificial intelligence applications for course work, please speak with the instructor. Prohibited Use The use of generative artificial intelligence tools (GenAI) or apps for assignments in this course, including tools like ChatGPT and other AI writing or coding assistants, is prohibited. The knowing use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools, including ChatGPT and other AI writing and coding assistants, for the completion of, or to support the completion of, an examination, term test, assignment, or any other form of academic assessment, may be considered as academic misconduct in this course. Representing as one’s own an idea, or expression of an idea, that was AI-generated may be considered academic misconduct in this course. Students may not copy or paraphrase from any generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) applications, including ChatGPT and other AI writing and coding assistants, for the purpose of completing assignments in this course. The use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools and apps is strictly prohibited in all course assignments unless explicitly stated otherwise by the instructor in this course. This includes ChatGPT and other AI writing and coding assistants. Use of genAI in this course may be considered use of an unauthorized aid, which is a form of cheating. Acknowledging and documenting AI use If you permit the use of GenAI in your course or as part of an assignment, you may ask your students to disclose and document how they use GenAI in their coursework. This includes identifying the tools they used, the prompts provided, and the outputs they integrated into their final submissions. Such documentation allows evaluation not only of the output but also the student’s process. You can request this documentation in several formats, depending on the learning outcomes of the course: Appendices: Students attach the relevant AI outputs and prompts at the end of their assignment. This ensures that what was generated and how it was adapted is clear. Reflections: Students provide a short narrative explaining how they used GenAI, what limitations they encountered, and how they verified or revised the output. Reflection helps students develop digital literacy and awareness of bias, accuracy, and the ethical implications of GenAI use. Citation practices: When AI outputs are directly quoted, paraphrased, or incorporated into a project, students should cite them in line with Concordia Library’s guidance on acknowledging AI, as well as with disciplinary citation styles (e.g., MLA, APA).

Zebrano: 2026-10-08 · 136–162
SHA-256: 6f26b2b48402d58863f67d1eb840702c49107f5b4b1cc6d5a133a229b5e5055b

Follow your professor’s instructions Some professors may allow or encourage you to use GenAI for your assignments, while others may not. If the instructor does not mention the use of GenAI on their syllabus, ask if you are permitted to use it for your assignments, and in what capacity. Your professor might specify at what stage of an assignment you can use GenAI (for brainstorming, drafting or editing, for example), how much AI-generated content is acceptable, or which specific assignments it is allowed for. Do not assume it is allowed if your professor does not mention it. Always read instructions carefully and ask your professor if you need clarification. If you cannot openly tell your professor that you used GenAI for your writing, then you should not use it. Permission and attribution Using GenAI without permission or failing to clearly attribute or cite the AI-generated work, you risk being faced with an accusation of plagiarism. If you are permitted to use these types of generative tools for your academic work, you must cite them. Cite GenAI in APA Cite GenAI in MLA Check the Concordia Library for more citation styles. Simply stating that you used AI does not show your professors how you used it. Some professors might provide additional instructions for demonstrating how you used GenAI and incorporated AI generated content. For example, professors might ask for an appendix documenting your process or ask you to specify which parts of the text incorporated AI generated content. Explaining how you used GenAI can be an opportunity to reflect on and refine your process and further demonstrate your knowledge to your professors. If you are permitted, use AI carefully and critically You need a basis of understanding of your course content to assess whether the AI-generated content is helpful and relevant. Do your course readings, engage in lectures and make sure you thoroughly understand your assignment instructions. Knowing more about your topic will also allow you to prompt AI effectively and specifically, ensuring your work connects with course content and is not overly general. Be careful about the information you gather from GenAI; the Library has Critical Toolkit for Navigating Information you should review before simply using AI-generated content. Educate yourself about GenAI, its uses and its pitfalls. The Library's Quick Things for Digital Knowledge is a great place to start. The better informed you are, the more skillfully you can use AI to support your work rather than replacing your own thinking process. Do not share any sensitive or confidential data or research materials with GenAI. Familiarize yourself with the terms and conditions of the platform that you are using. Trust that your ideas are interesting and important, with GenAI as a tool to explore them further. Your writing should demonstrate original thought and effort and you should be able to explain and discuss your work.

Zebrano: 2026-10-08 · 108–124
SHA-256: f3d7825f863c78b989baf19e980fd226f8f9916897309a627ca1e793026726c0

Notification The first thing that will happen if you've been charged with academic misconduct is that you will receive a package containing a Notification of the charge against you, as well as an incident report. The package will be sent to you by mail and/or email, so it's important that you keep your address information up-to-date with the university. An incident report may be filed by a course instructor, by an invigilator during a centrally supervised exam, or by other individuals. Incident reports normally outline certain relevant facts surrounding an accusation of academic misconduct. If you receive an incident report, you may be invited to an interview to discuss the charge. It is important for you to confirm the date and time of the interview as requested in the letter. Preparation In preparation for your interview, you may meet with a student advocate at the Student Advocacy Office, the CSU Advocacy Centre, or the GSA Advocacy Centre. Your advocate will discuss the facts of your case with you and be able to answer any question you may have about the process. They will also prepare you for the kinds of questions you will likely be asked at your interview. Your advocate can also accompany you to the interview. Interview During the interview, you will be asked questions about the incident. The interview is an opportunity for you to share your side of the story, so an informed decision may be made with respect to your case. The interviewer will use your answers, along with the incident report and any other relevant information that he/she may have, to render a final decision about your case. While it is recommended that you attend the interview with an advocate, you may also choose to attend alone. After the interview, a decision will be rendered on your case in approximately 10 working days. You will receive the decision letter by mail and/or email.

Zebrano: 2026-10-08 · 78–84
SHA-256: 8bcc3e903f238a34eb6dd663f5d2f80dd3f1f61461c43c71d11bac810774c38e

21. If a charge is upheld against a student by the Dean pursuant to Article 42, and the Dean does not refer the case directly to an AHP, the Dean must impose one or more of the following sanctions: a. Reprimand the student; b. Direct that a piece of work be re-submitted c. Direct that the examination be taken anew; d. Enter a grade reduction for the piece of work in question or enter a grade of “0” for the piece of work in question; e. Enter a grade reduction in the course or enter a failing grade for the course; f. Enter a failing grade and ineligibility for a supplemental examination or any other evaluative exercise for the course; g. Impose the obligation to take and pass courses of up to twenty-four (24) credits, as specified by the Dean, in addition to the total number of credits required for the student’s program. If the student is registered as an Independent student, the sanction will be imposed only if he/she applies and is accepted into a program. 22. If a charge is upheld by an AHP pursuant to Article 62, the AHP must impose one or more of the following sanctions: a. Any or all of the sanctions listed at Article 21; b. Impose a suspension for a period not to exceed six (6) academic terms. Suspensions shall entail the withdrawal of all University privileges, including the right to enter and be upon University premises; c. Expulsion from the University. Expulsion entails the permanent termination of all University privileges. 23. In the case of a student who has graduated, the only two sanctions available to the Dean and to the AHP are i) a notation on the student’s academic record that he/she has been found guilty of academic misconduct; or ii) a recommendation to Senate for the revocation of the degree obtained. 24. A sanction of suspension or expulsion is subject to confirmation by the Provost and Vice- President, Academic Affairs, who shall also determine the effective date.

Zebrano: 2026-10-08 · 207–248
SHA-256: 0382ff6ed51d9ee0ec718c8836f13268b21310766ec757eeddb9a6b10ab6321f

ACADEMIC CODE OF CONDUCT (the “2015 Academic Code of Conduct”) Applies to all incidents occurring on or after May 4th 2015, the first day of the 2015-16 academic year

Zebrano: 2026-10-08 · 1–4
SHA-256: 0382ff6ed51d9ee0ec718c8836f13268b21310766ec757eeddb9a6b10ab6321f

45. In the case of a sanction imposed by the Dean under Article 21, the letter to the student shall inform him or her of the right to obtain a hearing before an AHP by notifying the Secretary of the Tribunals, in writing, as per Article 51, within ten (10) days after the date of transmission of the Dean’s decision. A copy of the Dean’s letter shall be sent to the Secretary of the Tribunals, the Registrar, the instructor, the Graduate Program Director, and the Department Chair, or equivalent, if applicable. 46. Where the Dean has imposed a sanction under Article 21 and the student has not elected to have the case heard by an AHP under Article 45, the Secretary of the Tribunals shall, within a reasonable time, so notify the Dean and the Dean shall file a report with the Registrar containing the following: a. identification of the student concerned; b. a statement of the facts and findings; c. a statement of the course of action taken; d. a statement to the effect that the student concerned was notified in writing of the action taken and of his or her right to a hearing before an AHP. Such report shall form a part of the student’s permanent file maintained by the Registrar. 47. Upon receipt of the notification from the Secretary of the Tribunals pursuant to Article 46, the Dean shall direct the instructor to submit a grade for the course in question, if applicable. 48. When the student has elected to obtain a hearing under Article 45, the execution of any decision of the Dean relating to the Incident Report shall be suspended pending disposition by an AHP.

Zebrano: 2026-10-08 · 407–434
SHA-256: 0382ff6ed51d9ee0ec718c8836f13268b21310766ec757eeddb9a6b10ab6321f

Days 11. Days is defined as working days, which excludes weekends, holidays, and other days during which the University is closed as listed in the Undergraduate and Graduate Calendars.

Zebrano: 2026-10-08 · 88–90
SHA-256: 0382ff6ed51d9ee0ec718c8836f13268b21310766ec757eeddb9a6b10ab6321f

ACADEMIC CODE OF CONDUCT (the “2015 Academic Code of Conduct”) Applies to all incidents occurring on or after May 4th 2015, the first day of the 2015-16 academic year

Zebrano: 2026-10-08 · 1–4
SHA-256: 0382ff6ed51d9ee0ec718c8836f13268b21310766ec757eeddb9a6b10ab6321f

63. Within ten (10) days from the conclusion of the hearing, the AHP shall write to the student and the Dean, with a copy to the Registrar and the instructor, indicating its decision. The decision of the AHP shall be signed, dated and reasoned. Furthermore, the decision of the AHP shall inform the parties of their right to submit a written request for authorization to appeal the decision of the AHP within fifteen (15) days after the date of transmission of the AHP decision. 64. The execution of any sanctions by an AHP shall be suspended, and the PEND notation shall remain on the student’s record, until the expiry of the fifteen (15) day delay to request authorization to appeal or until the final rendering of the decision by an Appeals Authorization Panel and, if applicable, the Appeals Panel. Appeals 65. A request for authorization to appeal may be based only on the grounds of discovery of new evidence following the AHP or on the presence of serious and prejudicial procedural defects of the AHP. In his or her request for authorization to appeal, an appellant must set forth and explain in clear and precise terms, all grounds on which the appeal is based. Furthermore, if the appellant is requesting an appeal based on the grounds of discovery of new evidence following the rendering of the decision of the AHP, the appellant must provide such evidence as part of his or her request.

Zebrano: 2026-10-08 · 535–556
SHA-256: 0382ff6ed51d9ee0ec718c8836f13268b21310766ec757eeddb9a6b10ab6321f

Days 11. Days is defined as working days, which excludes weekends, holidays, and other days during which the University is closed as listed in the Undergraduate and Graduate Calendars.

Zebrano: 2026-10-08 · 88–90
SHA-256: 0382ff6ed51d9ee0ec718c8836f13268b21310766ec757eeddb9a6b10ab6321f

60. If either party fails to attend the hearing, the hearing may proceed in the other party’s absence or, at the Chair’s discretion the start of the hearing may be delayed. If the hearing proceeds in the student’s absence, all rights contingent on the student’s presence, with the exception of the right to have an advocate present, are forfeited. In such a case, a student’s right of appeal is limited to a consideration of the reasonableness of his or her excuse for not appearing. If an Appeals Panel finds that the excuse is reasonable, it shall order a new hearing by a new AHP with the student present. The decision of the new hearing with the student present is appealable as if it were a first hearing.

Zebrano: 2026-10-08 · 514–521
SHA-256: 0382ff6ed51d9ee0ec718c8836f13268b21310766ec757eeddb9a6b10ab6321f

ACADEMIC CODE OF CONDUCT (the “2015 Academic Code of Conduct”) Applies to all incidents occurring on or after May 4th 2015, the first day of the 2015-16 academic year

Zebrano: 2026-10-08 · 1–4
SHA-256: 0382ff6ed51d9ee0ec718c8836f13268b21310766ec757eeddb9a6b10ab6321f

Important considerations The recommendations on this page will need to be revisited and revised regularly given the fast-paced evolution of generative AI. As outlined in the Guidelines for teaching with Generative AI, detecting students’ inadmissible use of GenAI is not recommended given that there are no reliable detection tools or methods that can keep pace with this rapidly evolving technology. Detection tools have also been shown to have a high rate of false positives which can lead to students being accused of using GenAI when in fact the work is their own (Weber-Wulff et al., 2023). Evidence also points to a disproportionate number of false positive identifications in neurodivergent students or those for whom English is not their first language (Gegg-Harrison & Quarterman, 2024; Rafiq, Qurat-ul-Ain & Afzal, 2025). In addition to issues of unreliability and inequity in the detection tools, it is also an unethical practice to share students’ intellectual property with large language models (LLMs). At the moment, Concordia has not approved of or acquired the use of any online AI detectors and therefore the use of them by staff or faculty is not permitted due to privacy laws and regulations (see the University’s obligations concerning Privacy & Protection of Personal Information). To learn more about the University’s obligations when acquiring or using new software that could capture and/or share personal information contained in learner work, you may consult the Privacy Impact Assessment and for information about available resources, please consult the IITS Service Catalogue. Instead of trying to detect students’ use of Generative AI, explain the importance of academic integrity and teach the ethics of responsible use. Articulate your position on GenAI clearly within the classroom, on Moodle sites and, most importantly, by means of a syllabus statement. See sample course design statements for permitting, prohibiting, or inviting the use of Gen AI on your course outline. Given that individual instructors have different positions on GenAI and messages will vary from course to course, it’s especially important to inform students in writing about your position. Stating when and how GenAI can be used in your course in a syllabus statement and discussing it with your students is an opportunity to be transparent about your position and values and to improve their critical digital literacy. In addition to the syllabus statement on the use of GenAI in your course generally, include specific allowable uses with each assignment description as these may vary. This assignment template can be adapted for each assignment in your course. Not sure how students are using GenAI? Use this worksheet to test whether you find different uses acceptable/unacceptable or only acceptable in certain conditions. If allowing or requiring the use of GenAI, protect instructor and students’ privacy and ensure secure data management, as well as consensual data collection and processing. Review Concordia’s Privacy and Protection of Personal Information Policies and allow students the option to opt out. Consult the Concordia Educational Technology Guidelines for Faculty and Students before using third party technology tools. At Concordia, all staff and students have access to Copilot Chat through an institutional Microsoft 365 license. Copilot Chat is available on the Edge browser or through the link copilot.cloud.microsoft. It requires authentication (using Concordia credentials) and it offers Enterprise Data Protection: encryption, privacy and access control, copyright protection and the protection against the usage of data to train foundation models. The following icon in the right top corner of the page means Enterprise Data Protection is active: Consider potential biases in GenAI development and output and ensure all students have access (most AI tools are not designed with accessibility in mind).

Zebrano: 2026-10-08 · 90–100
SHA-256: 1b8d00435a53e2dc8842efb78b2c43ebeb8b9911bc29416966a0769573c6bcdc

Does the CTL recommend any specific GenAI detection tools? At the moment, Concordia has not approved of or acquired the use of any online AI detectors and therefore the use of them by staff or faculty is not permitted due to privacy laws and regulations (see the University’s obligations concerning Privacy & Protection of Personal Information). To learn more about the University’s obligations when acquiring or using new software that could capture and/or share personal information contained in learner work, you may consult the Privacy Impact Assessment and for information about available resources, please consult the IITS Service Catalogue. Is there an official university policy about AI? The university does not currently have an official policy regarding the use of GenAI. One reason is that GenAI has not officially been adopted by the university, meaning that its use cannot be required in coursework. A second, more crucial reason, is that researchers and practitioners alike are trying to determine the best way to integrate AI in the university classroom. To learn more about how to navigate this evolving development while maintaining academic integrity, please refer to International Center for Academic Integrity or to the European Network for Academic Integrity.

Zebrano: 2026-10-08 · 209–212
SHA-256: 6f26b2b48402d58863f67d1eb840702c49107f5b4b1cc6d5a133a229b5e5055b