GenAI Integrated Guide

• Possible names

  The name you choose for this document sets the tone for how students will perceive it—whether it’s a rigid set of rules, a pedagogical guide, or a shared understanding.
  Here are some common and emerging titles for a supplementary AI document, categorized by the classroom dynamic they encourage:

  The Collaborative & Transparent Approach

  These titles frame the document as a mutual understanding rather than a top-down mandate. They work well for fostering an open-learning community where students are active participants in navigating new tools.

  • AI Class Agreement: Implies a shared consensus and mutual respect.

  • Shared Framework for AI Use: Highlights transparency and a structured, predictable approach to using tools.

  • AI Learning Contract: Emphasizes that the use of AI is tied directly to the learning process and student accountability.

  • Transparency in AI Expectations (TAIE): Focuses on the importance of disclosure and open dialogue about how work is produced.

  The Pedagogical & Integration Approach

  For courses like writing or a thesis seminar, where AI might be used as an assistive tool for brainstorming or discourse analysis, these names position the technology as part of the academic workflow.

  • Generative AI Integration Guide: Suggests that AI is a tool to be woven into the writing and research process purposefully.

  • AI as a Learning Tool Statement: Clearly defines the technology’s role as a scaffold for learning rather than a replacement for thinking.

  • Guide to Ethical AI Assistance: Focuses on the “how-to” of using AI responsibly in academic research.

  • AI Collaboration Protocol: Treats the AI almost as a peer reviewer or research assistant, establishing boundaries for that relationship.

  The Traditional Policy Approach

  If the document needs to heavily emphasize academic integrity and strict boundaries, these are standard institutional titles.

  • Acceptable AI Use Policy (AAUP): A standard, formal title that clearly defines what is and isn’t allowed.

  • Academic Integrity & AI Addendum: Firmly links the use of AI to the existing academic honesty code.

  • Artificial Intelligence Course Guidelines: A straightforward, neutral title.

  • Syllabus Statement on Generative AI: The most descriptive, functional name, though less engaging.
    If the goal is to model how future educators should handle these tools in their own classrooms, a title like “Shared Framework for AI Use” or “AI Integration Guide” often strikes the right balance between providing clear boundaries and keeping the pedagogy transparent.

• Names others have used

  The titles presented above are generally not copyrighted or exclusive to one specific institution; rather, they are standard pedagogical frameworks and naming conventions adopted across higher education. However, you will see specific variations of these titles championed by different universities, Centers for Teaching and Learning (CTLs), and academic organizations.
  Here is how those titles map to actual institutional usage:

  1. The Traditional Policy & Syllabus Statements

  These are the most common across university administrations and are typically mandated or heavily suggested by a university’s provost or academic integrity board.

  • Syllabus Statement on Generative AI: This is the universal standard used by almost every university Center for Teaching and Learning. For example, Brown University, Yale University, and Colorado University Boulder provide faculty with templates specifically titled “Syllabus Statements for Generative AI.”

  • Acceptable AI Use Policy: Widely used at the administrative level for both students and staff. You will see this at institutions like Saint Leo University, as well as in K-12 and Catholic school districts (e.g., McDonell Area Catholic Schools) to delineate strict boundaries.

  • Academic Integrity & AI Addendum: Universities often don’t create a brand-new policy, but instead attach an AI addendum to their existing honor codes. Institutions like Texas A&M and various state universities frame their AI rules this way.

  2. The Collaborative & Pedagogical Titles

  These titles are highly encouraged by universities that focus heavily on the scholarship of teaching and learning. They are usually implemented by individual professors or departments rather than being university-wide mandates.

  • AI Class Agreement / AI Learning Contract: These terms are frequently discussed in higher-ed circles (like the University of Michigan’s Center for Research on Learning and Teaching or Elon University, which has published extensive whitepapers on generative AI in education). They encourage faculty to co-create an “agreement” or “contract” with students rather than handing down a policy, which aligns perfectly with Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles.

  • Generative AI Integration Guide: Institutions with strong writing programs or thesis seminars—like Northern Illinois University or the writing centers at Harvard and MIT—often use the term “Integration” or “Assistance.” This signals to students that AI is being treated as a stage in the writing process (e.g., brainstorming, outlining, grammar checking) rather than an illicit shortcut.
    If you are drafting this document for your own courses at the Universidad Autónoma de Aguascalientes, you have the freedom to adopt the title that best fits your UDL and transparent teaching goals. An “AI Class Agreement” or “AI Learning Contract” would align very well with your focus on building an open, engaging learning community.

• Ten examples of GenAI Syllabus Statements

  Here are 10 real examples of generative AI syllabus statements actively provided by university Centers for Teaching and Learning. They are organized on a spectrum from highly restrictive to fully integrated, allowing you to see the different pedagogical frameworks in action.

  Highly Restrictive & Prohibited Use

  1. Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo (Strictly Prohibited)

  “The use of generative AI tools (such as ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, Claude, etc.) is strictly prohibited in this course. All assignments, essays, and other submitted work must be your original, independent creation.”
  URL: https://ctlt.calpoly.edu/syllabus-statements-ai-core-values-and-syllabus-statements

  2. Virginia Commonwealth University (Emphasis on Human Check & Balance)

  “Please approach this course from the perspective that AI is not to be used as a substitute for your own intellectual effort or to directly complete any of your assignments… It is critical that human beings continue to provide checks and balances on AI progress and that we use and continually develop our own analytical abilities.”
  URL: https://faculty.provost.vcu.edu/faculty-resources/center-for-teaching-and-learning-excellence/gen-ai-syllabus-statements/

  3. Virginia Commonwealth University (The “Calculator” Metaphor for Beginners)

  “This course is aimed for beginning coding and therefore you should not be using GEN AI in this class to complete assignments. Think of AI like a calculator. When you first learn math you learn 2 + 2 = 4, you don’t learn to enter numbers into a calculator. That comes later when you have an understanding of the underlying concepts.”
  URL: https://faculty.provost.vcu.edu/faculty-resources/center-for-teaching-and-learning-excellence/gen-ai-syllabus-statements/

  Conditional & Guided Use

  4. Sonoma State University (Allowed for Specific Assignments Only)

  “Use of ChatGPT (or other similar tools that generate text) is allowed in this class for specific assignments only. When use of the tool is allowed, it will be explicitly noted in the assignment directions. If you utilize tools such as ChatGPT for any part of the assignment (from idea generation to text creation to text editing), you must properly cite ChatGPT.”
  URL: https://ctet.sonoma.edu/ai-education-sample-syllabus-statements

  5. Pepperdine University (Brainstorming & Idea Generation Only)

  “You may use AI programs (e.g., ChatGPT) to help generate ideas and brainstorm. If you use an AI tool when completing an assignment, it should be cited like any other reference material. However, you should note that the material generated by AI programs may be inaccurate, incomplete, or otherwise problematic.”
  URL: https://www.pepperdine.edu/about/administration/provost/policies/ai-use-syllabus-statements.htm

  6. NC State University (AI Use as a Learning Aid)

  “This course permits you to use artificial intelligence (AI) tools, such as chatbots, text generators, paraphrasers, summarizers, or solvers, to get guidance on assignments, as long as you do so in an ethical and responsible manner. This means that you must: Not use AI tools to replace your own thinking or analysis or to avoid engaging with the course content.”
  URL: https://teaching-resources.delta.ncsu.edu/develop-an-ai-syllabus-statement/

  Fully Integrated, Collaborative, & Transparent Use

  7. Kent State University (Emerging Skill Integration)

  “I expect you to use AI (e.g., ChatGPT, Dall-e-2) in this class. In fact, some assignments will require it. Learning to use AI is an emerging skill, and I will provide basic tutorials about how to leverage it for our work. However, be aware of the limits of these software systems… AI can be a valuable tool for augmenting human decision-making and critical thinking, but it is not a replacement.”
  URL: https://www.kent.edu/ctl/ai-syllabus-statements-course-policy-examples

  8. Pepperdine University (The “Assistant” Framework)

  “With the advent of Generative AI tools like ChatGPT, many of us have been fortunate to experience their capabilities firsthand. These tools can serve as incredible assistants… Utilizing them effectively involves employing them for idea generation, synthesis, and information gathering to gain a comprehensive understanding of various topics. Nonetheless, it is crucial that we, as users, take charge of guiding, verifying, and refining the ultimate answers generated by these tools.”
  URL: https://www.pepperdine.edu/about/administration/provost/policies/ai-use-syllabus-statements.htm

  9. Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo (Open Use with APA 7 Citation)

  “Within this course, you are welcome to use generative artificial intelligence (AI) models (such as ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, Claude, etc.) with correct acknowledgment (you can ask the AI to cite itself in APA7 to help you).”
  URL: https://ctlt.calpoly.edu/syllabus-statements-ai-core-values-and-syllabus-statements

  10. Vanderbilt University (Heavy Documentation & Process Verification)

  “You are free to use generative AI algorithms such as Chat-GPT in your work. However, You must: 1. Cite any text that the AI generated (even if you edited it) with a bibliography entry that includes the name and version of the AI model that you used, the date and time it was used, and includes the exact query or prompt that you used to get the results… You must thoroughly test the [output] to prove that it works… [and] explain what you did to verify that it works.”
  URL: https://cdn.vanderbilt.edu/vu-sub/wp-content/uploads/sites/59/2023/09/07192929/Sample-Syllabi-Statements-for-Generative-AI-and-ChatGPT-Usage.pdf

• Personal GenAI Statement

  This draft treats your classroom as a laboratory. Because your students are future English educators, this agreement doesn’t just establish rules for your current term—it models how they can manage emerging literacies and build open-learning communities in their own future classrooms.
  The text below synthesizes the “Assistant Framework” with Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles, positioning AI as a scaffold rather than a shortcut.

  AI Learning Contract: Transparency & Collaboration

  Our Shared Philosophy
  In this course, we view Generative AI (like ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini) as a professional assistant and a tool for learning, not as a replacement for your own critical thinking. As future language educators, developing “AI literacy” is a professional necessity. We will use these tools to remove barriers to learning, brainstorm effectively, and analyze language, while fiercely protecting the integrity of your own voice.
  By participating in this course, we mutually agree to the following protocols:

  1. Where AI is Encouraged (The Assistant Role)

  You are explicitly invited to use AI to support your learning process in the following ways:

  • Idea Generation & Outlining: Overcoming writer’s block by asking an AI to suggest essay structures, counter-arguments, or research questions.

  • Syntax and Grammar Coaching: Using AI to analyze your writing and suggest improvements for clarity, flow, or vocabulary, provided you evaluate the suggestions before accepting them.

  • Exploring Concepts: Asking an AI to simplify or provide examples of complex topics (e.g., breaking down specific frameworks in Discourse Analysis or pedagogical theory).

  2. Where AI is Prohibited (The Replacement Role)

  AI crosses the line from assistant to replacement when it does the intellectual heavy lifting for you. You may not:

  • Generate Final Text: Submitting AI-generated text as your own original writing, in whole or in part, without explicit attribution.

  • Fabricate Research: Relying on AI to find or generate academic citations. (AI models frequently “hallucinate” or invent fake sources).

  • Bypass Peer Feedback: Using AI to write peer reviews or community discussion posts. Our learning community relies on your actual human perspective.

  3. The Transparency Protocol (APA 7th Edition)

  To maintain an open-learning environment, we make our processes visible. If you use AI to assist in drafting, structuring, or revising an assignment, you must document it using standard APA 7th edition formatting:

  • In-Text Citation: Acknowledge the tool where it was used (e.g., OpenAI, 2024).

  • Reference List: Include the developer, the model, the year, and the URL.

  • Methodology Note / Appendix: For major projects like a thesis or research paper, include a brief paragraph at the end of your document explaining how you used the tool (e.g., “ChatGPT was used to generate an initial outline and suggest transitions between paragraphs 3 and 4. All final text and research are my own.”)

  4. The Human Check

  You are the editor-in-chief of your work. You are fully responsible for the accuracy, biases, and academic integrity of everything you submit. If an AI introduces a factual error, hallucinates a source, or produces biased language, the responsibility rests with you.
  Agreement
  I have read and understand this framework. I agree to use AI transparently, ethically, and as a tool to enhance—not replace—my own learning and teaching practice.
  Student Signature: ___________________________ Date: ______________

  Customizing for Your Specific Courses

  You can easily dial the constraints of this contract up or down depending on the specific class:

  • For Writing I & II: You might add a specific clause requiring students to submit their initial AI prompts alongside their final drafts, emphasizing the iterative writing process.

  • For a Thesis Seminar: You may want to heavily emphasize the “Methodology Note,” treating their AI usage exactly as they would treat any other research methodology that requires strict documentation.

  • For Discourse Analysis: You could add an assignment where students actively critique the linguistic choices, biases, and structures of AI-generated text as part of the curriculum itself.

• How to employ document