Overview
As generative AI continues to shape the educational landscape, instructors are increasingly expected to make informed decisions about how these tools align with their pedagogical values and goals. Yet navigating this terrain can feel overwhelming. This resource aims to support you as you think through how to communicate clearly and constructively with students about GenAI. Drawing from guidance provided by Berkeley's Academic Senate, it offers a comprehensive overview of how to set expectations, open up dialogue, and foster a culture of transparency, integrity, and shared responsibility.
Communicating Your GenAI Expectations
Even if you haven’t finalized your stance on generative AI in your course, students are already wondering how (or if) they’re allowed to use it. They may come in with different assumptions about what constitutes appropriate use. Some may not even realize that tools like ChatGPT can raise questions about academic integrity. A clearly stated course policy on GenAI use helps ensure that students understand not only what is allowed, but also why. Policies are more effective when they are grounded in pedagogical reasoning and tied to the specific learning goals of the course. A transparent policy also reduces student anxiety, supports academic integrity, and allows space for students to reflect on the ethical and disciplinary dimensions of GenAI use.
In short, a good GenAI policy should not merely act as a set of rules but should invite students into a shared conversation about how, when, and why certain technologies can (or shouldn’t) be used in the service of learning.
Sample Language from Berkeley’s Academic Senate
The following sample syllabus statements have been provided by UC Berkeley’s Academic Senate. They span a range of approaches, from fully integrating GenAI into coursework to prohibiting it entirely. Instructors are encouraged to adapt these to their specific course context and instructional priorities.
Full AI
This is a GenAI-required course. Students will be required to use GenAI tools provided by the instructor to complete assignments. Students may also use other GenAI tools unless specifically prohibited. There may be assignments in this class (e.g., exams) where the use of GenAI is not permitted, and these will be clearly identified in the syllabus.
Some AI
This course enables limited uses of GenAI tools but also prohibits broad use of them in cases that would be considered plagiaristic if the tool’s output had been composed by a human author.
If unauthorized GenAI use on a particular assessment is suspected, the instructors may require you to complete a short, in-person examination orally or on paper, related to the content and skills tested in the original assessment.
Permitted use cases (examples):
-
It may be used to perform research in ways similar to search engines such as Google, and for other functions attendant to completing an assignment.
-
It may be used as a writing assistant in its capacity as a word processor, such as Word or Pages, i.e., for correcting grammar and spelling, and other functions like synonym suggestion.
-
It may be used as translation software for consultation purposes; you should never present the GenAI translation as your own text.
-
Copying any text directly from a homework or lab problem into a GenAI tool is considered cheating. Students, however, are permitted to break problems into steps and paraphrase those steps in their own words.
-
When assignments in the course permit or incorporate the use of GenAI tools, the assignment will ask you to include an acknowledgement of your use of any type of GenAI in your submitted work and share the prompts and outputs utilized at the time of submission. The suggested format is as follows:I acknowledge the use of [insert AI system(s) and link] to [specific use of GenAI]. The prompts used include [list of prompts]. The output from these prompts was used to [explain the use].
-
GenAI tools may be used for [assignment types A, B, and C] with appropriate citation, but not for [assignment types D, E, and F].
Unpermitted use cases (examples):
-
GenAI tools may not be used for any purpose in any exam situation.
-
The use of GenAI tools such as ChatGPT or equivalent should not be used to summarize, generate, or interpret any thoughts present in any of your work. The software may not be used to compose any part of the submitted assignment.
-
GenAI should never be employed for a use that would constitute plagiarism if the GenAI source were a human or organizational author.
-
Having another person/entity do the writing of any substantive portion of an assignment for you is against academic integrity policies, and can include hiring a person or a company to write essays and drafts and/or other assignments, research-based or otherwise, and using GenAI tools.
No AI
In this course, we prioritize active engagement, students’ knowledge acquisition, and the development of critical thinking skills. To achieve these objectives, we have chosen to prohibit the use of any GenAI tools or automated services during class sessions and when completing assignments or exams. GenAI use is not permitted in any aspect of completing work that is part of an assignment, including brainstorming, drafting, analysis, editing, or generation of figures or images.
If unauthorized AI use on a particular assessment is suspected, the instructor may require you to complete a short, in-person examination orally or on paper, related to the content and skills tested in the original assessment.
Discussion of Risks and Limitations
Faculty are encouraged to actively engage students in discussions about topics relevant to the use of GenAI in the specific course. These topics could include:
-
How to properly cite GenAI sources
-
Reasons GenAI usage could be detrimental to learning
-
Data protection aspects of using GenAI tools
-
Potential bias produced by GenAI
-
Identifying inconsistencies or errors in GenAI output
-
Enforcement mechanisms of GenAI use prohibitions
These conversations serve not only to clarify policies but also to help students reflect critically on their own learning processes and responsibilities.
Required Access to GenAI Tools
For any assignments where the instructor encourages or requires the use of GenAI tools, instructors should ensure that students have access to the necessary computing resources to run those GenAI tools. For instance, the Virtual Computing Lab (VCL), is a powerful and cost-effective teaching resource that allows you to provide students with remote access to standardized, customized computing environments - without requiring a physical lab or personal installations.
If non-campus-sanctioned resources are required, it is the instructor's responsibility to provide access to those resources. The syllabus should clearly outline the acceptable use of non-campus and instructor-provided GenAI tools. For any assignments where the use of GenAI tools is permitted but not required, the instructor should make a reasonable effort to ensure that access to external tools does not provide an unfair advantage.
Additionally, introducing any new tool into a course means that students will likely have training or support needs that the instructor may not be anticipating. Even when an LLM is designed in a seemingly intuitive way, it may still require that students have access to technical support or troubleshooting. We encourage instructors to set clear expectations with students on where and how their students can request support as needed.
Data Privacy in GenAI Tools
Bear in mind that an LLM does not guarantee full data security and privacy for students. If an instructor asks a student to use an LLM in their course, they should be mindful not to ask students to enter in any personally identifiable information (such as a student ID, their full names, or their precise addresses, or locations). Instructors should also warn students not to enter in any extremely sensitive data, such as government-issued IDs, credit card information, personal medical or health information, or anything about student loans. In other words, all data included in the P3 and P4 data categories as identified by Berkeley IT should not be entered into an LLM.
Citation Guidance
In-text citation - Include an in-text citation when incorporating content from a GenAI tool into your academic paper. For example:
"Berkeley Haas is a top-tier business school due to its academic excellence, innovative curriculum, strong alumni network, prime location, diverse community, emphasis on leadership and ethics, and abundant experiential learning opportunities (OpenAI, 2024)."
Reference list entry -
OpenAI. (2024). ChatGPT (May 2 version) [Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com/chat
Note: Please be aware that the exact format may vary depending on the specific guidelines of your institution or the publication to which you are submitting your work. Always follow the guidelines provided by your professor or the publication's style guide for precise formatting.
Enforcement Mechanisms
At this time, the use of generative AI (GenAI) detection tools is not considered a viable or recommended option. Detecting GenAI-generated content with high confidence remains a challenge, and tools currently available have notable limitations. For example, Turnitin’s AI writing detection feature is not enabled for UC Berkeley instructors. Campus leadership, along with several peer institutions, has opted out of this feature while it undergoes a thorough internal review to assess its privacy, security, accessibility, and overall effectiveness.
There are several reasons behind this decision:
-
Student access: Unlike Turnitin’s standard plagiarism detection, which allows students to view reports and learn from them, the AI detection results are only visible to instructors.
-
Unclear actionability: Traditional plagiarism tools can point to specific sources, but AI detection tools do not provide clear evidence, making it difficult to determine how findings should be interpreted or used in academic integrity investigations.
Therefore, assignments or learning activities where AI is not permitted should adopt one or more of the following solutions:
-
Written Statement of Academic Integrity
-
Reflective memo where students describe their writing process
-
In-person proctored exams/activities
-
An additional interview component to an assignment where students are graded on an explanation of their work. A randomized approach could be considered.
Instructors are encouraged to directly state the consequences of cheating and their reporting process as part of the AI policy. For example:
A student who is suspected of violating the GenAI policy will be reported to the Center for Student Conduct and will be required to redo the assignment in person.
This section is one part of a broader institutional effort to support faculty as they navigate the complex, evolving role of GenAI in higher education. As with all aspects of course design and communication, what matters most is that instructors act with clarity, intentionality, and care.