New Series, Vol. 2, No. 11
The course syllabus is “one of the most recognizable instantiations of academic genres” by which an instructor communicates a substantial amount of information to their students. Syllabi serve several communication purposes, which can be more or less congruent, including logistical information about course objectives, assignments, and policies; an instructor’s approach to learning, authority, and expectations of students; and socializing messages about class and institutional culture. Thus, the authors of this study conducted a content analysis of the style and substance of syllabi policies on generative artificial intelligence (AI), specifically, and is among the first to investigate student-teacher interactions on this crucial classroom topic.
According to Common Sense Media, around 40% of high school students and 30% of college students report using AI—or technology designed to simulate human thought to perform cognitive tasks—to complete their assignments. Research on AI in higher education settings is mixed, demonstrating both its potential for enhancing faculty and staff efficiency and challenges regarding ethical use of this technology. Research also suggests that, while institutions generally grant instructors the agency to define their own policies around use of AI, instructors generally lack support from their institutions to make informed policy decisions about technical tools that they lack experience with.
In addition to examining syllabi policies on AI for emergent themes, the authors were also interested in several elements of linguistic style. These included modal elements (i.e., reflecting permissiveness vs. necessity), stance elements (i.e., reflecting the degree of commitment to a policy), hedging (i.e., reflecting the degree of flexibility in the policy), and how use of pronouns communicate power relations and/or inclusivity in the classroom. Researchers were also interested in the degree to which policies were learner-centered vs. instructor-centered and the overall tone (i.e., warm vs. cold) of the policies. A combination of human coding and a linguistic software package were used to examine the AI policies from 92 syllabi in English, voluntarily provided by instructors from various disciplines and institutions in the U.S. for these elements. This study did not investigate student reactions to or perceptions of these policies.
Regarding themes, 76 syllabi explicitly defined AI, 51 cautioned students about the potential for AI to generate inaccurate information, 32 cautioned students about discrimination and bias in AI output, and a mere 16 mentioned integrity-related concerns (e.g., plagiarism). The majority of policies (n = 52) allowed restricted use of AI, whereas 27 encouraged its use but with restrictions, 12 were completely restrictive or “zero tolerance” forbidding the use of AI completely, and two encouraged AI’s use with no restrictions. Broadly, use of hedges, stance verbs, and modal verbs were uncommon and the tone of policies was generally positive/warm. Policies also typically included learner-centered elements such as a rationale for the AI policy, statements of student responsibility, and a description of penalties for policy violation. Less common were invitations for instructor feedback, but it’s possible that these appeared elsewhere in other portions of the syllabi that were not of empirical interest in this study. Second-person pronouns (i.e., “you”) were most commonly used. The presence of increased learner-centered elements, use of personal pronouns (i.e., “I” and “we”), more permissive language, use of hedges, and warnings about inaccuracy and bias were positively correlated with warmer perceptual tones of policies.
In a post-hoc analysis, researchers also investigated correlations between learner-centered elements in syllabi AI policies and software-generated variables of clout (i.e., “the relative social status, confidence, or leadership that people display through their writing or talking”) and authenticity (i.e., language that feels spontaneous rather than regulated or filtered). They found that both providing rationales for policies and general perceptual warmth were positively associated with both clout and authenticity.
These findings offer several points of practical guidance for instructors as they design AI use policy and tailor their syllabi more broadly. The authors concluded that most instructors who allow AI use in their classrooms are also attempting to guide their students toward accountability and ethical use of this technology, with 90% of the sampled syllabi policies placing the onus of AI competency on students themselves. Authors also advocated for more conscious and intentional use of pronouns in syllabi policy such that instructors clearly signal where they want authority and where they want to create a sense of inclusiveness and community with their students. Moreover, including invitations for instructor feedback would also likely facilitate students’ ethical use of and competent decision-making surrounding AI.
Communication Currents Discussion Questions
- Think about a time when you used AI. How did you decide whether or not that use was ethical? Do you think students should be taught how to use AI tools responsibly in college? Why or why not?
- Why do you think AI tools might be biased or make errors? What are some possible consequences of relying too heavily on AI-generated information, both in school and in society at large? What are some other ethical or practical concerns related to AI (e.g., its environmental impact)?
- Have you ever had a syllabus that made you feel empowered or welcome—or one that made you feel the opposite? What specific features contributed to that feeling? What, in your opinion, makes a syllabus “good” or “bad” and how does a syllabus shape your expectations for the class or instructor?
For additional suggestions about how to use this and other Communication Currents in the classroom, see: https://www.natcom.org/publications/communication-currents/integrating-communication-currents-classroom
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Stephanie Tom Tong is a Professor in the Department of Communication at Wayne State University.
Ashley DeTone is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Communication at Wayne State University.
Austin Frederick is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Communication at Wayne State University.
Stephen Odebiyi is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Communication at Wayne State University.
This essay, by R. E. Purtell, translates the scholarly journal article, S. Tom Tong, A. DeTone, A. Frederick & S. Odebiyi (2025). What are we telling our students about AI? An exploratory analysis of university instructors’ generative AI syllabi policies. Communication Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2025.2477479
The full copyright and private policy link is available at natcom.org/privacy-policy/
New Series, Vol. 2, No. 19 Student journalism in secondary schools has many documented benefits for participating students, including voice empowerment, improved academic performance, vocational training, and encouraging civic participation. However, when discouraged from pursuing topics that they are passionate about and/or benefit their communities because those topics may be...
New Series, Vol. 2, No. 13 Drew T. Ashby-King interviewed 32 college students at various institutions to illuminate their understanding of and their exposure to discourse surrounding institutional prestige during the admissions process. College and university rankings (e.g., U.S. News and World Report Best College Rankings) are one predominant reflection...
New Series, Vol. 2, No. 7 There is a long legacy of anti-literacy laws targeting Black communities in the U.S., with anti-woke legislation being only a recent iteration of these far right attacks on public education. In the piece, the author discusses the experiences and challenges of being a public...
New Series Vol. 2, No. 1 In this piece, Cheryl Y. Maiorca presents a case study and qualitative analysis of interviews with K-12 Oklahoma teachers to examine their narratives about the 2018 Oklahoma teacher walkout between April 2 and April 12, 2018. These narratives are used then to argue for...
In the middle of the spring 2020 semester, many courses shifted from face-to-face to online instruction because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Both students and instructors faced potentially tumultuous situations, including lack of childcare, unstable internet access, and inadequate space to work or learn from home. What messages from instructors helped...
Introductory Communication courses, particularly public speaking courses, are required on many university campuses. Communication centers, also known as speaking centers or labs, offer feedback to undergraduate students on public speaking and other oral communication skills. They supplement training that students receive in the classroom through opportunities to practice speeches or...
How tolerant are university students of potentially offensive speech on campus? Common narratives about U.S. students suggest that students do not welcome speakers to campus if they find their speech offensive. In a new article published in NCA’s First Amendment Studies, Jeffrey L. Bernstein and Cameron W. Armstrong examine how students...
Cooperation is often prized in workplaces, yet students can feel competitive toward one another in the classroom. Particular classroom behavior, such as that required for successful group projects, can foster the opportunity to learn about collaboration. When are students motivated to work with one another? How does a classroom environment...
University students come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences. How can classrooms be more inclusive? What are students’ perceptions of how instructors can foster inclusivity? In a new article published in NCA’s Communication Education, Sandra L. Faulkner, Wendy K. Watson, Madison A. Pollino and Jaclyn R. Shetterly examine classroom inclusivity...