Assignment Prompt & Instructions
SEE ATTACHED
**files (2)**
– ## HWWITH759WK5assist.docx
– ## revisedwk5.docx
**## HWWITH759WK5assist.docx**
Please see the information regarding the attached assignment. I need help with this homework assignment to ensure it’s in APA format and it addresses the following information and instructions below. Needs added information to complete the assignment. NEED IN HUMAN FORM NO AI. NEED PLGIARISM AND AI DATA. PLEASE CITE SCHOLARLY AUTHORS
Develop a balanced, enforceable academic integrity policy on the use of generative AI for your
institution, as if you were submitting it to academic leadership.
Your policy must include:
1. Policy Purpose and Institutional Fit – Tie the policy to your university’s mission,
integrity standards, and faculty/student handbook
2. Definitions and Classifications of AI Use – Define acceptable, unacceptable, and
conditional uses of AI
3. Academic Expectations and Violations – Include clear student and faculty
responsibilities (reference actual handbook or integrity code wording)
4. Implementation and Enforcement – Describe reporting, review, and oversight
mechanisms
5. Connection to SACSCOC – Cite specific elements of the Good Practices that justify the
policy
6. References – APA-formatted, including at least three scholarly sources and at least two
institutional sources from your selected university
Appendix: Academic Integrity Policy Template
Title: Academic Integrity Policy on the Ethical Use of Generative AI
Institution: [Insert University or College Name]
Prepared by: Office of the Chief Academic Officer (CAO)
EDUC 759
Page 3 of 4
I. Policy Purpose and Scope
• Explain the need for a generative AI policy in light of evolving technology and academic
practice
• Reference relevant portions of the SACSCOC Good Practices document (June 2025)
• State the institutional mission or academic goals this policy supports
• Define the affected parties (e.g., undergraduate students, graduate students, faculty,
instructional staff)
II. Definitions and Classifications
• Define "Generative AI" with examples (e.g., ChatGPT, Claude, DALL·E)
• Define:
o Acceptable Use (e.g., grammar correction, brainstorming with citation)
o Prohibited Use (e.g., submitting AI-written essays without disclosure)
o Conditional Use (e.g., permitted with instructor approval)
III. Institutional Expectations and Responsibilities
• Faculty Responsibilities:
o Include AI-use expectations in syllabi
o Address use in assignment design, instruction, and feedback
• Student Responsibilities:
o Disclose AI use when required
o Abide by course-level and university-level policies
IV. Academic Integrity and Enforcement
• Describe reporting procedures (e.g., instructor-led referral to academic conduct office)
• Specify review process and committee involvement (e.g., Honor Council or Academic
Integrity Office)
• Detail potential consequences and appeals process
V. Implementation Plan and Timeline
• Policy effective date
• Communication strategy to faculty, students, and staff
• Integration into handbooks, syllabi templates, and LMS tools
• Annual review process and revision cycle
VI. SACSCOC Alignment
• Link the policy to at least three key SACSCOC Good Practice areas (e.g., Academic
Integrity, FERPA, Faculty Oversight)
• Quote or paraphrase relevant guidance with justification
EDUC 759
Page 4 of 4
VII. References
• Include APA-formatted citations for:
o SACSCOC Good Practices (June 2025)
o Relevant institutional documents (handbooks, policy manuals, strategic plans)
o At least three peer-reviewed or professional sources on AI ethics in higher
education
Part 3: Faculty Training Presentation – Communicating the AI Policy
Module: 6
Points: 100
Format: 10–12 slides (with presenter notes) or a narrated video
CLOs: A, C, D, F
Instructions
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
**## revisedwk5.docx**
**Final Project: Ethical Leadership and Policy Development on AI: Part 2**
Karen Tillery
Liberty University
EDUC 759: Higher Education Leadership
Professor Dr Deanna Keith
April 26, 2026
**Final Project: Ethical Leadership and Policy Development on AI: Part 2**
ACADEMIC INTEGRITY POLICY ON GENERATIVE AI
**Policy Purpose and Scope** The purpose of this policy is to establish clear, consistent, and enforceable expectations for the ethical use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) at Fayetteville State University (FSU). As generative AI technologies continue to evolve and become more accessible, institutions of higher education must respond in ways that preserve academic integrity while also recognizing the educational potential of these tools.
This policy is guided by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges Good Practices in the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (2025), which emphasize the importance of maintaining academic standards, ensuring faculty oversight, and verifying that student work reflects authentic learning. These expectations align with FSU’s commitment to academic excellence, student success, and equitable access to educational resources.
FSU’s existing academic integrity framework, as outlined in the Student Code of Conduct, affirms that students are expected to complete their own work and avoid unauthorized assistance (Fayetteville State University, n.d.). However, the emergence of generative AI requires additional clarification to ensure that both students and faculty have a shared understanding of acceptable practices.
This policy applies to all undergraduate and graduate students, faculty, and instructional staff. It is intended to provide guidance across all academic programs and delivery formats, including in-person, hybrid, and online courses.
**Definitions and Classifications of AI Use**
For the purposes of this policy, generative AI refers to digital tools that are capable of producing original content such as text, images, code, or other outputs in response to user prompts. These tools rely on machine learning models trained on large datasets and are increasingly used in academic and professional settings. Common examples include text-based systems such as ChatGPT, as well as other AI platforms used for content generation.
To ensure clarity and consistency, AI use is categorized into three primary categories: acceptable, prohibited, and conditional.
Acceptable Use includes activities that support learning without replacing the student’s own intellectual effort. Examples include using AI tools to brainstorm ideas, organizing thoughts, improve grammar and clarity, or generate practice questions for study purposes. In these cases, the student remains actively engaged in the learning process, and the use of AI serves as a supplement rather than a substitute. When required by the instructor, students must disclose their use of AI tools and explain how they contributed to the final product.
Prohibited Use includes any use of generative AI that undermines academic integrity or misrepresents authorship. This includes submitting AI-generated content as one’s own original work without disclosure, using AI to complete exams or graded assignments without permission, and relying on AI to produce substantial portions of assignments that are intended to assess individual learning. Such actions are considered violations of academic integrity because they do not accurately reflect the student’s knowledge, skills, or abilities.
Conditional Use refers to situations in which AI tools may be used with explicit instructor approval and under clearly defined guidelines. For example, an instructor may allow students to use AI for specific components of an assignment, provided that the use is documented and properly cited. Conditional use recognizes that AI can be a valuable educational tool when integrated intentionally and transparently into the learning process.
**Institutional Expectations and Responsibilities**
The effective implementation of this policy depends on shared responsibility among faculty, students, and academic leadership. Clear communication and consistent expectations are essential to maintaining academic integrity while supporting innovation.
Faculty Responsibilities
Faculty members play a critical role in shaping how generative AI is used in the classroom. They are expected to include clear statements in their course syllabi regarding the use of AI tools, specifying whether such use is permitted, restricted, or prohibited. These statements should align with institutional policy while allowing for discipline-specific considerations.
In addition, faculty are encouraged to design assignments that promote authentic learning and reduce opportunities for misuse. This may include incorporating in-class assessments, reflective writing, oral presentations, or other methods that require students to demonstrate their understanding in meaningful ways. Faculty should also address AI use in their instruction by discussing ethical considerations and helping students develop responsible practices.
Finally, faculty are responsible for monitoring student work and addressing potential violations of academic integrity. This includes using professional judgment, maintaining documentation, and following institutional procedures when concerns arise.
Student Responsibilities
Students are expected to uphold the principles of academic integrity in all aspects of their academic work. This includes understanding and adhering to both institutional policies and course-specific guidelines related to AI use. When permitted, students must use AI tools responsibly and ensure that their work reflects their own learning and effort.
When required by the instructor, students must disclose their use of AI tools and provide appropriate documentation. Failure to do so may be considered a violation of academic integrity. Students are also encouraged to seek clarification from instructors when expectations are unclear.
**Academic Integrity and Enforcement** Violations of this policy will be addressed through FSU’s established academic integrity procedures. These procedures are designed to ensure fairness, consistency, and due process while maintaining the integrity of the academic environment.
When a faculty member suspects that a student has misused generative AI, the faculty member is responsible for documenting the concern and initiating the reporting process. This may include collecting evidence such as assignment submissions, AI-generated content comparisons, or other relevant materials.
Once a report is submitted, the case will be reviewed by the appropriate academic integrity body, such as an Academic Integrity Committee or Honor Council. Students will be notified of the allegation and given an opportunity to respond. The review process will follow established institutional guidelines to ensure that all parties are treated fairly.
Sanctions will be determined based on the severity of the violation and the student’s prior conduct. Possible outcomes include a written warning, assignment failure, course failure, or additional disciplinary action. In cases of repeated or severe violations, more significant consequences may be imposed.
Students have the right to appeal decisions in accordance with university policy. This process ensures that all decisions are subject to review and that students are afforded appropriate protection.
**Implementation Plan and Timeline**
The successful implementation of this policy requires a coordinated institutional effort. The policy will take effect in Fall 2026, allowing sufficient time for preparation and communication.
Prior to implementation, the university will provide professional development opportunities for faculty, including workshops, training sessions, and instructional resources. These initiatives will focus on helping faculty understand the policy, integrate AI into their teaching practices, and design effective assessments.
The university will also update relevant institutional materials, including syllabi templates, faculty handbooks, and student resources. Communication efforts will include email announcements, website updates, and orientation sessions to ensure that all members of the academic community are informed.
The policy will be reviewed annually by academic leadership to assess its effectiveness and make necessary revisions. This ongoing review process ensures that the policy remains responsive to technological advancements and evolving educational practices.
**SACSCOC Alignment**
This policy is closely aligned with the expectations outlined by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (2025) regarding the use of generative AI in higher education. SACSCOC emphasizes that institutions must maintain academic integrity, ensure that student work reflects authentic learning, and uphold faculty responsibility for curriculum and instruction.
By clearly defining acceptable and prohibited uses of AI, this policy supports the principle that student work submitted for academic credit must represent the student’s own knowledge and abilities. The requirement for disclosure further strengthens transparency and accountability.
The policy also reinforces faculty oversight by requiring instructors to define expectations and design appropriate assessments. This ensures that faculty remain central to the educational process and that instructional quality is maintained.
Finally, the inclusion of implementation and review processes support continuous improvement, which is a key component of accreditation standards. Through these measures, FSU demonstrates its commitment to aligning institutional practices with accrediting expectations while adapting to emerging technologies.
**References** Fayetteville State University. (n.d.). Faculty handbook.
Fayetteville State University. (n.d.). Student code of conduct.
Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning.
Kezar, A. (2018). How colleges change: Understanding, leading, and enacting change.
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges. (2025). Good practices in the use of generative artificial intelligence.
**## revisedwk5.docx**
**Final Project: Ethical Leadership and Policy Development on AI: Part 2**
Karen Tillery
Liberty University
EDUC 759: Higher Education Leadership
Professor Dr Deanna Keith
April 26, 2026
**Final Project: Ethical Leadership and Policy Development on AI: Part 2**
ACADEMIC INTEGRITY POLICY ON GENERATIVE AI
**Policy Purpose and Scope** The purpose of this policy is to establish clear, consistent, and enforceable expectations for the ethical use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) at Fayetteville State University (FSU). As generative AI technologies continue to evolve and become more accessible, institutions of higher education must respond in ways that preserve academic integrity while also recognizing the educational potential of these tools.
This policy is guided by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges Good Practices in the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (2025), which emphasize the importance of maintaining academic standards, ensuring faculty oversight, and verifying that student work reflects authentic learning. These expectations align with FSU’s commitment to academic excellence, student success, and equitable access to educational resources.
FSU’s existing academic integrity framework, as outlined in the Student Code of Conduct, affirms that students are expected to complete their own work and avoid unauthorized assistance (Fayetteville State University, n.d.). However, the emergence of generative AI requires additional clarification to ensure that both students and faculty have a shared understanding of acceptable practices.
This policy applies to all undergraduate and graduate students, faculty, and instructional staff. It is intended to provide guidance across all academic programs and delivery formats, including in-person, hybrid, and online courses.
**Definitions and Classifications of AI Use**
For the purposes of this policy, generative AI refers to digital tools that are capable of producing original content such as text, images, code, or other outputs in response to user prompts. These tools rely on machine learning models trained on large datasets and are increasingly used in academic and professional settings. Common examples include text-based systems such as ChatGPT, as well as other AI platforms used for content generation.
To ensure clarity and consistency, AI use is categorized into three primary categories: acceptable, prohibited, and conditional.
Acceptable Use includes activities that support learning without replacing the student’s own intellectual effort. Examples include using AI tools to brainstorm ideas, organizing thoughts, improve grammar and clarity, or generate practice questions for study purposes. In these cases, the student remains actively engaged in the learning process, and the use of AI serves as a supplement rather than a substitute. When required by the instructor, students must disclose their use of AI tools and explain how they contributed to the final product.
Prohibited Use includes any use of generative AI that undermines academic integrity or misrepresents authorship. This includes submitting AI-generated content as one’s own original work without disclosure, using AI to complete exams or graded assignments without permission, and relying on AI to produce substantial portions of assignments that are intended to assess individual learning. Such actions are considered violations of academic integrity because they do not accurately reflect the student’s knowledge, skills, or abilities.
Conditional Use refers to situations in which AI tools may be used with explicit instructor approval and under clearly defined guidelines. For example, an instructor may allow students to use AI for specific components of an assignment, provided that the use is documented and properly cited. Conditional use recognizes that AI can be a valuable educational tool when integrated intentionally and transparently into the learning process.
**Institutional Expectations and Responsibilities**
The effective implementation of this policy depends on shared responsibility among faculty, students, and academic leadership. Clear communication and consistent expectations are essential to maintaining academic integrity while supporting innovation.
Faculty Responsibilities
Faculty members play a critical role in shaping how generative AI is used in the classroom. They are expected to include clear statements in their course syllabi regarding the use of AI tools, specifying whether such use is permitted, restricted, or prohibited. These statements should align with institutional policy while allowing for discipline-specific considerations.
In addition, faculty are encouraged to design assignments that promote authentic learning and reduce opportunities for misuse. This may include incorporating in-class assessments, reflective writing, oral presentations, or other methods that require students to demonstrate their understanding in meaningful ways. Faculty should also address AI use in their instruction by discussing ethical considerations and helping students develop responsible practices.
Finally, faculty are responsible for monitoring student work and addressing potential violations of academic integrity. This includes using professional judgment, maintaining documentation, and following institutional procedures when concerns arise.
Student Responsibilities
Students are expected to uphold the principles of academic integrity in all aspects of their academic work. This includes understanding and adhering to both institutional policies and course-specific guidelines related to AI use. When permitted, students must use AI tools responsibly and ensure that their work reflects their own learning and effort.
When required by the instructor, students must disclose their use of AI tools and provide appropriate documentation. Failure to do so may be considered a violation of academic integrity. Students are also encouraged to seek clarification from instructors when expectations are unclear.
**Academic Integrity and Enforcement** Violations of this policy will be addressed through FSU’s established academic integrity procedures. These procedures are designed to ensure fairness, consistency, and due process while maintaining the integrity of the academic environment.
When a faculty member suspects that a student has misused generative AI, the faculty member is responsible for documenting the concern and initiating the reporting process. This may include collecting evidence such as assignment submissions, AI-generated content comparisons, or other relevant materials.
Once a report is submitted, the case will be reviewed by the appropriate academic integrity body, such as an Academic Integrity Committee or Honor Council. Students will be notified of the allegation and given an opportunity to respond. The review process will follow established institutional guidelines to ensure that all parties are treated fairly.
Sanctions will be determined based on the severity of the violation and the student’s prior conduct. Possible outcomes include a written warning, assignment failure, course failure, or additional disciplinary action. In cases of repeated or severe violations, more significant consequences may be imposed.
Students have the right to appeal decisions in accordance with university policy. This process ensures that all decisions are subject to review and that students are afforded appropriate protection.
**Implementation Plan and Timeline**
The successful implementation of this policy requires a coordinated institutional effort. The policy will take effect in Fall 2026, allowing sufficient time for preparation and communication.
Prior to implementation, the university will provide professional development opportunities for faculty, including workshops, training sessions, and instructional resources. These initiatives will focus on helping faculty understand the policy, integrate AI into their teaching practices, and design effective assessments.
The university will also update relevant institutional materials, including syllabi templates, faculty handbooks, and student resources. Communication efforts will include email announcements, website updates, and orientation sessions to ensure that all members of the academic community are informed.
The policy will be reviewed annually by academic leadership to assess its effectiveness and make necessary revisions. This ongoing review process ensures that the policy remains responsive to technological advancements and evolving educational practices.
**SACSCOC Alignment**
This policy is closely aligned with the expectations outlined by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (2025) regarding the use of generative AI in higher education. SACSCOC emphasizes that institutions must maintain academic integrity, ensure that student work reflects authentic learning, and uphold faculty responsibility for curriculum and instruction.
By clearly defining acceptable and prohibited uses of AI, this policy supports the principle that student work submitted for academic credit must represent the student’s own knowledge and abilities. The requirement for disclosure further strengthens transparency and accountability.
The policy also reinforces faculty oversight by requiring instructors to define expectations and design appropriate assessments. This ensures that faculty remain central to the educational process and that instructional quality is maintained.
Finally, the inclusion of implementation and review processes support continuous improvement, which is a key component of accreditation standards. Through these measures, FSU demonstrates its commitment to aligning institutional practices with accrediting expectations while adapting to emerging technologies.
**References** Fayetteville State University. (n.d.). Faculty handbook.
Fayetteville State University. (n.d.). Student code of conduct.
Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning.
Kezar, A. (2018). How colleges change: Understanding, leading, and enacting change.
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges. (2025). Good practices in the use of generative artificial intelligence.
**## HWWITH759WK5assist.docx**
Please see the information regarding the attached assignment. I need help with this homework assignment to ensure it’s in APA format and it addresses the following information and instructions below. Needs added information to complete the assignment. NEED IN HUMAN FORM NO AI. NEED PLGIARISM AND AI DATA. PLEASE CITE SCHOLARLY AUTHORS
Develop a balanced, enforceable academic integrity policy on the use of generative AI for your
institution, as if you were submitting it to academic leadership.
Your policy must include:
1. Policy Purpose and Institutional Fit – Tie the policy to your university’s mission,
integrity standards, and faculty/student handbook
2. Definitions and Classifications of AI Use – Define acceptable, unacceptable, and
conditional uses of AI
3. Academic Expectations and Violations – Include clear student and faculty
responsibilities (reference actual handbook or integrity code wording)
4. Implementation and Enforcement – Describe reporting, review, and oversight
mechanisms
5. Connection to SACSCOC – Cite specific elements of the Good Practices that justify the
policy
6. References – APA-formatted, including at least three scholarly sources and at least two
institutional sources from your selected university
Appendix: Academic Integrity Policy Template
Title: Academic Integrity Policy on the Ethical Use of Generative AI
Institution: [Insert University or College Name]
Prepared by: Office of the Chief Academic Officer (CAO)
EDUC 759
Page 3 of 4
I. Policy Purpose and Scope
• Explain the need for a generative AI policy in light of evolving technology and academic
practice
• Reference relevant portions of the SACSCOC Good Practices document (June 2025)
• State the institutional mission or academic goals this policy supports
• Define the affected parties (e.g., undergraduate students, graduate students, faculty,
instructional staff)
II. Definitions and Classifications
• Define "Generative AI" with examples (e.g., ChatGPT, Claude, DALL·E)
• Define:
o Acceptable Use (e.g., grammar correction, brainstorming with citation)
o Prohibited Use (e.g., submitting AI-written essays without disclosure)
o Conditional Use (e.g., permitted with instructor approval)
III. Institutional Expectations and Responsibilities
• Faculty Responsibilities:
o Include AI-use expectations in syllabi
o Address use in assignment design, instruction, and feedback
• Student Responsibilities:
o Disclose AI use when required
o Abide by course-level and university-level policies
IV. Academic Integrity and Enforcement
• Describe reporting procedures (e.g., instructor-led referral to academic conduct office)
• Specify review process and committee involvement (e.g., Honor Council or Academic
Integrity Office)
• Detail potential consequences and appeals process
V. Implementation Plan and Timeline
• Policy effective date
• Communication strategy to faculty, students, and staff
• Integration into handbooks, syllabi templates, and LMS tools
• Annual review process and revision cycle
VI. SACSCOC Alignment
• Link the policy to at least three key SACSCOC Good Practice areas (e.g., Academic
Integrity, FERPA, Faculty Oversight)
• Quote or paraphrase relevant guidance with justification
EDUC 759
Page 4 of 4
VII. References
• Include APA-formatted citations for:
o SACSCOC Good Practices (June 2025)
o Relevant institutional documents (handbooks, policy manuals, strategic plans)
o At least three peer-reviewed or professional sources on AI ethics in higher
education
Part 3: Faculty Training Presentation – Communicating the AI Policy
Module: 6
Points: 100
Format: 10–12 slides (with presenter notes) or a narrated video
CLOs: A, C, D, F
Instructions
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
**## revisedwk5.docx**
**Final Project: Ethical Leadership and Policy Development on AI: Part 2**
Karen Tillery
Liberty University
EDUC 759: Higher Education Leadership
Professor Dr Deanna Keith
April 26, 2026
**Final Project: Ethical Leadership and Policy Development on AI: Part 2**
ACADEMIC INTEGRITY POLICY ON GENERATIVE AI
**Policy Purpose and Scope** The purpose of this policy is to establish clear, consistent, and enforceable expectations for the ethical use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) at Fayetteville State University (FSU). As generative AI technologies continue to evolve and become more accessible, institutions of higher education must respond in ways that preserve academic integrity while also recognizing the educational potential of these tools.
This policy is guided by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges Good Practices in the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (2025), which emphasize the importance of maintaining academic standards, ensuring faculty oversight, and verifying that student work reflects authentic learning. These expectations align with FSU’s commitment to academic excellence, student success, and equitable access to educational resources.
FSU’s existing academic integrity framework, as outlined in the Student Code of Conduct, affirms that students are expected to complete their own work and avoid unauthorized assistance (Fayetteville State University, n.d.). However, the emergence of generative AI requires additional clarification to ensure that both students and faculty have a shared understanding of acceptable practices.
This policy applies to all undergraduate and graduate students, faculty, and instructional staff. It is intended to provide guidance across all academic programs and delivery formats, including in-person, hybrid, and online courses.
**Definitions and Classifications of AI Use**
For the purposes of this policy, generative AI refers to digital tools that are capable of producing original content such as text, images, code, or other outputs in response to user prompts. These tools rely on machine learning models trained on large datasets and are increasingly used in academic and professional settings. Common examples include text-based systems such as ChatGPT, as well as other AI platforms used for content generation.
To ensure clarity and consistency, AI use is categorized into three primary categories: acceptable, prohibited, and conditional.
Acceptable Use includes activities that support learning without replacing the student’s own intellectual effort. Examples include using AI tools to brainstorm ideas, organizing thoughts, improve grammar and clarity, or generate practice questions for study purposes. In these cases, the student remains actively engaged in the learning process, and the use of AI serves as a supplement rather than a substitute. When required by the instructor, students must disclose their use of AI tools and explain how they contributed to the final product.
Prohibited Use includes any use of generative AI that undermines academic integrity or misrepresents authorship. This includes submitting AI-generated content as one’s own original work without disclosure, using AI to complete exams or graded assignments without permission, and relying on AI to produce substantial portions of assignments that are intended to assess individual learning. Such actions are considered violations of academic integrity because they do not accurately reflect the student’s knowledge, skills, or abilities.
Conditional Use refers to situations in which AI tools may be used with explicit instructor approval and under clearly defined guidelines. For example, an instructor may allow students to use AI for specific components of an assignment, provided that the use is documented and properly cited. Conditional use recognizes that AI can be a valuable educational tool when integrated intentionally and transparently into the learning process.
**Institutional Expectations and Responsibilities**
The effective implementation of this policy depends on shared responsibility among faculty, students, and academic leadership. Clear communication and consistent expectations are essential to maintaining academic integrity while supporting innovation.
Faculty Responsibilities
Faculty members play a critical role in shaping how generative AI is used in the classroom. They are expected to include clear statements in their course syllabi regarding the use of AI tools, specifying whether such use is permitted, restricted, or prohibited. These statements should align with institutional policy while allowing for discipline-specific considerations.
In addition, faculty are encouraged to design assignments that promote authentic learning and reduce opportunities for misuse. This may include incorporating in-class assessments, reflective writing, oral presentations, or other methods that require students to demonstrate their understanding in meaningful ways. Faculty should also address AI use in their instruction by discussing ethical considerations and helping students develop responsible practices.
Finally, faculty are responsible for monitoring student work and addressing potential violations of academic integrity. This includes using professional judgment, maintaining documentation, and following institutional procedures when concerns arise.
Student Responsibilities
Students are expected to uphold the principles of academic integrity in all aspects of their academic work. This includes understanding and adhering to both institutional policies and course-specific guidelines related to AI use. When permitted, students must use AI tools responsibly and ensure that their work reflects their own learning and effort.
When required by the instructor, students must disclose their use of AI tools and provide appropriate documentation. Failure to do so may be considered a violation of academic integrity. Students are also encouraged to seek clarification from instructors when expectations are unclear.
**Academic Integrity and Enforcement** Violations of this policy will be addressed through FSU’s established academic integrity procedures. These procedures are designed to ensure fairness, consistency, and due process while maintaining the integrity of the academic environment.
When a faculty member suspects that a student has misused generative AI, the faculty member is responsible for documenting the concern and initiating the reporting process. This may include collecting evidence such as assignment submissions, AI-generated content comparisons, or other relevant materials.
Once a report is submitted, the case will be reviewed by the appropriate academic integrity body, such as an Academic Integrity Committee or Honor Council. Students will be notified of the allegation and given an opportunity to respond. The review process will follow established institutional guidelines to ensure that all parties are treated fairly.
Sanctions will be determined based on the severity of the violation and the student’s prior conduct. Possible outcomes include a written warning, assignment failure, course failure, or additional disciplinary action. In cases of repeated or severe violations, more significant consequences may be imposed.
Students have the right to appeal decisions in accordance with university policy. This process ensures that all decisions are subject to review and that students are afforded appropriate protection.
**Implementation Plan and Timeline**
The successful implementation of this policy requires a coordinated institutional effort. The policy will take effect in Fall 2026, allowing sufficient time for preparation and communication.
Prior to implementation, the university will provide professional development opportunities for faculty, including workshops, training sessions, and instructional resources. These initiatives will focus on helping faculty understand the policy, integrate AI into their teaching practices, and design effective assessments.
The university will also update relevant institutional materials, including syllabi templates, faculty handbooks, and student resources. Communication efforts will include email announcements, website updates, and orientation sessions to ensure that all members of the academic community are informed.
The policy will be reviewed annually by academic leadership to assess its effectiveness and make necessary revisions. This ongoing review process ensures that the policy remains responsive to technological advancements and evolving educational practices.
**SACSCOC Alignment**
This policy is closely aligned with the expectations outlined by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (2025) regarding the use of generative AI in higher education. SACSCOC emphasizes that institutions must maintain academic integrity, ensure that student work reflects authentic learning, and uphold faculty responsibility for curriculum and instruction.
By clearly defining acceptable and prohibited uses of AI, this policy supports the principle that student work submitted for academic credit must represent the student’s own knowledge and abilities. The requirement for disclosure further strengthens transparency and accountability.
The policy also reinforces faculty oversight by requiring instructors to define expectations and design appropriate assessments. This ensures that faculty remain central to the educational process and that instructional quality is maintained.
Finally, the inclusion of implementation and review processes support continuous improvement, which is a key component of accreditation standards. Through these measures, FSU demonstrates its commitment to aligning institutional practices with accrediting expectations while adapting to emerging technologies.
**References** Fayetteville State University. (n.d.). Faculty handbook.
Fayetteville State University. (n.d.). Student code of conduct.
Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning.
Kezar, A. (2018). How colleges change: Understanding, leading, and enacting change.
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges. (2025). Good practices in the use of generative artificial intelligence.
**## HWWITH759WK5assist.docx**
Please see the information regarding the attached assignment. I need help with this homework assignment to ensure it’s in APA format and it addresses the following information and instructions below. Needs added information to complete the assignment. NEED IN HUMAN FORM NO AI. NEED PLGIARISM AND AI DATA. PLEASE CITE SCHOLARLY AUTHORS
Develop a balanced, enforceable academic integrity policy on the use of generative AI for your
institution, as if you were submitting it to academic leadership.
Your policy must include:
1. Policy Purpose and Institutional Fit – Tie the policy to your university’s mission,
integrity standards, and faculty/student handbook
2. Definitions and Classifications of AI Use – Define acceptable, unacceptable, and
conditional uses of AI
3. Academic Expectations and Violations – Include clear student and faculty
responsibilities (reference actual handbook or integrity code wording)
4. Implementation and Enforcement – Describe reporting, review, and oversight
mechanisms
5. Connection to SACSCOC – Cite specific elements of the Good Practices that justify the
policy
6. References – APA-formatted, including at least three scholarly sources and at least two
institutional sources from your selected university
Appendix: Academic Integrity Policy Template
Title: Academic Integrity Policy on the Ethical Use of Generative AI
Institution: [Insert University or College Name]
Prepared by: Office of the Chief Academic Officer (CAO)
EDUC 759
Page 3 of 4
I. Policy Purpose and Scope
• Explain the need for a generative AI policy in light of evolving technology and academic
practice
• Reference relevant portions of the SACSCOC Good Practices document (June 2025)
• State the institutional mission or academic goals this policy supports
• Define the affected parties (e.g., undergraduate students, graduate students, faculty,
instructional staff)
II. Definitions and Classifications
• Define "Generative AI" with examples (e.g., ChatGPT, Claude, DALL·E)
• Define:
o Acceptable Use (e.g., grammar correction, brainstorming with citation)
o Prohibited Use (e.g., submitting AI-written essays without disclosure)
o Conditional Use (e.g., permitted with instructor approval)
III. Institutional Expectations and Responsibilities
• Faculty Responsibilities:
o Include AI-use expectations in syllabi
o Address use in assignment design, instruction, and feedback
• Student Responsibilities:
o Disclose AI use when required
o Abide by course-level and university-level policies
IV. Academic Integrity and Enforcement
• Describe reporting procedures (e.g., instructor-led referral to academic conduct office)
• Specify review process and committee involvement (e.g., Honor Council or Academic
Integrity Office)
• Detail potential consequences and appeals process
V. Implementation Plan and Timeline
• Policy effective date
• Communication strategy to faculty, students, and staff
• Integration into handbooks, syllabi templates, and LMS tools
• Annual review process and revision cycle
VI. SACSCOC Alignment
• Link the policy to at least three key SACSCOC Good Practice areas (e.g., Academic
Integrity, FERPA, Faculty Oversight)
• Quote or paraphrase relevant guidance with justification
EDUC 759
Page 4 of 4
VII. References
• Include APA-formatted citations for:
o SACSCOC Good Practices (June 2025)
o Relevant institutional documents (handbooks, policy manuals, strategic plans)
o At least three peer-reviewed or professional sources on AI ethics in higher
education
Part 3: Faculty Training Presentation – Communicating the AI Policy
Module: 6
Points: 100
Format: 10–12 slides (with presenter notes) or a narrated video
CLOs: A, C, D, F
Instructions
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
**## revisedwk5.docx**
**Final Project: Ethical Leadership and Policy Development on AI: Part 2**
Karen Tillery
Liberty University
EDUC 759: Higher Education Leadership
Professor Dr Deanna Keith
April 26, 2026
**Final Project: Ethical Leadership and Policy Development on AI: Part 2**
ACADEMIC INTEGRITY POLICY ON GENERATIVE AI
**Policy Purpose and Scope** The purpose of this policy is to establish clear, consistent, and enforceable expectations for the ethical use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) at Fayetteville State University (FSU). As generative AI technologies continue to evolve and become more accessible, institutions of higher education must respond in ways that preserve academic integrity while also recognizing the educational potential of these tools.
This policy is guided by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges Good Practices in the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (2025), which emphasize the importance of maintaining academic standards, ensuring faculty oversight, and verifying that student work reflects authentic learning. These expectations align with FSU’s commitment to academic excellence, student success, and equitable access to educational resources.
FSU’s existing academic integrity framework, as outlined in the Student Code of Conduct, affirms that students are expected to complete their own work and avoid unauthorized assistance (Fayetteville State University, n.d.). However, the emergence of generative AI requires additional clarification to ensure that both students and faculty have a shared understanding of acceptable practices.
This policy applies to all undergraduate and graduate students, faculty, and instructional staff. It is intended to provide guidance across all academic programs and delivery formats, including in-person, hybrid, and online courses.
**Definitions and Classifications of AI Use**
For the purposes of this policy, generative AI refers to digital tools that are capable of producing original content such as text, images, code, or other outputs in response to user prompts. These tools rely on machine learning models trained on large datasets and are increasingly used in academic and professional settings. Common examples include text-based systems such as ChatGPT, as well as other AI platforms used for content generation.
To ensure clarity and consistency, AI use is categorized into three primary categories: acceptable, prohibited, and conditional.
Acceptable Use includes activities that support learning without replacing the student’s own intellectual effort. Examples include using AI tools to brainstorm ideas, organizing thoughts, improve grammar and clarity, or generate practice questions for study purposes. In these cases, the student remains actively engaged in the learning process, and the use of AI serves as a supplement rather than a substitute. When required by the instructor, students must disclose their use of AI tools and explain how they contributed to the final product.
Prohibited Use includes any use of generative AI that undermines academic integrity or misrepresents authorship. This includes submitting AI-generated content as one’s own original work without disclosure, using AI to complete exams or graded assignments without permission, and relying on AI to produce substantial portions of assignments that are intended to assess individual learning. Such actions are considered violations of academic integrity because they do not accurately reflect the student’s knowledge, skills, or abilities.
Conditional Use refers to situations in which AI tools may be used with explicit instructor approval and under clearly defined guidelines. For example, an instructor may allow students to use AI for specific components of an assignment, provided that the use is documented and properly cited. Conditional use recognizes that AI can be a valuable educational tool when integrated intentionally and transparently into the learning process.
**Institutional Expectations and Responsibilities**
The effective implementation of this policy depends on shared responsibility among faculty, students, and academic leadership. Clear communication and consistent expectations are essential to maintaining academic integrity while supporting innovation.
Faculty Responsibilities
Faculty members play a critical role in shaping how generative AI is used in the classroom. They are expected to include clear statements in their course syllabi regarding the use of AI tools, specifying whether such use is permitted, restricted, or prohibited. These statements should align with institutional policy while allowing for discipline-specific considerations.
In addition, faculty are encouraged to design assignments that promote authentic learning and reduce opportunities for misuse. This may include incorporating in-class assessments, reflective writing, oral presentations, or other methods that require students to demonstrate their understanding in meaningful ways. Faculty should also address AI use in their instruction by discussing ethical considerations and helping students develop responsible practices.
Finally, faculty are responsible for monitoring student work and addressing potential violations of academic integrity. This includes using professional judgment, maintaining documentation, and following institutional procedures when concerns arise.
Student Responsibilities
Students are expected to uphold the principles of academic integrity in all aspects of their academic work. This includes understanding and adhering to both institutional policies and course-specific guidelines related to AI use. When permitted, students must use AI tools responsibly and ensure that their work reflects their own learning and effort.
When required by the instructor, students must disclose their use of AI tools and provide appropriate documentation. Failure to do so may be considered a violation of academic integrity. Students are also encouraged to seek clarification from instructors when expectations are unclear.
**Academic Integrity and Enforcement** Violations of this policy will be addressed through FSU’s established academic integrity procedures. These procedures are designed to ensure fairness, consistency, and due process while maintaining the integrity of the academic environment.
When a faculty member suspects that a student has misused generative AI, the faculty member is responsible for documenting the concern and initiating the reporting process. This may include collecting evidence such as assignment submissions, AI-generated content comparisons, or other relevant materials.
Once a report is submitted, the case will be reviewed by the appropriate academic integrity body, such as an Academic Integrity Committee or Honor Council. Students will be notified of the allegation and given an opportunity to respond. The review process will follow established institutional guidelines to ensure that all parties are treated fairly.
Sanctions will be determined based on the severity of the violation and the student’s prior conduct. Possible outcomes include a written warning, assignment failure, course failure, or additional disciplinary action. In cases of repeated or severe violations, more significant consequences may be imposed.
Students have the right to appeal decisions in accordance with university policy. This process ensures that all decisions are subject to review and that students are afforded appropriate protection.
**Implementation Plan and Timeline**
The successful implementation of this policy requires a coordinated institutional effort. The policy will take effect in Fall 2026, allowing sufficient time for preparation and communication.
Prior to implementation, the university will provide professional development opportunities for faculty, including workshops, training sessions, and instructional resources. These initiatives will focus on helping faculty understand the policy, integrate AI into their teaching practices, and design effective assessments.
The university will also update relevant institutional materials, including syllabi templates, faculty handbooks, and student resources. Communication efforts will include email announcements, website updates, and orientation sessions to ensure that all members of the academic community are informed.
The policy will be reviewed annually by academic leadership to assess its effectiveness and make necessary revisions. This ongoing review process ensures that the policy remains responsive to technological advancements and evolving educational practices.
**SACSCOC Alignment**
This policy is closely aligned with the expectations outlined by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (2025) regarding the use of generative AI in higher education. SACSCOC emphasizes that institutions must maintain academic integrity, ensure that student work reflects authentic learning, and uphold faculty responsibility for curriculum and instruction.
By clearly defining acceptable and prohibited uses of AI, this policy supports the principle that student work submitted for academic credit must represent the student’s own knowledge and abilities. The requirement for disclosure further strengthens transparency and accountability.
The policy also reinforces faculty oversight by requiring instructors to define expectations and design appropriate assessments. This ensures that faculty remain central to the educational process and that instructional quality is maintained.
Finally, the inclusion of implementation and review processes support continuous improvement, which is a key component of accreditation standards. Through these measures, FSU demonstrates its commitment to aligning institutional practices with accrediting expectations while adapting to emerging technologies.
**References** Fayetteville State University. (n.d.). Faculty handbook.
Fayetteville State University. (n.d.). Student code of conduct.
Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning.
Kezar, A. (2018). How colleges change: Understanding, leading, and enacting change.
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges. (2025). Good practices in the use of generative artificial intelligence.