Executive Solution Overview
see attached **files (2)** – ## FinalProjectEthicalLeadershipandPolicyDevelopmentonAIinHigherEducationGradingRubric.pdf – ## Part3wk6-1759.docx **## FinalProjectEthicalLeadershipandPolicyDevelopmentonAIinHigherEducationGradingRubric.pdf** Criteria Ratings Points Understanding & Application of SACSCO…
Instant Solution Download
$6.99Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Need a Fresh Custom Paper?
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →Assignment Prompt & Instructions
see attached
**files (2)**
– ## FinalProjectEthicalLeadershipandPolicyDevelopmentonAIinHigherEducationGradingRubric.pdf
– ## Part3wk6-1759.docx
**## FinalProjectEthicalLeadershipandPolicyDevelopmentonAIinHigherEducationGradingRubric.pdf**
Criteria Ratings Points
Understanding
& Application of
SACSCOC
Good Practices
30 to >27 pts
Advanced
Demonstrates comprehensive
understanding and applies
multiple relevant SACSCOC
guidelines directly and
accurately.
27 to >24 pts
Proficient
Demonstrates clear
understanding and
applies at least two
SACSCOC guidelines
effectively.
24 to >0 pts
Developing
Limited or inaccurate
reference to
SACSCOC guidance;
lacks integration.
0 pts
Not
Present
Not
present
30 pts
Institutional
Alignment
30 to >27 pts
Advanced
Uses multiple real institutional
policies and clearly integrates
them into the analysis or
product.
27 to >24 pts
Proficient
Refers to real
institutional policies
and connects them to
the topic.
24 to >0 pts
Developing
Uses vague or
generic references;
limited connection to
chosen institution.
0 pts
Not
Present
Not
Present
30 pts
Depth of Ethical
Leadership
Reasoning
30 to >27 pts
Advanced
Strong ethical analysis
grounded in theory and
supported with appropriate
sources and biblical
integration.
27 to >24 pts
Proficient
Ethical analysis is
present with some
application of theory
and/or biblical
perspective.
24 to >0 pts
Developing
Lacks theoretical
grounding or ethical
application; minimal
integration of biblical
support.
0 pts
Not
Present
Not
Present
30 pts
Structure,
Clarity, and
Professionalism
30 to >27 pts
Advanced
Well-organized, polished
writing or presentation;
appropriate tone and
formatting for
academic/professional setting.
27 to >24 pts
Proficient
Generally organized
and appropriate in tone
and structure.
24 to >0 pts
Developing
Disorganized,
informal, or
unprofessional format.
0 pts
Not
Present
Not
Present
30 pts
Citations and
Evidence
30 to >27 pts
Advanced
Uses 5+ high-quality
scholarly/institutional sources
cited in APA style, integrated
effectively.
27 to >24 pts
Proficient
Uses minimum
required sources, cited
with mostly correct APA
style
24 to >0 pts
Developing
Inadequate source
use; poor citation
format or unsupported
claims.
0 pts
Not
Present
30 pts
Total Points: 150
Final Project Ethical Leadership and Policy Development on AI in
Higher Education Grading Rubric | EDUC759_D01_202620
**## Part3wk6-1759.docx**
FINAL PROJECT: ETHICAL LEADERSHIP AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT ON AI IN
HIGHER EDUCATION ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS
OVERVIEW
In this three-part project, you will assume the role of Chief Academic Officer (CAO) at a real
university or college, Fayetteville State University, Fayetteville , North Carolina either one you currently serve or one you select. The project simulates the institutional decision-making process required to interpret SACSCOC’s June 2025 Good Practice in the Use of Generative AI, respond to academic risks, and lead faculty in the ethical implementation of generative AI policies.
Each part builds sequentially toward the final deliverable. You are expected to ground your
analysis and policy in real institutional frameworks by referencing publicly available policies, strategic plans, handbooks, or academic integrity statements from your chosen university’s
INSTRUCTIONS
Institutional Selection Requirement
Before starting Part 1, select a real college or university (preferably SACSCOC-accredited) and Fayetteville State university
use it as your institutional context for the 3rd parts of the final project.
You must:
• Reference the institution’s actual academic integrity policy, strategic plan, faculty
handbook, and/or AI guidelines (if available)
• Use institutional documents and web sources as part of your references (cite
appropriately)
• Apply the SACSCOC Good Practices in conjunction with your chosen institution’s
structure and needs
**Instructions:**
OVERVIEW Part 3: Faculty Training Presentation – Communicating the AI Policy
Format: 10–12 slides (with presenter notes) or a narrated video CLOs: A, C, D, F Design a professional faculty training module that introduces the new Academic Integrity Policy
on AI and prepares faculty for implementation. The goal is to translate policy into practice with clarity and alignment to institutional goals. (See Appendix)
Your presentation must include:
1. Introduction and Policy Rationale – Summarize why the policy was developed and
Why it matters now
2. Overview of the Policy – Review key terms, expectations, and permitted vs. prohibited
uses
3. Faculty Responsibilities – Guide faculty on how to address AI use in syllabi,
assignments, and student advising
4. Use of Examples – Include one sample scenario or suggested syllabus statement
5. Institutional and Biblical Integration – Include one Bible verse that aligns with faculty
responsibility or academic truth, and reference institutional mission language
6. Support and Contact Info – Suggest follow-up resources or institutional offices for
support
7. Presenter notes (required)
Citations: Include citations to your institution’s policy, handbook, and the SACSCOC Good
Practices document:
Cite the following Scholarly Authors/Articles:
## References
Fayetteville State University. (2023). Faculty handbook. Office of Academic Affairs. https://www.uncfsu.edu/assets/Documents/Office%20of%20Legal%20Affairs/Policies/Chapter%20500%20%282023%29/502_2020%20Handbook%20%5BRev%202021%5D.pdf
Fayetteville State University. (2023). Student handbook. Division of Student Affairs. https://www.uncfsu.edu/assets/Documents/Office%20of%20Legal%20Affairs/Policies/Chapter%20700%20%282023%29/FSU_Student_Handbook_2022-23.pdf
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges. (2025, June). Good practices on the use of artificial intelligence in higher education. SACSCOC. https://sacscoc.org/app/uploads/2025/06/AI-Good-Practices-Document.pdf
Lim, W. M., Gunasekara, A., Pallant, J. L., Pallant, J. I., & Pechenkina, E. (2023). Generative AI and the future of education: Ragnarök or reformation? A paradoxical perspective from management educators. The International Journal of Management Education, 21(2), 100790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100790
Perkins, M., Roe, J., Postma, D., McGaughran, J., & Hickerson, D. (2024). Detection of GPT-4 generated text in higher education: Combining academic judgement and software to identify generative AI tool misuse. Journal of Academic Ethics, 22, 89–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-023-09492-6
Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education – where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(39). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
**References**
Fayetteville State University. (n.d.).
_Faculty handbook_.
Fayetteville State University. (n.d.).
_Student code of conduct_.
Fayetteville State University. (2022).
_Ready for tomorrow: Strategic plan 2022–2027_.
Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019).
_Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning_. Center for Curriculum Redesign.
Kezar, A. (2018).
_How colleges change: Understanding, leading, and enacting change_. Routledge.
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges. (2025).
_Good practices in the use of generative artificial intelligence_.
José Antonio Bowen & Edward Watson. (2024).
_Teaching with AI: A Practical Guide to a New Era of Human Learning_.Johns Hopkins University Press.
**## Part3wk6-1759.docx**
FINAL PROJECT: ETHICAL LEADERSHIP AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT ON AI IN
HIGHER EDUCATION ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS
OVERVIEW
In this three-part project, you will assume the role of Chief Academic Officer (CAO) at a real
university or college, Fayetteville State University, Fayetteville , North Carolina either one you currently serve or one you select. The project simulates the institutional decision-making process required to interpret SACSCOC’s June 2025 Good Practice in the Use of Generative AI, respond to academic risks, and lead faculty in the ethical implementation of generative AI policies.
Each part builds sequentially toward the final deliverable. You are expected to ground your
analysis and policy in real institutional frameworks by referencing publicly available policies, strategic plans, handbooks, or academic integrity statements from your chosen university’s
INSTRUCTIONS
Institutional Selection Requirement
Before starting Part 1, select a real college or university (preferably SACSCOC-accredited) and Fayetteville State university
use it as your institutional context for the 3rd parts of the final project.
You must:
• Reference the institution’s actual academic integrity policy, strategic plan, faculty
handbook, and/or AI guidelines (if available)
• Use institutional documents and web sources as part of your references (cite
appropriately)
• Apply the SACSCOC Good Practices in conjunction with your chosen institution’s
structure and needs
**Instructions:**
OVERVIEW Part 3: Faculty Training Presentation – Communicating the AI Policy
Format: 10–12 slides (with presenter notes) or a narrated video CLOs: A, C, D, F Design a professional faculty training module that introduces the new Academic Integrity Policy
on AI and prepares faculty for implementation. The goal is to translate policy into practice with clarity and alignment to institutional goals. (See Appendix)
Your presentation must include:
1. Introduction and Policy Rationale – Summarize why the policy was developed and
Why it matters now
2. Overview of the Policy – Review key terms, expectations, and permitted vs. prohibited
uses
3. Faculty Responsibilities – Guide faculty on how to address AI use in syllabi,
assignments, and student advising
4. Use of Examples – Include one sample scenario or suggested syllabus statement
5. Institutional and Biblical Integration – Include one Bible verse that aligns with faculty
responsibility or academic truth, and reference institutional mission language
6. Support and Contact Info – Suggest follow-up resources or institutional offices for
support
7. Presenter notes (required)
Citations: Include citations to your institution’s policy, handbook, and the SACSCOC Good
Practices document:
Cite the following Scholarly Authors/Articles:
## References
Fayetteville State University. (2023). Faculty handbook. Office of Academic Affairs. https://www.uncfsu.edu/assets/Documents/Office%20of%20Legal%20Affairs/Policies/Chapter%20500%20%282023%29/502_2020%20Handbook%20%5BRev%202021%5D.pdf
Fayetteville State University. (2023). Student handbook. Division of Student Affairs. https://www.uncfsu.edu/assets/Documents/Office%20of%20Legal%20Affairs/Policies/Chapter%20700%20%282023%29/FSU_Student_Handbook_2022-23.pdf
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges. (2025, June). Good practices on the use of artificial intelligence in higher education. SACSCOC. https://sacscoc.org/app/uploads/2025/06/AI-Good-Practices-Document.pdf
Lim, W. M., Gunasekara, A., Pallant, J. L., Pallant, J. I., & Pechenkina, E. (2023). Generative AI and the future of education: Ragnarök or reformation? A paradoxical perspective from management educators. The International Journal of Management Education, 21(2), 100790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100790
Perkins, M., Roe, J., Postma, D., McGaughran, J., & Hickerson, D. (2024). Detection of GPT-4 generated text in higher education: Combining academic judgement and software to identify generative AI tool misuse. Journal of Academic Ethics, 22, 89–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-023-09492-6
Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education – where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(39). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
**References**
Fayetteville State University. (n.d.).
_Faculty handbook_.
Fayetteville State University. (n.d.).
_Student code of conduct_.
Fayetteville State University. (2022).
_Ready for tomorrow: Strategic plan 2022–2027_.
Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019).
_Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning_. Center for Curriculum Redesign.
Kezar, A. (2018).
_How colleges change: Understanding, leading, and enacting change_. Routledge.
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges. (2025).
_Good practices in the use of generative artificial intelligence_.
José Antonio Bowen & Edward Watson. (2024).
_Teaching with AI: A Practical Guide to a New Era of Human Learning_.Johns Hopkins University Press.
**## FinalProjectEthicalLeadershipandPolicyDevelopmentonAIinHigherEducationGradingRubric.pdf**
Criteria Ratings Points
Understanding
& Application of
SACSCOC
Good Practices
30 to >27 pts
Advanced
Demonstrates comprehensive
understanding and applies
multiple relevant SACSCOC
guidelines directly and
accurately.
27 to >24 pts
Proficient
Demonstrates clear
understanding and
applies at least two
SACSCOC guidelines
effectively.
24 to >0 pts
Developing
Limited or inaccurate
reference to
SACSCOC guidance;
lacks integration.
0 pts
Not
Present
Not
present
30 pts
Institutional
Alignment
30 to >27 pts
Advanced
Uses multiple real institutional
policies and clearly integrates
them into the analysis or
product.
27 to >24 pts
Proficient
Refers to real
institutional policies
and connects them to
the topic.
24 to >0 pts
Developing
Uses vague or
generic references;
limited connection to
chosen institution.
0 pts
Not
Present
Not
Present
30 pts
Depth of Ethical
Leadership
Reasoning
30 to >27 pts
Advanced
Strong ethical analysis
grounded in theory and
supported with appropriate
sources and biblical
integration.
27 to >24 pts
Proficient
Ethical analysis is
present with some
application of theory
and/or biblical
perspective.
24 to >0 pts
Developing
Lacks theoretical
grounding or ethical
application; minimal
integration of biblical
support.
0 pts
Not
Present
Not
Present
30 pts
Structure,
Clarity, and
Professionalism
30 to >27 pts
Advanced
Well-organized, polished
writing or presentation;
appropriate tone and
formatting for
academic/professional setting.
27 to >24 pts
Proficient
Generally organized
and appropriate in tone
and structure.
24 to >0 pts
Developing
Disorganized,
informal, or
unprofessional format.
0 pts
Not
Present
Not
Present
30 pts
Citations and
Evidence
30 to >27 pts
Advanced
Uses 5+ high-quality
scholarly/institutional sources
cited in APA style, integrated
effectively.
27 to >24 pts
Proficient
Uses minimum
required sources, cited
with mostly correct APA
style
24 to >0 pts
Developing
Inadequate source
use; poor citation
format or unsupported
claims.
0 pts
Not
Present
30 pts
Total Points: 150
Final Project Ethical Leadership and Policy Development on AI in
Higher Education Grading Rubric | EDUC759_D01_202620
**## Part3wk6-1759.docx**
FINAL PROJECT: ETHICAL LEADERSHIP AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT ON AI IN
HIGHER EDUCATION ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS
OVERVIEW
In this three-part project, you will assume the role of Chief Academic Officer (CAO) at a real
university or college, Fayetteville State University, Fayetteville , North Carolina either one you currently serve or one you select. The project simulates the institutional decision-making process required to interpret SACSCOC’s June 2025 Good Practice in the Use of Generative AI, respond to academic risks, and lead faculty in the ethical implementation of generative AI policies.
Each part builds sequentially toward the final deliverable. You are expected to ground your
analysis and policy in real institutional frameworks by referencing publicly available policies, strategic plans, handbooks, or academic integrity statements from your chosen university’s
INSTRUCTIONS
Institutional Selection Requirement
Before starting Part 1, select a real college or university (preferably SACSCOC-accredited) and Fayetteville State university
use it as your institutional context for the 3rd parts of the final project.
You must:
• Reference the institution’s actual academic integrity policy, strategic plan, faculty
handbook, and/or AI guidelines (if available)
• Use institutional documents and web sources as part of your references (cite
appropriately)
• Apply the SACSCOC Good Practices in conjunction with your chosen institution’s
structure and needs
**Instructions:**
OVERVIEW Part 3: Faculty Training Presentation – Communicating the AI Policy
Format: 10–12 slides (with presenter notes) or a narrated video CLOs: A, C, D, F Design a professional faculty training module that introduces the new Academic Integrity Policy
on AI and prepares faculty for implementation. The goal is to translate policy into practice with clarity and alignment to institutional goals. (See Appendix)
Your presentation must include:
1. Introduction and Policy Rationale – Summarize why the policy was developed and
Why it matters now
2. Overview of the Policy – Review key terms, expectations, and permitted vs. prohibited
uses
3. Faculty Responsibilities – Guide faculty on how to address AI use in syllabi,
assignments, and student advising
4. Use of Examples – Include one sample scenario or suggested syllabus statement
5. Institutional and Biblical Integration – Include one Bible verse that aligns with faculty
responsibility or academic truth, and reference institutional mission language
6. Support and Contact Info – Suggest follow-up resources or institutional offices for
support
7. Presenter notes (required)
Citations: Include citations to your institution’s policy, handbook, and the SACSCOC Good
Practices document:
Cite the following Scholarly Authors/Articles:
## References
Fayetteville State University. (2023). Faculty handbook. Office of Academic Affairs. https://www.uncfsu.edu/assets/Documents/Office%20of%20Legal%20Affairs/Policies/Chapter%20500%20%282023%29/502_2020%20Handbook%20%5BRev%202021%5D.pdf
Fayetteville State University. (2023). Student handbook. Division of Student Affairs. https://www.uncfsu.edu/assets/Documents/Office%20of%20Legal%20Affairs/Policies/Chapter%20700%20%282023%29/FSU_Student_Handbook_2022-23.pdf
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges. (2025, June). Good practices on the use of artificial intelligence in higher education. SACSCOC. https://sacscoc.org/app/uploads/2025/06/AI-Good-Practices-Document.pdf
Lim, W. M., Gunasekara, A., Pallant, J. L., Pallant, J. I., & Pechenkina, E. (2023). Generative AI and the future of education: Ragnarök or reformation? A paradoxical perspective from management educators. The International Journal of Management Education, 21(2), 100790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100790
Perkins, M., Roe, J., Postma, D., McGaughran, J., & Hickerson, D. (2024). Detection of GPT-4 generated text in higher education: Combining academic judgement and software to identify generative AI tool misuse. Journal of Academic Ethics, 22, 89–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-023-09492-6
Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education – where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(39). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
**References**
Fayetteville State University. (n.d.).
_Faculty handbook_.
Fayetteville State University. (n.d.).
_Student code of conduct_.
Fayetteville State University. (2022).
_Ready for tomorrow: Strategic plan 2022–2027_.
Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019).
_Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning_. Center for Curriculum Redesign.
Kezar, A. (2018).
_How colleges change: Understanding, leading, and enacting change_. Routledge.
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges. (2025).
_Good practices in the use of generative artificial intelligence_.
José Antonio Bowen & Edward Watson. (2024).
_Teaching with AI: A Practical Guide to a New Era of Human Learning_.Johns Hopkins University Press.
**## FinalProjectEthicalLeadershipandPolicyDevelopmentonAIinHigherEducationGradingRubric.pdf**
Criteria Ratings Points
Understanding
& Application of
SACSCOC
Good Practices
30 to >27 pts
Advanced
Demonstrates comprehensive
understanding and applies
multiple relevant SACSCOC
guidelines directly and
accurately.
27 to >24 pts
Proficient
Demonstrates clear
understanding and
applies at least two
SACSCOC guidelines
effectively.
24 to >0 pts
Developing
Limited or inaccurate
reference to
SACSCOC guidance;
lacks integration.
0 pts
Not
Present
Not
present
30 pts
Institutional
Alignment
30 to >27 pts
Advanced
Uses multiple real institutional
policies and clearly integrates
them into the analysis or
product.
27 to >24 pts
Proficient
Refers to real
institutional policies
and connects them to
the topic.
24 to >0 pts
Developing
Uses vague or
generic references;
limited connection to
chosen institution.
0 pts
Not
Present
Not
Present
30 pts
Depth of Ethical
Leadership
Reasoning
30 to >27 pts
Advanced
Strong ethical analysis
grounded in theory and
supported with appropriate
sources and biblical
integration.
27 to >24 pts
Proficient
Ethical analysis is
present with some
application of theory
and/or biblical
perspective.
24 to >0 pts
Developing
Lacks theoretical
grounding or ethical
application; minimal
integration of biblical
support.
0 pts
Not
Present
Not
Present
30 pts
Structure,
Clarity, and
Professionalism
30 to >27 pts
Advanced
Well-organized, polished
writing or presentation;
appropriate tone and
formatting for
academic/professional setting.
27 to >24 pts
Proficient
Generally organized
and appropriate in tone
and structure.
24 to >0 pts
Developing
Disorganized,
informal, or
unprofessional format.
0 pts
Not
Present
Not
Present
30 pts
Citations and
Evidence
30 to >27 pts
Advanced
Uses 5+ high-quality
scholarly/institutional sources
cited in APA style, integrated
effectively.
27 to >24 pts
Proficient
Uses minimum
required sources, cited
with mostly correct APA
style
24 to >0 pts
Developing
Inadequate source
use; poor citation
format or unsupported
claims.
0 pts
Not
Present
30 pts
Total Points: 150
Final Project Ethical Leadership and Policy Development on AI in
Higher Education Grading Rubric | EDUC759_D01_202620
**## Part3wk6-1759.docx**
FINAL PROJECT: ETHICAL LEADERSHIP AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT ON AI IN
HIGHER EDUCATION ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS
OVERVIEW
In this three-part project, you will assume the role of Chief Academic Officer (CAO) at a real
university or college, Fayetteville State University, Fayetteville , North Carolina either one you currently serve or one you select. The project simulates the institutional decision-making process required to interpret SACSCOC’s June 2025 Good Practice in the Use of Generative AI, respond to academic risks, and lead faculty in the ethical implementation of generative AI policies.
Each part builds sequentially toward the final deliverable. You are expected to ground your
analysis and policy in real institutional frameworks by referencing publicly available policies, strategic plans, handbooks, or academic integrity statements from your chosen university’s
INSTRUCTIONS
Institutional Selection Requirement
Before starting Part 1, select a real college or university (preferably SACSCOC-accredited) and Fayetteville State university
use it as your institutional context for the 3rd parts of the final project.
You must:
• Reference the institution’s actual academic integrity policy, strategic plan, faculty
handbook, and/or AI guidelines (if available)
• Use institutional documents and web sources as part of your references (cite
appropriately)
• Apply the SACSCOC Good Practices in conjunction with your chosen institution’s
structure and needs
**Instructions:**
OVERVIEW Part 3: Faculty Training Presentation – Communicating the AI Policy
Format: 10–12 slides (with presenter notes) or a narrated video CLOs: A, C, D, F Design a professional faculty training module that introduces the new Academic Integrity Policy
on AI and prepares faculty for implementation. The goal is to translate policy into practice with clarity and alignment to institutional goals. (See Appendix)
Your presentation must include:
1. Introduction and Policy Rationale – Summarize why the policy was developed and
Why it matters now
2. Overview of the Policy – Review key terms, expectations, and permitted vs. prohibited
uses
3. Faculty Responsibilities – Guide faculty on how to address AI use in syllabi,
assignments, and student advising
4. Use of Examples – Include one sample scenario or suggested syllabus statement
5. Institutional and Biblical Integration – Include one Bible verse that aligns with faculty
responsibility or academic truth, and reference institutional mission language
6. Support and Contact Info – Suggest follow-up resources or institutional offices for
support
7. Presenter notes (required)
Citations: Include citations to your institution’s policy, handbook, and the SACSCOC Good
Practices document:
Cite the following Scholarly Authors/Articles:
## References
Fayetteville State University. (2023). Faculty handbook. Office of Academic Affairs. https://www.uncfsu.edu/assets/Documents/Office%20of%20Legal%20Affairs/Policies/Chapter%20500%20%282023%29/502_2020%20Handbook%20%5BRev%202021%5D.pdf
Fayetteville State University. (2023). Student handbook. Division of Student Affairs. https://www.uncfsu.edu/assets/Documents/Office%20of%20Legal%20Affairs/Policies/Chapter%20700%20%282023%29/FSU_Student_Handbook_2022-23.pdf
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges. (2025, June). Good practices on the use of artificial intelligence in higher education. SACSCOC. https://sacscoc.org/app/uploads/2025/06/AI-Good-Practices-Document.pdf
Lim, W. M., Gunasekara, A., Pallant, J. L., Pallant, J. I., & Pechenkina, E. (2023). Generative AI and the future of education: Ragnarök or reformation? A paradoxical perspective from management educators. The International Journal of Management Education, 21(2), 100790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100790
Perkins, M., Roe, J., Postma, D., McGaughran, J., & Hickerson, D. (2024). Detection of GPT-4 generated text in higher education: Combining academic judgement and software to identify generative AI tool misuse. Journal of Academic Ethics, 22, 89–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-023-09492-6
Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education – where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(39). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
**References**
Fayetteville State University. (n.d.).
_Faculty handbook_.
Fayetteville State University. (n.d.).
_Student code of conduct_.
Fayetteville State University. (2022).
_Ready for tomorrow: Strategic plan 2022–2027_.
Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019).
_Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning_. Center for Curriculum Redesign.
Kezar, A. (2018).
_How colleges change: Understanding, leading, and enacting change_. Routledge.
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges. (2025).
_Good practices in the use of generative artificial intelligence_.
José Antonio Bowen & Edward Watson. (2024).
_Teaching with AI: A Practical Guide to a New Era of Human Learning_.Johns Hopkins University Press.
Leave a Reply