Purpose
This page suggests a simple framework that a department could adapt when discussing how students and teachers may use GenAI. It is not a substitute for formal policy, but a starting point for realistic guidance.
Possibly acceptable uses
- Generating extra practice questions for self-study.
- Requesting alternative explanations of a concept already being learned.
- Asking for hints, study plans, or revision checklists.
- Drafting administrative or teaching materials that will later be checked by a teacher.
Risky uses that require clear boundaries
- Rewriting a student solution or proof in polished form.
- Generating code that will be submitted for credit.
- Summarizing lecture notes in a way that may omit assumptions or change notation.
- Uploading personal, confidential, or assessment-sensitive information into external systems.
Usually unacceptable uses in assessed work
- Requesting complete solutions to homework or take-home assessment and submitting them as one's own.
- Using GenAI to bypass a stated restriction in the assessment instructions.
- Fabricating references, citations, or mathematical justifications.
- Presenting unchecked GenAI output as verified mathematics.
Possible departmental message to students
Use GenAI, if at all, as tools for practice, alternative explanations, or drafting. Do not use them to replace your own reasoning in assessed work. Always verify mathematics independently, and follow course-specific rules on acceptable and unacceptable use.
Questions for local discussion
- What uses are compatible with genuine learning in your courses?
- Where do your current assessment formats create ambiguity?
- What should be communicated at course level, and what should be communicated at department level?
- How will students be told about privacy and data-protection constraints?
Related example
For a concrete university-facing student page, see Uppsala University: Generative AI and studies (external).