The growing role of generative AI in teaching and assessment was outlined in a January open letter from Queen’s, which acknowledged instructor uncertainty while rejecting a single, overarching AI policy.
“Many instructors across the University have been grappling with how generative AI is reshaping teaching and assessment,” Vice-Provost (Teaching and Learning) Gavan Watson wrote. The letter cited concerns around academic integrity, assessment design, and accessibility, alongside the added labour instructors face in responding to a rapidly changing landscape.
Rather than introducing a standalone AI policy, the University directs instructors to determine whether and how AI may be used in their courses and to communicate those expectations clearly to students.
Watson described this approach as a “principled choice,” that recognizes disciplinary diversity and respects academic freedom.
“Generative AI raises questions that intersect with our existing academic policies and procedures, rather than sitting neatly in a single policy,” the letter states. Watson added that there’s no one-size-fits-all approach to the use or non-use of AI.
The open letter follows the release of survey results earlier this month examining how students, staff, and faculty are currently using AI at Queens.
READ MORE: Published Queen’s survey results will inform AI integration in teaching
Conducted by AI Nexus, a University-wide initiative that connects and coordinates AI-related work across Queen’s, the survey found that at least 55 per cent of students reported using AI tools. ChatGPT was identified as the most commonly used platform.
The survey also found that 56 per cent of students want clearer rules around how and when AI can be used in classrooms, while 42 per cent of instructors reported feeling unprepared to teach with AI. More than 80 per cent of students and instructors expressed concern that AI could reduce critical thinking skills, with shared concerns about misinformation and academic integrity.
The letter stresses that faculty aren’t being left to navigate these decisions alone.
To support these conversations, the Centre for Teaching and Learning has convened a Generative AI Community of Practice, intended to provide a collegial space for instructors to share approaches, challenges, and insights across disciplines.
Watson reiterated that Senate-approved academic integrity procedures already apply when AI is used inappropriately, describing them as a framework that exists “to back instructors up when issues arise, not dictate how they teach.”
Additional work on AI governance is underway, including consultations through the Senate Committee on Academic Development and Procedures to inform Senate discussion, coordination by the Special Advisor to the Provost on AI, and input gathered through the AI Nexus.
Tags
Administration, AI Nexus, open letter
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.