KI-Richtlinienerklärungen für Lehrpläne

A clear statement usually has eight parts. 1. The default position for the course. 2. Specific examples of allowed and prohibited uses. Name the activities, such as brainstorming, outlining, drafting, editing, coding and translating, instead of just saying "AI use." 3. How to disclose. For example, a short note giving the tool, what it was used for, and how the output was changed. 4. A reason tied to the course's learning outcomes. Students follow rules better when they understand why they exist. 5. A statement that students are responsible for accuracy, including made-up facts or citations. 6. A privacy reminder not to paste in other people's work or personal data. 7. A link to the institution's academic integrity policy and a description of how suspected misuse will be handled. 8. A note that the policy may change, with notice. Each position has trade-offs. A ban is simple to state but needs assessment design to back it up, such as in-class writing, oral checks or staged drafts. Otherwise it can't be enforced. Limited use gives the most control but needs the most careful wording, because students have to tell apart similar-looking activities. Open use reflects how people work outside school, but it moves grading toward judgment, verification and reflection. It helps to see how others word their statements. In 2023, educational developer Lance Eaton started a crowd-sourced collection of real syllabus AI policies that shows the full range. One misconception is that a longer statement is clearer. A few precise rules with examples work better. Another is that "no AI" has an obvious meaning. Grammar checkers, search engines and word processors now include AI features, so say which ones are allowed.