Understanding and Addressing Use of AI

Allison McComb Updated by Allison McComb

Understanding and Addressing Use of AI

As the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools becomes more prevalent, it is essential for eCornell to establish clear guidelines for their use within our courses. This page outlines our policy on the appropriate use of AI, emphasizing academic integrity, proper attribution, and permissible use. It also provides practical guidance for addressing suspected misuse of AI by students in alignment with eCornell’s Code of Conduct and facilitation standards.

Ultimately, eCornell students are allowed to use AI to help enhance their own responses. However, they may not use it to solely create their responses, per the eCornell code of Conduct. Notable information from our code of conduct in regard to AI include:

Permissible Use: AI tools may be used for specific course-related tasks as long as they comply with the course guidelines. If the course or assignment specifies limitations on AI use, students are expected to adhere to those rules.

Prohibited Uses and Academic Integrity: Using AI to create false, misleading, or harmful information is prohibited and may result in disciplinary action. When using AI tools, students must ensure that work remains original and reflects their own understanding and analysis. AI should not be used to solely complete assignments.

Proper Attribution: If students use AI tools to support research or writing, they should provide reference where applicable.

Responding to suspected AI use:

Our general stance regarding AI, similar to other sources of information, is if we are certain a student uses AI in their work (i.e, verbiage that indicates “Written by Chat GPT”, for instance), we are able to reference the source and indicate the requirement for an original response. Below we will provide some examples of ways you can encourage revisions from students suspected of AI use.

  1. If you are certain a student used AI to create their response, it would be reasonable for you to comment on the students assignment with guidance such as the following:

"Hi [Student Name] it appears much of your course project has been AI generated, can please update your response using your own words and content from this course [provide an example of a tool they may find the needed information in within the course]? Thank you! 

  1. Alternatively, oftentimes, when a student uses AI, they provide a general versus a specific response to the prompt(s) in the course project and in these situations, we can highlight the need for their work to align with the prompt(s) / rubric. So for new/revised course project parts that require revision, you may consider sharing feedback with the student that briefly highlights what they have provided and what is either missing or incomplete according to the rubric / course project instructions:

“Hi [Student Name] , thank you for your submission. You have provided [positive feedback of what they have done well/meets rubric qualifications if applicable] However, the response does not [outline necessary guidance from course question or rubric]. Please provide a response that fully addresses the course project and requirement requirements”

This way, we are holding the student to our standard of academic rigor, while refraining from referencing AI in these instances. Oftentimes AI-generated responses do not cite specific tools and information found within the course at hand. You may find it helpful to, when asking a student to re-submit or use first person statements, encourage them to use specific resources found within the course. In these situations, directing students to relevant tools, videos, or page names within the course may help them resubmit without the use of AI.

Code of Conduct and Finalizing Grades

Please note, per the eCornell code of conduct, which you can find on this page, that we do require any use of AI to be properly attributed, and that students may not use AI to solely create their assignment responses.

Once the student resubmits their work, as long as they meet passing requirements for the assignment, you are able to provide them a passing grade. If a student disputes their use of AI after you have asked them to resubmit, do your best to grade impartially based on the assignment rubric alone. In accordance with our standards of facilitation it would be appropriate to request resubmissions, accompanied by specific feedback, if a student has not met passing qualifications. 

If a situation should escalate to be disruptive or disrespectful, please reach out to Facilitation Support Team (ec_facilitation@cornell.edu), with your PFM included to advise on next steps

How did we do?

Support Resources for Students

Help! My Student is Having a Hard Time Uploading a Video

Contact