Sample Syllabus Statements for Generative AI Use

Instructors should clearly communicate their expectations for generative AI use to students. Expectations may vary by course or assignment depending on the learning objectives and may permit, limit, require, or prohibit particular uses of generative AI.

When developing or adapting a syllabus statement, consider identifying:

• what uses of generative AI are permitted and what uses are not permitted, including whether expectations differ across assignments;
• whether any uses of generative AI are required, and for what purposes;
• what generative AI tools students are required to use, including any cost or account requirements;
• what disclosure or acknowledgment of generative AI use is expected;
• what will happen if a student uses generative AI outside your stated expectations;
• how these expectations support the course or assignment learning objectives; and
• what students should do if they are unsure whether a particular use or tool is permitted.

You may also wish to tell students whether and how you use generative AI in designing the course, developing instructional materials, providing feedback, assessing work, or communicating with students. Sample language for that purpose appears at the end of this section.

The sample statements below move from most restrictive to most permissive. Choose the one closest to your approach and adapt it to your course. Text in square brackets marks a choice to make or a placeholder to replace before you use the statement. For a broader range of approaches and examples from colleges and universities, see Lance Eaton’s collection of syllabus policies.

For additional guidance and teaching resources, visit CETL’s Generative AI in Teaching and Learning page.

Sample A. Generative AI use is not permitted unless an assignment authorizes it

All work submitted in this course must comply with UConn’s Academic, Scholarly, and Professional Integrity and Misconduct Policy and, for undergraduate courses, Appendix A of The Student Code. Students are responsible for submitting their own work, acknowledging the contributions of others, and avoiding unauthorized assistance.

You may not use generative artificial intelligence tools to generate, revise, summarize, translate, analyze, solve, or otherwise contribute to work submitted in this course unless an assignment explicitly permits their use.

[Explain briefly why. For example: The work in this course is designed to build your own ability to (skill or capacity), and developing that ability depends on doing the thinking yourself.]

Standard spelling and grammar check, accessibility tools, and any tool approved as part of an academic accommodation are not restricted by this statement.

Assignment-specific directions take precedence over this statement. Permission to use generative AI for one assignment does not constitute permission to use it for other assignments.

Do not enter another person’s unpublished work, personal information, or sensitive data into unsupported third-party generative AI tools. When using institutionally supported tools such as Microsoft Copilot, follow university data governance and privacy guidelines.

You are responsible for understanding whether the tools you use include generative AI features. If you are unsure whether a tool or feature is permitted, ask me before using it.

Using generative AI without authorization or beyond the permitted limits may constitute academic misconduct under UConn policy. [State what you will do. For example: If I believe work you submitted includes unauthorized generative AI use, I will talk with you about it before deciding whether to refer the matter to Community Standards.]

Sample B. Generative AI use is permitted with conditions

All work submitted in this course must comply with UConn’s Academic, Scholarly, and Professional Integrity and Misconduct Policy and, for undergraduate courses, Appendix A of The Student Code. Students are responsible for submitting their own work, acknowledging the contributions of others, and avoiding unauthorized assistance.

You may use generative artificial intelligence tools in this course unless an assignment states otherwise. Permitted uses [include, but are not limited to / are limited to] brainstorming, exploring ideas, receiving feedback, or revising work you have written. [If permitted uses are limited to those listed, delete the preceding sentence.]

[Explain briefly why. For example: Using these tools well is part of what this course asks you to learn, and the assignments are designed to develop your judgment about when they help and when they do not.]

You remain responsible for the intellectual work required by each assignment and for the accuracy, quality, and appropriateness of everything you submit.

When you use generative AI, you must briefly identify the tool and explain how you used it [in a brief note at the end of your submission].

Do not enter another person’s unpublished work, personal information, or sensitive data into unsupported third-party generative AI tools. When using institutionally supported tools such as Microsoft Copilot, follow university data governance and privacy guidelines.

Assignment-specific directions take precedence over this statement. If you are unsure whether a particular use or tool is permitted, ask me before using it.

Using generative AI beyond the permitted limits or failing to disclose its use may constitute academic misconduct under UConn policy. [State what you will do. For example: If I believe work you submitted goes beyond the permitted uses or was not disclosed, I will talk with you about it before deciding whether to refer the matter to Community Standards.]

Sample C. Generative AI use is required for specified work

All work submitted in this course must comply with UConn’s Academic, Scholarly, and Professional Integrity and Misconduct Policy and, for undergraduate courses, Appendix A of The Student Code. Students are responsible for submitting their own work, acknowledging the contributions of others, and avoiding unauthorized assistance.

This course requires you to use generative artificial intelligence for [name the assignments or types of work]. [Explain briefly why. For example: Evaluating what these tools produce is a skill this course is designed to develop, and you cannot practice it without using them.]

The required tool is [tool name]. [Describe how students get access, including whether an account is required, whether there is a cost, and who pays it. For example: A free account is sufficient for all course work, or Access is provided through UConn at no cost to you.]

For work outside [the assignments named above], generative AI use is [permitted with the conditions described below / not permitted unless an assignment authorizes it].

When you use generative AI, you must briefly identify the tool and explain how you used it [in a brief note at the end of your submission], and you remain responsible for the accuracy, quality, and appropriateness of everything you submit.

Do not enter another person’s unpublished work, personal information, or sensitive data into unsupported third-party generative AI tools. When using institutionally supported tools such as Microsoft Copilot, follow university data governance and privacy guidelines.

If you are unable to create an account, if the required tool is not accessible to you, or if you have an approved accommodation that affects your use of it, contact me and we will arrange an alternative.

Assignment-specific directions take precedence over this statement. Submitting AI-generated work as your own where an assignment asks for your independent work, or failing to disclose AI use where disclosure is required, may constitute academic misconduct under UConn policy. [State what you will do.]

Optional statement: how the instructor uses generative AI

This statement is optional and stands on its own. It can accompany any of the samples above. Choose one version and adapt it.

If you do not use generative AI in this course: I do not use generative artificial intelligence to design this course, develop its materials, respond to your work, or communicate with you. If that changes during the semester, I will tell you.

If you do use generative AI in this course: I use generative artificial intelligence for [name the uses, for example: drafting practice questions, generating example problems, producing first drafts of announcements]. I do not use it for [name the exclusions, for example: evaluating your work or writing the feedback you receive]. I review everything before it reaches you and remain responsible for its accuracy.

Trigger and Content Warning Templates for Syllabi

Note: best practice suggests that a statement of Content or Trigger Warning in the syllabus, coupled with a verbal announcement before the class where the material is presented, supports a safe, inclusive, engaged learning environment.

Content Warning

I acknowledge that each of you comes to UConn with your own unique life experiences. This contributes to the way you perceive various types of information. In [class name], all of the class content, including that which may be intellectually or emotionally challenging, has been intentionally curated to achieve the learning goals for this course. The decision to include such material is not taken lightly. These topics include [list topics].

If you encounter a topic that is intellectually challenging for you, it can manifest in feelings of discomfort and upset. In response, I encourage you to come talk to me or your friends or family about it. Class topics are discussed for the sole purpose of expanding your intellectual engagement in the area of [subject/major], and I will support you throughout your learning in this course.

Trigger Warning

I acknowledge that each of you comes to UConn with your own unique life experiences. This contributes to the way you perceive several types of information. In [class name], we will cover a variety of topics, some of which you may find triggering. These topics include [list topics]. Each time this topic appears in a reading or unit, it is marked on the syllabus.

The experience of being triggered and the experience of being intellectually challenged are different. The main difference is that an individual must have experienced trauma to experience being triggered, whereas an intellectual challenge has nothing to do with trauma. If you are a trauma survivor and encounter a topic in this class that is triggering for you, you may feel overwhelmed or panicked and find it difficult to concentrate.

In response, I encourage you to take the necessary steps for your emotional safety. This may include leaving class while the topic is discussed or talking to a therapist at SHaW Mental Health. Should you choose to sit out on discussion of a certain topic, know that you are still responsible for the material, but we can discuss whether there are other methods for accessing that material and for assessing your learning on it. Class topics are discussed for the sole purpose of expanding your intellectual engagement in the area of [subject/major], and I will support you throughout your learning in this course.

Helpful Resource

The Chronicle of Higher Education published a guide entitled How to Create a Syllabus, which you may find useful while drafting or revising your syllabus.

Additional Resources

Bunce, D. M. “Teaching is More than Lecturing and Learning is More than Memorizing.” Journal of Chemical Education, 2009, 86(6), 674-680.

DiClementi, J. D. and Handelsman, M. M. “Empowering Students: Class-Generated Rules.” Teaching of Psychology, 2005, 32(1), 18-21.

Dornsife, R. “Good Teaching as Vulnerable Teaching.” Teaching Professor, December 2012.

Gibson, L. “Self-directed Learning: An Exercise in Student Engagement.” College Teaching, 2011, 59(3), 95-101.

Hudd, S. S. “Syllabus Under Construction: Involving Students in the Creation of Class Assignments.” Teaching Sociology, 2003, 31(2), 195-202.

O’Brien, J. G., Millis, B. J., and Cohen, M. W. The Course Syllabus: A Learner-Centered Approach, 2nd Ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2008.

Singham, M. “Moving Away from the Authoritarian Classroom.” Change, May/June 2005, 57, 51-57.

Singham, M. “Death to the Syllabus.” Liberal Education, 2007, 93(4), 52-56.