DC’s Framework for Implementing Generative AI

Starting on the right foot

Individual faculty and program teams are encouraged to open a dialogue about a consistent approach to the use of GenAI in student learning and assessment, where possible. Including Program Advisory Committees (PACs), industry partners and other professional stakeholders in the discussion can ensure that GenAI plans in courses and programs are reflective of industry requirements and standard integrations. Asking about how GenAI is impacting their business, daily processes and employee expectations will help support the development of transferable skills and improve job readiness. Consider discussing during meetings or gathering information using Microsoft Forms. A consistent approach will make it easier for both faculty and students to navigate the integration of GenAI and understand the associated academic responsibilities when using it.

A Framework for implementing Generative AI

Effectively evaluating AI's role in teaching and learning is complex. To address this complexity, the CTL created the Durham College (DC) Framework for Integrating Generative AI (GenAI) into educational contexts which draws from Jiahong Su and Weipeng Yang's (2023) Identify/Determine/Ethic/Evaluate (IDEE) framework, and the Guidelines for Generative AI in Learning, Strategy, and Instruction developed by Dr. Brenda McDermott (2023) of the University of Calgary. This framework enables a comprehensive assessment of AI's applications and facilitates informed decision-making by educators, and administrators.

DC Framework for Integrating GenAI

The DC Framework for Integrating GenAI revolves around five principles:

Consider: the learning

What is the purpose in using the GenAI tools and what skills will be learned? Based on this, does the tool support the learning outcome?

• Will the tool promote a self-regulated approach to learning to develop skills that can be applied to new contexts?
• Will the students develop skills that will allow them to adapt to emerging technologies?
• Does the tool encourage deeper engagement with and processing of course content and new concepts?
• Will the tool develop metacognitive skills in students?
• Is the tool, or GenAI, used in industry/subject matter?
• Will the tool support GenAI literacy in students?

Consider: the assessment

Does the assessment require adjustments to ensure the GenAI technology enhances the learning without substituting student learning? If the technology can complete the assessment in its entirety, the assessment should be revised.

• As faculty, consider the appropriate level of automation, depending on the assessment or practice activities.
• Will the student remain actively engaged with the tool while using it?
• Can the student maintain agency over the choices and options presented?
• Will the tool develop metacognitive skills in students?
• Does the tool supplement and support without replacing student action?

Consider: How students will be informed and understand that they are responsible for the accuracy of the output from the GenAI

Will you be taking the time to discuss specific requirements and provide appropriate direction?

• Will the student be taught how to cite AI? How to acknowledge the use of AI?
• Is there capacity and intentionality to teach students to be critical consumers of generated information?

Consider: How students will be informed and understand the ethical principles grounding their responsibilities around using GenAI?

How can they ensure the data collected does not perpetuate stereotypes, biases, including racism, sexism, or ageism?

• Is there capacity and intentionality to teach students to be critical thinkers related to biases and stereotypes?
• How may these considerations be reflected in the assessment? (e.g., ethical use of AI in the rubric).
• Has the tool been assessed to consider student access, such as is the tool free for students to use? Is the tool AODA-compliant and accessible for all students?
• Has the tool been assessed to consider student data, such as do students forfeit ownership of data (input or output) when using a tool? Has the signup requirements and terms of use been reviewed to maintain privacy and meet FIPPA requirements to ensure tools do not collect excessive student data (e.g., phone number, email address, age)? Tools that do not meet privacy requirements must be voluntary and alternatives provided.
• Are students aware that it may be unlawful to enter material into a GenAI app if the material is protected by laws, such as privacy laws, intellectual property laws, or otherwise confidential (e.g., a court order)?

Consider: How students will reflect on their learning after using GenAI.

Is there capacity for reflection activities in assessments?

• How will students consider how the tool contributed to the advancement of their learning and understanding?
• Did the tool encourage deeper engagement with and processing of course content and new concepts?
• The original intention: Did the tool enhance learning in a way that promoted deeper engagement?
  1. Did use of the tool develop metacognitive skills in students?
  2. Did use of the tool support GenAI literacy in students?
• Are students aware that it may be unlawful to enter material into a GenAI app if the material is protected by laws, such as privacy laws, intellectual property laws, or otherwise confidential (e.g., a court order)?

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.