Three syllabus statements with clear AI boundaries
A syllabus statement should connect permissions to learning outcomes, explain assignment-specific rules, give examples, require truthful disclosure where relevant, and provide a route for questions. The three statements below set different levels of permission.
- Updated:
Choose based on what students must learn
Use the restricted statement when independent production is itself the assessed skill. Use limited assistance when students may seek support but must make and express the substantive choices. Use broad documented use when selecting, directing, evaluating, and revising AI is part of the learning outcome.
A course-wide statement is a default. Put a clear rule on each assignment when the permission differs, and communicate changes before work starts. Provide an accessible alternative when a required tool creates access, privacy, or accommodation barriers.
Why activities receive different treatment
Grammar correction can preserve a student’s argument when limited to surface changes, but some tools substantially rewrite voice and reasoning. Brainstorming can support exploration if the student selects and develops ideas. Submitting generated prose can replace the exact composition and analysis the assignment measures.
- Grammar and spelling: conditional; accept or reject suggestions and ensure the ideas and phrasing remain yours.
- Brainstorming questions: conditional; record the help when required and independently evaluate every idea.
- Generated final prose: prohibited under restricted and limited approaches; permitted only in the broad approach with documentation, verification, and student accountability.
- Fabricated sources, undisclosed use contrary to instructions, or entering another person’s private work: prohibited in every approach.
Fair questions and review
Students should ask before using a tool when the rule is unclear. Instructors should discuss concerns, consider the task, instructions, drafts or process evidence, context, and accommodations, and follow the institution’s process. An AI-detection result must not automatically establish misconduct or trigger a grade penalty.
Use the teacher/course preset to adapt an approach to your course name, disclosure rule, and assignment authority.
Write your policy
Review before use
These statements reflect Pangram’s published guidance that detection should support, not replace, educator judgment. They are not legal advice or expert-reviewed academic policy. Reconcile them with institutional rules and your learning outcomes.
Example wording
1. AI restricted for assessed work
2. Limited assistance allowed with disclosure
3. Broader AI use with documentation and accountability
Frequently asked questions
Can I allow grammar support but not AI rewriting?
Yes. Define surface correction and say that changes to argument, structure, evidence, analysis, or voice count as substantive rewriting. Ask students when uncertain.
Should every assignment use the syllabus default?
Not necessarily. An assignment can state a different rule when the course and institution permit it, but students need clear notice before beginning.
What should a student disclosure say?
It should identify the tool or type of tool, what it helped with, and what the student did to evaluate and complete the work. Do not require a declaration that implies use when none occurred.
What if a student cannot access the required AI tool?
Provide an equivalent route and address privacy, disability, cost, account-age, and connectivity barriers through institutional processes.
Sources and references
These drafts have not been reviewed by a lawyer or subject-matter expert. Have your legal or policy team review them before use. They are not legal advice or proof of compliance.
NIST describes its AI Risk Management Framework as voluntary guidance for managing AI-related risks and incorporating trustworthiness into AI use.
Use it as a review reference when assigning owners and considering risks, safeguards, and ongoing oversight. This generator does not perform a NIST assessment.
UNESCO’s guidance emphasizes a human-centred approach, data privacy, and age-appropriate use of generative AI in education and research.
For school, university, and classroom policies, review student data, age restrictions, access, and the learning purpose of each permitted activity with the appropriate institutional owners.
Pangram’s classroom-policy article compares blanket restrictions with a tier-based approach that allows different levels of AI assistance for different assignments.
Use the examples to discuss classroom boundaries, then choose your own permissions in the generator. These approaches are options, not a requirement to adopt a particular rule.
Public reference selected for the three syllabus statements with clear ai boundaries page.
Read the original source in its own context. It does not replace qualified local review or establish that this draft is compliant.
References do not imply endorsement.