AI AI in Teaching and Learning

Common elements of a syllabus AI statement

Eight elements that appear across published syllabus statements, with where each one comes from.

Key takeaways
  • Strong statements share eight elements, from stance to an invitation to ask.
  • Name permitted and prohibited uses by task.
  • Explain the rationale in terms of learning.
1

A clear overall stance

One sentence saying whether AI is prohibited, allowed in some ways, or encouraged.

e.g. “AI use is permitted only where an assignment says so.”

Found in Carnegie Mellon examples ↗ Harvard FAS drafts ↗ UT San Antonio options ↗
2

Permitted and prohibited uses, by task

Concrete activities named as allowed or not: brainstorming, drafting, editing, coding, studying.

e.g. “Allowed for proofreading; not for drafting.”

Found in Chirikov (2026): rules increasingly vary by task ↗ Tufts CELT ↗ University of Maryland ↗
3

Disclosure and citation

How students acknowledge AI use: a statement, citation format, or saved conversations.

e.g. “Add a note describing which tool you used and how.”

Found in UW–Madison CTLM ↗ NC State DELTA ↗ Arizona State SOLS ↗
4

Student responsibility for accuracy

Students remain accountable for errors, fabricated sources and bias in AI output.

e.g. “You are responsible for checking every claim.”

Found in NC State DELTA ↗ UT Austin FIC ↗ Stanford guidance ↗
5

A rationale tied to learning

Why this rule fits the course goals, so students see the policy as about learning, not policing.

e.g. “This assignment builds your own analytical voice.”

Found in Chirikov (2026): policies shifting from integrity to learning ↗ University of Maryland: policies with rationale ↗ Gu et al. (2026) ↗
6

Privacy and data protection

What students must not enter into AI tools, and which institution-approved tools to use.

e.g. “Do not paste classmates’ work or personal data.”

Found in Harvard guidelines ↗ Crompton et al. (2026) ↗
7

Integrity consequences

How unauthorized AI use is treated under the institution’s academic integrity policy.

e.g. “Unauthorized use will be handled as academic dishonesty.”

Found in Carnegie Mellon examples ↗ Arizona State SOLS ↗ Stanford guidance ↗
8

An invitation to ask

Students are told to check with the instructor when unsure, which addresses the confusion students report.

e.g. “If in doubt, ask before you use a tool.”

Found in HEPI (2026): students unsure what is acceptable ↗ Sun et al. (2026): policies seen as vague ↗ Tufts CELT ↗

How we got here: we compared the sample statements published by nine university teaching centers (listed under References) and kept the elements that appear in most of them, then checked them against recent syllabus research.

Take it with you

Download the eight elements as a checklist, a disclosure form for students, or a worksheet for redesigning an assignment.

Build a full policy