North Seattle College Instructional Generative AI Guidance

The following are recommendations to help faculty address the use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in their classes

This guidance is provided to support faculty in making informed decisions. Faculty are encouraged to use and adopt what they need based on the course they are teaching and their academic discipline. Faculty can expect to be accorded academic freedom, which includes how, whether, and to what extent they choose to use GenAI in their courses.

These recommendations have been developed by the North Seattle College AI Task Force, and reviewed by Instructional Deans, the NSC Student Conduct Officer, Seattle District IT Services, and the State Assistant Attorney General.

AI and MCO Learning Outcomes

Faculty will determine how and to what extent AI will be used in their courses. Any use of AI in your courses should be guided by the existing student learning outcomes in the Master Course Outlines (MCOs). If you are unsure where your MCOs are, check with your dean.

AI Syllabus Statements and Classroom Policies

Include a clear and explicit statement about AI use in your syllabus describing what is and is not permitted in your course, and what the consequences will be for violating it, before any student conduct code violation can be taken. If a student conduct issue arises due to improper AI use, your AI course policy will help a conduct officer support you in addressing the issue.

We do not recommend banning all AI use. For example, many accessibility tools rely on AI technologies, so banning all AI can become an equity issue for students with disabilities. Features in Microsoft Word and Google Docs such as spelling and grammar checkers rely on machine learning, so a complete ban could be interpreted as extending to many common software applications. Be as specific as possible with the type of AI usage you are prohibiting, allowing, or requiring.

If you need a sample AI syllabus statement to help you get started developing your own, please consult this AI syllabus statement guide organized by academic discipline. Also, see syllabus language recommendations from the Acting Assistant Attorney General.

Prohibited AI Usage by Students

If a student is using AI in a way that you prohibit in your syllabus, first communicate with the student about how their conduct may be violating the Student Conduct Code. If you need additional support, contact the Student Conduct Officer about the situation. They will work with you and the student to find a resolution to the concern. Refer to the Student Conduct Process or WAC 132F-121-110 for information on Academic Dishonesty.

Clarity Around AI Policies and Acceptable Use

There is variance in how AI can be properly used in different courses depending on the pedagogical approach of each academic discipline and faculty preference. Some courses may allow extensive use while others restrict use to very limited situations. Clear and transparent AI policies are necessary to assist students in knowing the particular course’s expectations.

AI and Anti-Oppressive Teaching Practices

We recommend that instructors familiarize themselves with best practices that foreground student support and learning, such as:

• Including students in the conversation about AI use in the classroom.
• Applying collaborative decision-making based on shared values, such as equity and educational justice.
• Considering first why a student used AI inappropriately before reacting punitively. For example, students may face various systemic inequities that make completing class work difficult.
• Encouraging a learning environment in which it is safe to make mistakes and learn from them.

For more information see Classroom Guide for Culturally Responsive and Sustaining Best Practices to Address AI and “Culturally Responsive and Sustaining Institutional Best Practices Guide for Addressing AI,” by North Seattle College instructor Diana Ma.

AI, FERPA, and Personally Identifiable Information

We do not recommend inputting any FERPA protected or personally identifiable information (PII) into any AI tool, including Microsoft Copilot, as data protection policies are subject to change. This data includes student names, student ID numbers, grades, course schedules, and disciplinary records. Faculty should also be cautious about submitting de-identified student work into an AI tool as some information in a text may allow the AI model to connect it to a student’s identity without PII, which may lead to a FERPA violation.

Liability and Legal Accountability with AI Use

Keep in mind the data you input into an LLM can be stored and used to train AI. Unauthorized disclosure of PII or education records would be in violation of FERPA standards. More information about what constitutes an education record can be found on the Department of Education website.

Microsoft Copilot is currently the only District approved AI product. When you are logged into your Seattle Colleges account, you are using the Educational Enterprise version of Copilot. Under this contract, Microsoft must store the data shared or created by usage of Copilot in the locations specified in the contract and cannot use the data shared to train large language models (LLMs).

• Please be conscientious in your use of AI. As a representative of the college, any misuse of AI may open up the college to liability. Any unauthorized release of college data could result in violations of policy or law.
• Other common services, like Zoom or Canvas Apps or Integrations, may have third party vendors supplying AI products that do not meet FERPA standards.
• All use of AI must comply with all relevant Seattle Colleges policy.

Disclosing and Citing AI Use

Promote transparency in the use of AI. This can vary from a description of how AI was used to demonstrate learning to a standard citation. Refer to the relevant page of the NSC Library AI LibGuide for more information and up-to-date guidance from all major citation styles.

Using AI to Create Assignments and Curriculum

We recommend instructors disclose to their students any use of AI products to develop and revise curriculum and assignments, especially if you expect students to disclose their own use.

Keep in mind that AI products are still prone to confidently hallucinate, or fabricate, information interspersed with correct information, so faculty should verify the content they produce before distributing it to students.

AI and Copyright

Faculty run the risk of incorporating copyrighted material into their assignments since many AI models have been trained on copyrighted data and the legal questions about whether this meets the standard of fair use have not been resolved by the legal system.

Likewise, if you use an AI model to create course materials, you can never claim copyright since AI generated work cannot be copyrighted.

Grading Assignments with AI

Using AI tools to grade student work raises potential FERPA and academic quality risks and should be avoided. In addition, AI tools are not always accurate and consistent, due to hallucinations and other errors, so they are not suitable for use by faculty in this way.

Using AI Checkers

Faculty should not use AI checkers to screen student work for AI use because they have been determined to be unreliable and risk violating FERPA protections. AI checkers have a high propensity for false positives. They also tend to erroneously flag non-native English speakers. Therefore, the student conduct office will not address academic dishonesty cases based on the results of an AI checker alone. In addition, according to the State Assistant Attorney General, the District IT department does not currently provide or support an approved AI checker that is FERPA compliant.

AI and Ethics

We recommend having a conversation with your students about the ethical considerations involved when using AI. These include environmental impacts, disruption to the workforce, cognitive offloading, data justice, copyright issues, and information literacy concerns. We encourage faculty to explore these considerations themselves so that they are informed and ready to engage with students. For more information see the Ethics/Costs of AI page of North’s AI Libguide.

Students Opting Out of Using AI for Assignments

Some students may request to opt out of using AI for assignments. If you create assignments that require the use of AI, you should consider giving students the option to submit a comparable alternative assignment.

AI Instructional Guidance Team

• Elinor Appel, Faculty, Basic & Transitional Studies
• Michael Chen, Student Conduct Officer
• Edgar Jasso, Faculty, Mathematics
• Peter Oliver, Faculty Librarian
• Anna Saradeth, Associate Director of Early Childhood Initiatives
• Daniel Tarker, Dean of the Library & Learning Support
• Ben Wirth, Faculty, English