Policy Matters

Administered by the Blog Committee, Policy Matters posts are written by members on a variety of topics. From think pieces to how-to's, editorials to news round-ups, there is something for every policy administrator. Interested in contributing a post? Let us know by emailing admin@acupa.org.

Top tags: policy policy development Policy Administration Jessica Teets policy process collaboration Deborah Bartlett pandemic accessibility COVID-19 Jennifer Gallagher Gina Kennedy writing ACUPA data equity IT Productivity remote work How-to Lisa Biagas news resources Sara Gigeroff students AI change compliance culture free speech

Artificial Intelligence Use Policy

Posted By Katie Hamilton, Joyce University of Nursing and Health Sciences, Tuesday, January 21, 2025
Updated: Friday, January 17, 2025

Setting Expectations for Student Use

Authors: Katie Hamilton, Chief of Staff – Office of the Provost, and Jonathan Hill, MD, PhD, Faculty Training and Development Specialist.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has brought unique challenges and opportunities to higher education. Like institutions nationwide, faculty and leaders at Joyce University of Nursing and Health Sciences (Joyce) sought to develop a policy that ensured responsible and ethical student use of the emerging and evolving technology. In this post, we share the process our university took to develop the Artificial Intelligence Use Policy and Procedure for students, and what’s next for AI policy.

Artificial Intelligence Position Statement

Prior to the policy work, a Joyce Artificial Intelligence taskforce contributed to the development of the following statement, which guided the work to follow.

At Joyce University of Nursing and Health Sciences, we recognize that Artificial Intelligence (AI) represents a transformative force with potential to shape the future. As an Institution dedicated to education and innovation, we are committed to harnessing the power of AI in a way that aligns with the University’s mission and vision.

As guided by the University’s values, we will navigate the possibilities that AI presents, striving to create an academic and healthcare education landscape that is inclusive, empowering, and enriched by the responsible and ethical use of AI.

AI Use Policy Development

Policy Purpose
Prior to the AI Use Policy, Joyce faculty observed an uptick in student coursework submitted that reflected the use AI for completion. Without clear guidelines, faculty and administration lacked a complete toolbox to support responsible and ethical student AI use. The taskforce developed the policy to provide clear expectations for students’ acceptable and unacceptable use of AI and an avenue for reporting violations.
Artificial Intelligence Use Policy
Our policy authors developed guidelines for the acceptable use of AI for student coursework while ensuring faculty remained empowered to guide the use of AI in their courses and to reduce sole dependence on AI percentage reports provided by plagiarism checkers (e.g., Turnitin). The policy outlines three categories of AI use cases: Authorized Use, Unauthorized Use, and Prohibited Use, as summarized below.
1. Authorized Use
  - Faculty permission is granted to use AI in the course.
  - Use of AI to edit and/or expand upon student authored work.
  - Use of AI to generate ideas (not content) towards the application of coursework.
  - Use of AI to assist in the organization and collection of research related materials.
2. Unauthorized Use
  - Absence of faculty permission to use AI in the course.
  - Absence of student contribution in the coursework.
  - Absence of the acknowledgement of AI use.
3. Prohibited Use
  - Input of documents or information proprietary to the University.
  - Input of identifying or confidential information without permission.
Policy Enforcement
We have had success at Joyce including the AI Use Policy violation reporting within the Student Code of Conduct reporting process to ensure equitable, consistent sanctions and effective support for faculty and students. The authors accomplished policy accountability through the procedure below.

Students that violate the Artificial Intelligence Use Policy will be considered in violation of the Student Code of Conduct Policy, specifically the Academic Integrity Standards, and will be subject to disciplinary action in accordance with the Student Code of Conduct Policy and Procedure as published in University Catalog.

What’s next for AI Policy at Joyce?

AI Use Policy Effectiveness Evaluation
Joyce recently implemented a policy evaluation process for recently published policies. The AI Use Policy has been in place for a semester and is ready to undergo this evaluation to inform any revisions. Through this evaluation, we will also explore additional AI policy needs, AI governance frameworks, and consider broadening the policy scope to address emerging technologies and applications using AI.
Faculty AI Training and Education
The Joyce Faculty Academy will begin offering a course on AI in healthcare and education to increase AI literacy at Joyce.

Recognition: A special thank you to the policy authors, Dr. Jonathan Hill, MD, PhD, Faculty Training and Development Specialist, and Tricia Kingsley, Director of Legal Affairs and Associate Counsel, for their commitment to the development of the Artificial Intelligence Use Policy.

Tags: AI Artificial Intelligence Katie Hamilton policy development students technology

Share |

Permalink

In Search of Innovation

Posted By Jennifer Gallagher, Utah Valley University, Monday, February 1, 2021

Policy Management Solutions for Digital Landscapes

When I stop to think about the enormity of what we’re tasked to do, it almost sounds like an impossible riddle: How can one effectively manage a living machine with hundreds of interlocking and evolving parts, each owned by different entities and moving at different speeds along separate but intertwining paths? As policy administrators, we know it’s not so much a riddle as it is just another day in the job.

At Utah Valley University, our policy administration process involves tracking and managing hundreds of policy drafts and documents through separate review and approval stages, coordinating the necessary entities and stakeholders from drafting to review to approval of each individual draft, and publishing and maintaining approved policy documents (both publicly online for current versions and in a digital archive for those no longer effective). And this represents just a fraction of the responsibilities and services with which our office is tasked. Even under normal circumstances, effectively managing our office’s complex workload can be challenging. Toss in a global pandemic and a sudden, unceremonious switch to a digital-only environment, and we were left scrambling to adapt—an exercise in simultaneously reinventing the wheel while still keeping the cogs in motion.

In the past, technology was a supplement to our processes, never the backbone. We utilized a combination of both third-party and in-house developed applications to manage different areas of our responsibilities: project management software (Monday) to track development and progress, cloud storage (Box) to share drafts, email newsletters (Outlook) and blog posts (online) to inform the campus community of policy developments, and our own homegrown policy publication software (TOPS), which allows us to upload and publish policy drafts in different stages of development and following approval. And while this worked fine for us in the pre-COVID past, it was admittedly never optimal, and its disadvantages have become even more obvious and obstructing now more than ever.

Consequently, we have been searching for better ways to optimize our office’s processes for this new digital-only landscape and beyond. After nearly a year of adapting as we go, we now have a better idea of the benefits and challenges of remote work in relation to the unique needs of our office. We’re now working with a business process analyst to decide between purchasing a comprehensive out-of-box policy management application or custom building our own tools within Teams and other Office applications.

Both options come with advantages and drawbacks. Purchasing an out-of-box application is a quick and relatively painless solution, but finding one that will work seamlessly with our institution’s complex policy process has been a challenge. Many of these policy management applications include additional features that are not applicable to our process while missing features we do need. Additionally, the initial hurdle of implementation and ongoing licensing costs and training are also considerations. And while building our own solutions would allow us the flexibility and customization needed, the time needed to complete the project is time we spend in the current state with our current challenges.

However, I know our office isn't alone in the growing pains we've faced over the past year. I think most of us fortunate enough with the flexibility to transition to remote work have experienced both the challenges and benefits of this new digital landscape. And I've been wondering how others have reinvented their own wheels. For those of you who have used policy management applications, which have you used and what have your experiences been? Have you found them to have helped in the transition to and continued practice of remote work? What challenges do you still have? And if your institution doesn’t use licensed policy management software, what other solutions does your office implement to aid with your processes? Have you encountered additional challenges with continued remote work? And how has your office adapted to these challenges?

Tags: covid-19 Jennifer Gallagher project management technology work remotely