As an Academic Senator at Sonoma State University, on behalf of lecturer faculty, I do not recall this issue having been raised although my local paper today made reference to an Academic Senate in the CSU approving it last year, I presumed that was Statewide level because it was unfamiliar to me and I usually follow policy closely. I know that in August, we had additionally received an email from our Provost implying we did not have any meaningful and agreed-upon discussion, consultation, or subsequent and agreed upon policy at the level of shared governance.
This was before our University Philosophy Department was cut, which also occurred without appropriate consultation with faculty, and so that context may be meaningful. The acronym CTET, below, stands for the Center for Teaching and Excellence. The content of this email raised many questions for me, but it’s difficult to see in it where there was the sort of agreement now being made, or claimed to have been made, especially in paragraph #4 and the 3rd to last paragraph.
That email, from Aug 21, 2024, states:
“For the last 18 months, we have been tracking the development of generative AI tools, like ChatGPT, Gemini, and DALL-E, and the way they are being used in higher education nationally. Generative AI tools can produce new and unique outputs, including human-like text. They assist in tasks such as writing, research, creating computer code, and language translation, among other tasks. As the availability of these tools increases, so does their usage by students in the educational context. While many of these usages may support teaching and learning, there is growing concern that higher education institutions may see a rise in students using these tools to engage in academic misconduct without proper citation or attribution.
At SSU, during the 2023-24 academic year, the Academic Technology & Instructional Spaces Subcommittee (ATISS), working with support from CTET, conducted a review of AI content detectors as part of a larger pilot to evaluate academic integrity tools, recommending:
That an “AI Content Detection” should not be officially enabled on campus without further guidelines developed by shared governance on its appropriate uses and limitations. The pilot study observed instances where human created text was falsely identified as AI generated, which is potentially highly problematic for any students who could be accused under such circumstances.
Shared governance leadership has indicated that developing a set of AI Guidelines (and possibly policy) is a priority for the coming academic year.
Additional support resources exist through CTET, particularly through their AI in Education page, which includes support information including recommended language for sample syllabus statements for faculty on classroom usage of AI, recordings of workshops on how to address concerns around academic integrity with AI, using AI in the research process, and more.
Additionally:
CTET is currently evaluating a tool, Rumi, that may help to alleviate faculty concerns about academic integrity. Please contact CTET to learn more about opportunities to participate in a Fall technical pilot of the tool.
We encourage those faculty who are interested in exploring the academic integration of AI to reach out to CTET. With our partners in IT, we are also exploring bringing Microsoft Copilot under an educational license to SSU that would protect faculty, student, and staff data from commercial uses and future AI model training.
Faculty should be cautious about using “free” AI tools that have not been licensed for campus use. Such tools do not necessarily meet accessibility requirements and may expose confidential FERPA protected data to third-parties with commercial interests.
In late 2024, Canvas expects to integrate Generative AI for faculty usage in significant ways. These uses can support faculty with assignment creation, writing questions for exams, developing rubrics, and there are even promises of assistance with grading. We encourage those interested to please read this recent press release.
Presently, generative AI features exist in several campus tools including Adobe Photoshop, Zoom, and we expect that many more vendors will be releasing similar features and updates in the future.
In Spring 2025, we anticipate running another instance of the AI in Education FLC. In Spring 2024, 12 faculty joined this community to gain expertise in AI literacy, explored topics in the ethical implications of AI, and developed novel curriculum and assignments utilizing generative AI in their classes. If you are interested in learning more about this, we encourage you to review the recording of last spring’s Faculty Showcase to get a sense of how colleagues have explored working with these tools.
As always, if you have any questions, please reach out to CTET ([email protected]) to schedule a conversation about how to address your concerns about student AI use and/or options for how to integrate AI into your classes.
More work is needed as we continue to investigate these topics and as shared governance begins to develop guidelines on the usage of AI in coursework. We continue to stress, however, the importance of faculty establishing their own positions with respect to the usage of generative AI in their classes. Learning more about the strengths and limitations of generative AI can help to empower faculty to make informed decisions in line with their comfort level.
We want to assure you that both the campus, and the system overall are deeply engaged in crafting comprehensive responses to Generative AI. In June, a CSU-wide working group issued a report on generative AI technologies with a number of recommendations including “Provid[ing] opportunities for faculty and students to co-create GenAI learning objectives, competencies, compacts/agreements, and activities.” We strongly concur with this recommendation. Clarifying your own policies and becoming more familiar with the capabilities and limitations of AI can demystify these tools for both yourself and students and set appropriate boundaries for your teaching on the usage of these tools. I would stress that in this spirit, we continue to experiment with new approaches, treat students with civility, and be aware of the potential ramifications of accusing students of academic misconduct with AI.
The CSU GenAI Resources site contains many useful systemwide resources for faculty training and support. If you have questions or, please see CTET’s AI in Education Initiative or reach out for further consultation.”
