Tag: AI policy

Artificial intelligence guidelines for teachers and students ‘notably absent’, report finds

GenAI:N3 Leave a comment
In a dimly lit, traditional lecture hall, a frustrated speaker stands at a podium addressing an audience. Behind him, a large screen prominently displays "AI GUIDELINES IN EDUCATION" with repeating red text emphasizing "NOTABLY ABSENT: GUIDELINES PENDING" and crossed-out sections for "Teacher Guidelines" and "Student Guidelines." A whiteboard to the side has a hand-drawn sad face next to "AI Policy?". Image (and typos) generated by Nano Banana.
A recent report has highlighted a significant void in modern education: the “notable absence” of clear artificial intelligence guidelines for both teachers and students. This image captures the frustration and confusion surrounding this lack of direction, underscoring the urgent need for comprehensive policies to navigate the integration of AI responsibly within academic settings. Image (and typos) generated by Nano Banana.

Source

Irish Examiner

Summary

A new report by ESRI (Economic and Social Research Institute) highlights a significant policy gap: Irish secondary schools largely lack up-to-date acceptable use policies (AUPs) that address AI. Among 51 large schools surveyed, only six had current policies, and none included detailed guidance on AI’s use in teaching or learning. The Department of Education says it’s finalising AI guidance to address risks, opportunities, and responsible use. The absence of clear, central policy leaves individual schools and teachers making ad hoc decisions.

Key Points

  • Only 6 of 51 schools had updated acceptable use policies that could construe AI governance.
  • AI-specific guidelines are “notably absent” in existing school policies.
  • Schools are left to decide individually how (or whether) to integrate AI in learning without shared framework.
  • The Department of Education expects to issue formal guidance imminently, supported by resources via the AI Hub and Oide TiE.
  • Policymaking lag is highlighted as a disconnect between fast technology change and slow institutional response.

Keywords

, , , ,

URL

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-41715942.html

Summary generated by ChatGPT 5

GenAI News

Sometimes We Resist AI for Good Reasons

GenAI:N3 Leave a comment
In a classic, wood-paneled library, five serious-looking professionals (three female, two male) stand behind a long wooden table laden with books. A large, glowing red holographic screen hovers above the table, displaying 'AI: UNETHICAL BIAS - DATA SECURITY - LOSS THE CRITICAL THOUGHT' and icons representing ethical concerns. The scene conveys a thoughtful resistance to AI based on justified concerns. Generated by Nano Banana.
In an era where AI is rapidly integrating into all aspects of life, this image powerfully illustrates that ‘sometimes we resist AI for good reasons.’ It highlights critical concerns such as unethical biases, data security vulnerabilities, and the potential erosion of critical thought, underscoring the importance of cautious and principled engagement with artificial intelligence. Image (and typos) generated by Nano Banana.

Source

The Chronicle of Higher Education

Summary

Kevin Gannon argues that in crafting AI policies for universities, it’s vital to include voices critical of generative AI, not just technophiles. He warns that the rush to adopt AI (for grading, lesson planning, etc.) often ignores deeper concerns about academic values, workloads, and epistemic integrity. Institutions repeatedly issue policies that are outdated almost immediately, and students feel caught in the gap between policy and practice. Gannon’s call: resist the narrative of inevitability, listen to sceptics, and create policies rooted in local context, shared governance, and respect for institutional culture.

Key Points

  • Many universities struggle to keep AI policies updated in face of fast technical change.
  • Students often receive blurry or conflicting guidance on when AI use is allowed.
  • The push for AI adoption is framed as inevitable, marginalising critics who raise valid concerns.
  • Local context matters deeply — uniform policies rarely do justice to varied departmental needs.
  • Including dissenting voices improves policy legitimacy and avoids blind spots.

Keywords

, , , ,

URL

https://www.chronicle.com/article/sometimes-we-resist-ai-for-good-reasons

Summary generated by ChatGPT 5

GenAI News

As AI tools reshape education, schools struggle with how to draw the line on cheating

GenAI:N3 Leave a comment
A group of educators and administrators in business attire are seated around a modern conference table, intensely focused on laptops. A glowing red line, fluctuating like a waveform, runs down the center of the table, separating 'AUTHORIZED AI USE' from 'ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT'. A large holographic screen above displays the headline 'As AI tools reshape education, schools struggle with how to how to draw the line on cheeting'. The scene visualizes the challenge of defining ethical boundaries for AI in academia. Generated by Nano Banana.
As AI tools become ubiquitous in education, schools are grappling with the complex and often ambiguous task of defining the line between legitimate AI assistance and academic misconduct. This image captures the intensity of discussions among educators striving to establish clear policies and maintain academic integrity in an evolving technological landscape. Image (and typos) generated by Nano Banana.

Source

ABC News

Summary

AI is now so widespread among students that traditional assessments (take‑home essays, homework) are often considered invitations to ‘cheat.’ Teachers are responding by shifting to in‑class writing, using lockdown browsers, blocking device access, redesigning assignments, and clarifying AI policies. But confusion remains: students don’t always have clarity on what’s allowed, and teaching methods lag behind the technology. There’s growing consensus that blanket bans are not enough — what matters more is teaching students how to use AI responsibly, with transparent guidelines that protect academic integrity without stifling learning.

Key Points

  • High prevalence of student use of AI is challenging existing norms around homework & take‑home essays.
  • Teachers increasingly require in‑class work, verbal assessments, or technology controls (lockdown browser).
  • Students often unsure where the line is: what counts as cheating isn’t always clear.
  • Institutions & faculty are drafting clearer policies and guidelines; bans alone are unviable.
  • Equity issues emerge: AI access/use varies, raising fairness concerns.

Keywords

, , , , ,

URL

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ai-tools-reshape-education-schools-struggle-draw-line-125501970

Summary generated by ChatGPT 5

GenAI News

The Question All Colleges Should Ask Themselves About AI

GenAI:N3 Leave a comment
In a grand, traditional university library, a glowing holographic question mark formed from digital circuitry. Inside the question mark, the text reads "WHAT IS OUR PURPOSE IN THE AGE OF AI?". Image (and typos) generated by Nano Banana.
As Artificial Intelligence reshapes industries and societies, colleges and universities are confronted with a fundamental challenge: redefining their core purpose. This image powerfully visualises the critical question that all academic institutions must now address regarding their relevance, value, and role in an increasingly AI-driven world. Image (and typos) generated by Nano Banana.

Source

The Atlantic

Summary

AI is now deeply embedded in college life — often unauthorised — and colleges are struggling with responses. Many institutions fail to enforce coherent, system‑wide policies, risking degradation of learning, peer relationships, and integrity of scholarship. The article suggests radical measures like tech/device bans or stronger honour codes to defend educational values, while teaching responsible AI use where appropriate. Colleges must choose whether to integrate AI or resist it, guided by their core values.

Key Points

  • Unauthorised AI use undermines learning and fairness.
  • Removes opportunities for deep thinking and writing.
  • Institutional goals like originality are compromised by AI’s fabrications and IP issues.
  • Proposals: banning devices, honour codes, strict penalties.
  • Colleges must clarify values and boundaries for AI use.

Keywords

, , , ,

URL

https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2025/09/ai-colleges-universities-solution/684160/

Summary generated by ChatGPT 5

GenAI News

Opposing the inevitability of AI at universities is possible and necessary

GenAI:N3 Leave a comment
In a grand, traditional university library setting, a group of professionals and academics stand around a conference table, actively pushing back with their hands raised towards a large, glowing holographic brain that represents AI. The brain is split with blue (calm) and red (active/threatening) elements, and a "STOP AI" sign is visible on a blackboard in the background. Image (and typos) generated by Nano Banana.
While the integration of AI into universities often feels unstoppable, this image visualizes the argument that actively opposing its unchecked inevitability is not only possible but crucial. It suggests that a proactive stance is necessary to guide the future of AI in academia rather than passively accepting its full integration. Image (and typos) generated by Nano Banana.

Source

Radboud University

Summary

Researchers from Radboud University argue that AI’s spread in academia is being framed as inevitable, but pushback is both possible and essential. They warn that uncritical adoption—especially when backed or funded by industry—threatens academic freedom, distorts research priorities, risks deskilling students, and contributes to misinformation and environmental harm. The paper urges universities to reassert their values: have transparent debates, maintain independence from industry influence, preserve consent, and retain human judgement as central to education and research.

Key Points

  • AI adoption in universities is often assumed to be inevitable, but this is a narrative device not a necessity.
  • Industry funding of AI research risks conflicts of interest and distorting knowledge.
  • Uncritical AI use risks deskilling students (critical thinking, writing).
  • Universities adopting AI redefine what counts as knowledge and who defines it.
  • Call for transparency, debate, consent, independence, and retaining human judgment.

Keywords

, , , , , ,

URL

https://www.ru.nl/en/research/research-news/opposing-the-inevitability-of-ai-at-universities-is-possible-and-necessary

Summary generated by ChatGPT 5

GenAI News