• Discuss expectations for academic integrity, and remind students of the University’s policies. Indicate that using these tools to autocomplete work is academically dishonest, violates the University policies, and could possibly lead to various repercussions.
• Add a statement in the syllabus that explicitly indicates that using an AI content generator to produce content that is turned in for an assignment or test without being explicitly allowed to do so is academic misconduct.
• Discuss with the students how using the tools sometimes subverts the learning process and undermines why they are taking the class, pursuing a degree, and obtaining an education.
• Provide incentives for the behaviors and habits that are associated with deep learning. Review your grading criteria and rubrics to ensure you’re setting your students up to adopt robust learning strategies. Utilize reflection and metacognition to have students respond to assignments that indicate that they have done more than follow prompts.

• CTE’s suggested Academic Honesty Syllabus Statement:
  • It is expected that students adhere to University of Utah policies regarding academic honesty, including but not limited to refraining from cheating, plagiarizing, misrepresenting one's work, and/or inappropriately collaborating. This includes the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools without citation, documentation, or authorization. Students are expected to adhere to the prescribed professional and ethical standards of the profession/discipline for which they are preparing. Any student who engages in academic dishonesty or who violates the professional and ethical standards for their profession/discipline may be subject to academic sanctions as per the University of Utah’s Student Code: https://regulations.utah.edu/academics/6-410.php
    
• Sample Dept Statement from Department of Writing and Rhetoric

• Written assignments could reference class materials and notes or sources unavailable on the internet. For example, “Specifically refer to two or more authors discussed in class.” 
• Have students respond to visual content in addition to the written prompt.
  
• Because these AI tools have used historical data to train their responses, you could reference current events or discussions in your field.
• Have students reflect on how the assignment connects to their knowledge or personal experience.
• Combine an assignment with a requirement that students submit an audio file, podcast, video, speech, drawing, diagram, or multimedia component.
• Group and space out written assignments with individual elements that build on each other. 
• Assignments could require citations. Currently, these systems don’t handle source attribution well.
• Preview the AI generator response to a prompt so that you are familiar with the output and can more readily identify if an AI generator generates the student work.
• Also make use of and incorporate ChatGPT. For example, have students generate a ChatGPT response to a question and then have them write an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses response.
• Resources shared in 2/24/23 Instructional Responses to Generative AI workshop
  • 5 small ideas for writing assignments 
  • Teaching frameworks and associated assignment samples 

While no detection system is perfect, there are several good ones out there that are designed explicitly for ChatGPT. The most widely used detectors are:

• ChatGPT Zero,
•  Hugging Face 
• GTLR,
• ZeroGPT
• Writer
• EWeek recently released a chart of the Top 10 AI Detection Tools.