Embedded Files
Home / Teaching in the AI Context /
At the May 11, 2026 meeting, a proposal from CCAS was approved by vote by the Faculty. To support individual faculty choices relating to AI and to communicate clearly those decisions, CCAS proposal stated that, in the 2026–2027 academic year, the College will pilot a program in which faculty classify each course into one of the four categories. This policy requires that faculty include an AI policy statement in each of their syllabuses for the 2026-27 academic year. Faculty will identify their chosen policy in the course syllabus.
See your email from Marie Petkus dated May 6, 2026 with the full document, including the four policy statement options. Or you can view the document at this link.
CCAS recommends that faculty provide additional clarification to your students, both via the syllabus and in person. You may have already decided which policy you are using for each of your classes. This resource aims to help faculty reflect on and prepare additional insights on why the chosen policy is being used.
This page provides ideas and questions to help you determine which policy you want to use for your classes
Choosing the Right Policy: Some questions to ask yourself...
1. What are my actual learning objectives, and does AI use help or hinder them? The policy should emerge from what you're trying to teach, not a blanket rule. Before banning or permitting AI, think specifically about what skill or understanding you're trying to develop in each assignment. For example: Are you teaching research synthesis, where students should struggle through original sources? Then AI shortcuts might undermine that.
2. Am I being honest about transparency and what I can actually enforce? A clear, enforceable, consistently applied policy works better than a complex one that requires heavy maintenance. Can you reliably detect AI use? Are you prepared to participate in an investigation of suspected violations? Are there inconsistencies in your rules (e.g., allowing spell-check but not grammar-checking AI)? Review the instructor requirements in the Faculty Handbook.
3. Have I considered equity implications? Does your policy account for different needs and contexts? Some students have access to premium AI tools; others don't. Some are already fluent with these technologies; others are learning English as a second language and might benefit from AI assistance. A one-size-fits-all policy might inadvertently advantage some students while constraining others.
4. Does my policy prepare students for the world they're actually entering, or the one I wish existed? Should your policy include learning outcomes around when and how to use AI critically? Your students will graduate into workplaces, grad programs, and professions where AI is already embedded. Policies that treat AI as contraband may feel right for your classroom, but do they leave students underprepared?
5. What am I actually afraid of, and is that fear justified in my discipline? Name your actual concern, then decide if your policy addresses it or just expresses anxiety. Be honest about whether you're worried about academic integrity, skill atrophy, or just feeling left behind by technology. The concern matters because it shapes a policy that's either proportionate or reactive.
Surface your teaching values, then operationalize them...
Somewhere in your career, you probably wrote a statement of your teaching philosophy. This statement may have included: your conception of teaching and learning, a description of how you teach, and a justification of why you teach the way you teach. It is a reflective and purposeful statement about your teaching. You may provide a version of this statement annually in your FAS.
We each hold beliefs and values about good teaching that define our work with students. These beliefs and values form the core of our identities as teachers, we are teaching the small classes we love or new preps that we are still learning/ adapting. Articulating how these beliefs and values operate in relation to AI may be a new task for you.
To draft your Teaching Statement in relation to your AI Policy here are a few prompts to help you think it through.
Write and reflect on your core values, beliefs, and identity as a teacher.
Use these to draft a short, passionate, direct version of you teaching philosophy. *Many faculty drafted a "Teaching Manifesto" during Summer 2020. If you enrolled in the Moodle Space, Teaching Online/Hybrid Courses, these are still available. This is the direct link to the Moodle Space. You may find this a source to help with this exercise.
Now, look at the AI policy statements (A-D) document (link). Which statement do you want to use? It may vary depending on the course.
Using your notes from #1, answer as many of these questions as possible:
What is it about learning that this statement captures? If a student violated the spirit of this statement but not the letter of any rule, what would that look like?
Finish this sentence: My students are in my classroom to become people who can XX, not just people who can produce XX.
What's the one skill or habit of mind you would be devastated to find out your students never developed, even if their grades were fine?
Where does AI help students practice the thing you just named, and where does it let them skip it entirely?
Think of a specific assignment. If a student used AI on it in the way you're most worried about, what exactly would be lost for them, not for you?
Write one sentence that starts with 'I want students to use AI in ways that XXX and not in ways that XXX. Use YOUR language, not generic academic integrity language.
*This is a link to the Faculty Handbook which lays out Centre instructor requirements
Sources
Blumberg, P. (2015). How critical reflection benefits faculty as they implement learner-centered teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 144(2015), 87-97.
Kaplan, M., Meizlish, D. S., O'Neal, C., & Wright, M. C. (2008). 16: A Research‐Based Rubric for Developing Statements of Teaching Philosophy. To improve the academy, 26(1), 242-262.
McCormack, C., Schönwetter, D. J., Ruge, G., & Kennelly, R. (2023). Promoting university teacher resilience through teaching philosophy development. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 14(1).
Silver, N. (2023). Reflective pedagogies and the metacognitive turn in college teaching. In Using reflection and metacognition to improve student learning (pp. 1-17). Routledge.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design (2nd ed., expanded). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).
Websites sourced
Duke University: https://ctl.duke.edu/ai-and-teaching-at-duke-2/artificial-intelligence-policies-in-syllabi-guidelines-and-considerations/
Kent State University: https://www.kent.edu/ctl/ai-syllabus-statements-course-policy-examples
Furman University: https://www.furman.edu/ai/
University of Richmond: https://genai.richmond.edu/guidelines/faculty/index.html#course-policies
Google Sites
Report abuse