Guidelines for Using Artificial Intelligence Tools and Platforms in Connection with Academic Work at the George Washington University

August 2026

Background: The Rationale for These Updated Guidelines

The wide availability of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) tools, the increasing presence of these tools in basic software and web browsers, and the emergence of powerful AI agents are driving ongoing conversations at GW and across higher education about their academic benefits and costs. The quickly evolving terrain of AI is generating exciting opportunities to advance learning objectives. But we also face the potential for cognitive off-loading, with some (or many) students relying too heavily on AI, with negative implications for their intellectual growth.

This webpage updates the Provost’s guidance issued in April 2023 and August 2023, accounting for these developments and responding to requests from our community for more clarity about uses of AI-related tools in the learning environment. In addition to providing some guidelines for the use of AI tools and platforms in connection with academic work at the University, we also furnish concrete options for instructors to consider including in their syllabi. Notably, this guidance leaves undisturbed the 2023 default approach to students’ use of GAI in their academic work, which clarifies that the Code of Academic Integrity covers uses of AI. This default approach is reprinted at the end of this document for ease of reference.
 

Considerations for the Use of GAI in Academic Settings     

Used properly, GAI tools and other AI-related resources can open up new research questions and methods; they can similarly enhance the design of lessons, assignments, and assessments. In addition, we all must recognize that our students will likely use a rapidly evolving set of GAI tools and AI-related platforms for the rest of their lives. That said, in all fields of study there are many instructional contexts in which certain student uses of AI compromise learning objectives. A growing body of scholarship indicates that inappropriate or excessive reliance on AI can prevent students from developing crucial skills such as close reading; application of logic; grasp of higher-level math concepts; formulation of new, salient questions; cultivation of creative expression; and development of a distinctive and effective writing style.

Given these cross-currents, it is incumbent on all instructors to engage with the fundamental implications that AI poses for their teaching. We strongly encourage faculty to be intentional about whether they wish to prohibit the use of AI tools or platforms in completion of assignments or examinations, allow such use within specified parameters, or permit use of AI in a more open-ended fashion.
 

Designing Assignments

For instructors who choose to engage directly with AI tools and/or platforms, it’s crucial to raise the issues of how to use GAI tools and other AI resources effectively and responsibly. The relevant questions include: how to draft appropriate prompts and think carefully before any use of AI agents; how to think critically about the proper use of the tools and their possible effects on society; how to evaluate their outputs with respect to accuracy, bias, and equity; and how to recognize when not to rely on AI.  The Center for Teaching Excellence in the Division of Libraries and Academic Innovation has provided useful guidance for instructors on Responding to Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools. The Office of the Provost encourages instructors to consult these resources.
 

Encouraging Responsible Use

As noted above, for all their promise, GAI tools can interfere with learning objectives and impair the development of students’ writing, analytical, and technical skills. There are also legitimate concerns about academic ethics, accuracy, citation of sources, and cheating. Where instructors permit use of AI tools and platforms, students remain responsible for the accuracy of their claims and citation to ideas, text, or images derived from AI resources. Note: the Law School and the School of Medicine and Health Sciences maintain their own codes of academic integrity, so the guidance contained in this document does not apply to these schools.
 

Guidance for GW Instructors of Record

The Office of the Provost encourages instructors to state explicitly and affirmatively their expectations regarding student use of GAI tools and other AI platforms and mechanisms. To encourage responsible use of these tools and platforms, instructors should discuss their AI policy with students early in any semester, ideally during the first week of class. A written policy establishes clear expectations and an in-class discussion provides the pedagogical context students need to understand why the instructor has established specific boundaries for a given course. By connecting the parameters in a given course directly to learning objectives, instructors frame those parameters as intentional support for student intellectual growth.

If an instructor wishes to permit certain uses of GAI tools or other AI resources, such uses must be set forth explicitly in the course syllabus and/or assignment instructions; otherwise, the default rules apply. Instructors might 1) permit the use of GAI tools and other AI platforms in the completion of assignments or tests; 2) permit their use for certain purposes on certain assignments, but not others; or 3) forbid the use of such tools in completing assignments or tests.  Below is some model language for the three permission options:

General Permission

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) tools, AI agents, and other AI mechanisms are becoming important resources in many fields and industries. Accordingly, you are permitted to use such tools to generate content submitted for evaluation in this course, including [papers; take-home examinations; specified other assignments]. You remain responsible for all content you submit for evaluation and should not simply cut and paste large chunks of GAI outputs into your work.

Be aware that material generated by GAI tools and AI agents may be inaccurate, incomplete, or subject to bias. To protect your intellectual ownership over your work and creativity, it is advisable to engage in your own independent thinking before seeking support from any AI platform and to evaluate outputs. In courses that engage with societal, political, and cultural context, deep understanding of that context is crucial to the framing of effective prompts and the evaluation of answers to prompts.

[Instructors might also wish to include language regarding citation, such as the following:] If you include content (e.g., ideas, text, code, images) that was generated, in whole or in part, by Generative Artificial Intelligence tools in work submitted for evaluation in this course, you must document and credit your source. For example, text generated using Gemini should include a citation such as: “Gemini. (YYYY, Month DD of query). ‘Text of your query.’” Material generated using other tools should be cited accordingly. Failure to do so in this course constitutes failure to attribute under the George Washington University Code of Academic Integrity.

Selective Permission

By submitting work for evaluation in this course, you represent it as your own intellectual product. You may not submit for evaluation any content (e.g., ideas, text, code, images) that was generated, in whole or in part, by Generative Artificial Intelligence tools or other AI platforms, except in those circumstances explicitly indicated in this syllabus.  (Language elsewhere in the syllabus would then specify which uses of GAI tools and other AI resources are permitted or prohibited with regard to which assignments or other modes of assessment.) Submitting content for evaluation that was produced in whole or in part by GAI tools or other AI resources, except for the purpose(s) and assignment(s) specified, constitutes cheating in this course under the George Washington University Code of Academic Integrity.

[Instructors choosing the Selective Permission option might also wish to include some or all of the additional potential language from the General Permission and General Prohibition options, above.]

General Prohibition

By submitting work for evaluation in this course, you represent it as your own intellectual product. You may not submit for evaluation any content (e.g., ideas, text, code, images) that was generated, in whole or in part, by GAI tools (including, but not limited to, Copilot, Gemini, and other large language models) or other AI platforms (including, but not limited to AI agents and software like Quilbot). Doing so in this course constitutes cheating under the George Washington University Code of Academic Integrity.
 

Default Rules

Article II of the Code of Academic Integrity defines the responsibility of students with respect to the honesty and integrity of their own academic work. In 2023, the Provost’s guidance provided a GAI-specific interpretation of that language, carried forward below. By default, content generated by an AI model, tool, or platform, and submitted for evaluation, will be considered as are contributions from any other source or collaborator; any misrepresentation of those contributions constitutes cheating.

In the absence of explicit directions to the contrary from instructors, the following default rules apply at the University (instructors who choose to rely on these defaults, rather than specifying their own policies, should nevertheless explain to their class how that choice relates to the learning objectives they have adopted):

1. Work submitted for evaluation is represented as the student’s own intellectual product. Students may not submit content (e.g., ideas, text, code, images) for evaluation that was generated, in whole or in part, by GAI tools or other AI platforms. Doing so without instructor’s explicit permission constitutes cheating under the Code of Academic Integrity and is therefore prohibited.
    
2. Work that students do not submit for evaluation is not subject to the same restrictions specified in the Code of Academic Integrity. As a result, students are permitted to use GAI tools and other AI resources to generate content that is not submitted to an instructor for evaluation, such as studying for examinations, tests, and quizzes, exploring extensions of course content, and searching for related scholarly literature. (We nonetheless note that students should always take care to consider whether reliance on AI tools or platforms in such contexts actually supports learning.)
    
3. Unless the instructor explicitly states otherwise in advance and in writing, the use of GAI tools, other AI resources, or AI-embedded technologies (e.g., Google Glasses) during any assessment (e.g., examination, test, quiz, problem set, essay, work of art), whether taken in the classroom or elsewhere, constitutes cheating under the Code of Academic Integrity and is therefore prohibited.
    

Final Thoughts

The Provost’s Office commits to working with schools, the Faculty Senate, other stakeholders, and the AI Initiative to provide regularly updated guidance, resources and professional development opportunities to assist faculty in navigating this new technological world.

In that vein, we encourage faculty to confer with the Center for Teaching Excellence if they have questions about best practices for course design, pedagogy, assessment, and with Conflict Education & Student Accountability for questions about academic integrity.

Given the extraordinary pace of change, the Provost’s Office will be engaging with deans, the Educational Policy and Technology Committee of the Faculty Senate, and other relevant stakeholders to inform updates of this guidance as circumstances require. Comments on this guidance are always welcome, and may be directed to gwprovostgwu [dot] edu (gwprovost[at]gwu[dot]edu).