Closeup of a computer screen showing a google search bar with an ai mode button and a colorful glowing border (Adobe Stock / Photo Agency)
Florida A&M University is developing guidelines for student use of artificial intelligence in the classroom as the Florida Board of Governors considers regulations for the state’s public universities.
FAMU professors have largely determined whether students can use AI for coursework, resulting in different expectations across classes.
Reginald Perry, FAMU’s associate provost for faculty and academic affairs, said the university has drafted guidelines that would establish three levels of AI use.
The proposed guidelines would use a “stoplight model” to determine when students can use generative AI. Under the model, red would prohibit generative AI on an assignment, yellow would allow limited use determined by the instructor and green would allow broader use.
Students would also be required to cite their use of AI under the yellow and green levels.
The Board of Governors discussed AI policies during its Sept. 2 meeting. Emily Sikes presented examples of AI policies and practice in Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Illinois, New York and Tennessee, giving the Board of Governors an overview of how other states and universities are approaching AI use in higher education.
FAMU’s guidelines are still under review and will need to align with regulations from the Florida Board of Governors.
“The Board of Governors regulation includes faculty usage of AI in the classroom, which our policy does not address,” Perry said.
At FAMU, some professors use systems such as Turnitin to review student assignments for plagiarism and potential AI-generated content.
Fourth-year computer science student Omotola Alalade said professors should not rely solely on AI-detection tools when determining whether students have violated course policies.
“We’re not at a stage where we can just rely on it on its own. We’re nowhere near that,” Alalade said.
Daryl Scriven, executive director of FAMU’s Cyber Policy Institute, said differences in how professors approach AI are part of the reason the university is working to establish more consistent expectations.
“One faculty says it’s cheating, one faculty says it’s not,” Scriven said. “One faculty says you can use it, another faculty says you can’t — and it’s the same class, just two different professors.”
Scriven is leading the development of a framework called “Academic Rigor in the Age of Artificial Intelligence.” This structure would address how students use AI while ensuring they can demonstrate skills without relying on the technology.
The framework is intended to extend beyond STEM fields, with students in the arts, humanities, social sciences, journalism and business also needing experience using AI tools.
“I think students are going to use it regardless,” Alalade said. “So you might as well give them that little lenient space.”
Alalade said most of her professors prohibit AI use on assignments, while others allow it if students cite their use.
She said clearer guidelines could help students understand when AI is permitted and how they should disclose its use.
Scriven said the goal is not to prevent students from using AI but to ensure they understand how to use it while continuing to develop their own skills.
“We have to change the assessment,” Scriven said. “So that you learn how to use the tool, but you also have to think along with the tool.”