Instructors are experimenting with a variety of ways to integrate or mitigate use of GenAI tools in their courses, including in activities and assessments. This page highlights a range of UO faculty practices around integrating and mitigating use.

Student choice through AI/no AI "tracks"

• Rachel Rochester, Instructor, Family and Human Services:
• Faculty insight: It was important for Dr. Rochester to demonstrate the ways that AI can be a component of the writing process, but one which still requires a lot of human intervention to develop a proposal that is original, creative, and well-researched.
• Assignment context: Students are given the option between using AI and avoiding its use for a capstone project. While students will ultimately create the same product, their process will be quite different as outlined in the assignment description
• Assignment details: You can view Dr. Rochester’s “Requesting Money” assignment here.

Make the ancillary work lighter

• Sung Park, Professor of Practice, Journalism and Communication
• Faculty insight: GenAI can be used for parts of a process that may be needed for the learning but that aren't the focus of the learning. For this assignment, Professor Park wanted students to focus on the process of video creation rather than its content.
• Assignment context: Students record a short standup on a random topic of choice, which a lot of students struggle with creating on the fly. With the use of AI, students can generate content that is more relevant to their interest faster and improve their experience with the project.
• Assignment details: You can view Professor Park’s “Vlog Standup and Episode Outline Exercise” assignment here

Document and work critically with inputs and outputs

• Mattie Burkert, Associate Professor, Director, Minor in Digital Humanities, English
• Faculty insight: Professor Burkert noted that even when students knew there were hallucinations and other errors in generated text the class was reviewing, identifying them was still challenging for many students.
• Assignment context: Students used ChatGPT as part of the essay writing process to learn best practices for when and how to use GenAI, including proper citation of AI-generated text. Students also reflected critically on the ethics and potential dangers of new technologies such as AI. Features of this process and the assessments included guidance around prompt generation and students actively tracking inputs and outputs as part of their "collaboration" with genAI.
• Assignment details: You can view Professor Burkert's midterm assignment here, plus read the article that inspired it (UO sign-in required).

First learn core skills, then evaluate genAI output 

• Lara Bovilsky, Associate Professor of English, Associate Dean of Graduate Studies, College of Arts and Sciences
• Faculty insight: “I can say that the students really registered what it was that the AIs were leaving out... I have had a dramatically lower rate of submissions that seem as though they might be GenAI-involved. And I do let them use GenAI for a few specific things, but they need to submit the inputs and outputs."
• Assignment context: Sequenced assignments begin with students’ own practice of core skills for literary analysis working with a speech from Macbeth, then their analysis of GenAI’s work on the same prompt. When students missed flaws in Gen AI’s work, Professor Bovilsky modeled her revision of GenAI’s product.
• Assignment details: Professor Bovilsky’s lecture on “What Counts as Evidence and Argument?; Assignment 1; Assignment 2

Treat genAI as a group member, enhancing the human team's process 

• Alex Murray, Assistant Professor of Management, Director, Intelligent Futures Lab
• Faculty insight: "I want students to use AI as I believe it aligns with the objective of career-readiness. I also want students to question “how” and “why” AI generates its outputs. My objective is for students to use AI to augment human-centric processes, ultimately enhancing human performance, rather than automate human processes altogether, and thereby render themselves less ready and necessary for their subsequent careers."
• Assignment context: Students model real-world use of AI in startups by treating GenAI as a member of their group for class projects. Students give the AI an identity and responsibilities within the group, sharing this information as an AI use plan in Canvas.
• Assignment details: You can read a description of Professor Murray’s “AI as a Co-Founder” assignment plan here.

Explore the topic of genAI while practicing disciplinary skills

• Rebekah Hanley, Clinical Professor, School of Law
• Faculty insight: “I was concerned that ChatGPT highlighted possible ambiguities in our university and course policies.  Specifically, I feared that curious, ambitious, conscientious students might read those policies and decide, in good faith, that the policies permitted certain uses of ChatGPT, but that their instructors or university administrators might reach the opposite conclusion.  My concerns inspired this assignment, which offered students an opportunity to learn about the emerging technology while developing their written advocacy skills.”
• Assignment context: First-year law students transition from predictive to persuasive legal writing by preparing a written legal argument, organized using a common law school paradigm (CREAC: Conclusion, Rule, Explanation, Application, Conclusion).  Each argument analyzes whether a hypothetical student’s use of generative AI violated college and course policies.  Half the students argue that the student’s reliance on generative AI constituted academic misconduct; the other half argue that the student’s use of generative AI was consistent with the applicable policies.
• Assignment details: Read Rebecca Handley's full assignment here (sign-in required)

Shift assessment modality: from essays to oral exams

• Scott Pratt, Professor and Department Head, Philosophy, College of Arts and Sciences
• Faculty insight: “As I was redesigning our introductory philosophy course, I wanted to respond to concerns about the role of AI for students writing essays. I decided to use oral exams to replace essays. The exams not only provide a different way for students to work with philosophical materials, but it also gives each student in a 300-student class a chance to talk about philosophy one-on-one with a GE who knows the discipline to answer questions and to ask them. This is, after all, what philosophy is all about.”
• Assignment context: Added oral exams to a 300-student, introductory Philosophical Problems course
• Assignment details: Students take two oral exams in a term, the first in week 5 or 6 and the second during finals week. Each exam lasts 10 minutes and GEs conduct five per hour for 10 scheduled hours. 

Draw from class discussion and personal reflection

• Kate Mondloch, Professor of Contemporary Art and Theory, Clark Honors College & College of Design
• Faculty insight: "I plan to engage students in 'big picture' discussions about generative AI—how will it impact their future careers, what are the pros and cons if one doesn’t learn to write independently, what stressors might contribute to the desire to use AI in inappropriate ways, etc."I’m also experimenting with a 'turning point' writing assignment that encourages meta-cognition, rewards paying attention to class discussions, and reflecting on one’s personal experience, in addition to analyzing scholarly works."
• Assignment context: Students are asked to write a “turning point” essay at the end of each 2-week content module that is highly contextualized to the class discussion, process-oriented, and in students' voices and reflective of their development.
• Assignment details:  Read Kate Mondloch's full assignment here (sign-in required)