Artificial intelligence (AI) can be a valuable tool during course development, but it cannot replace the expertise of a SME. The purpose of this policy is to ensure that all course content reflects the knowledge, professional judgment, and authentic voice of the SME while maintaining the academic quality and integrity expected of Excelsior University.
Guiding Principles
Academic Integrity
We are committed to upholding the highest standards of academic integrity. Course content should reflect the expertise, judgment, and scholarly voice of the SME, not output from AI tools. These standards ensure that our materials align with our institutional values and the expectations of higher education.
Student Trust and Course Value
Today’s students are quick to recognize AI-generated writing, especially when it has a generic tone or awkward phrasing. If students perceive course materials as AI-written, it can erode trust in both the instructor and the institution and diminish the perceived value
of the course.
Acceptable AI Use
AI is most effective when used to support the creative process—such as brainstorming, organizing ideas, or generating starting points—not as a substitute for writing instructional content. AI can be a helpful tool for:
- Brainstorming ideas, examples, or ways to frame a topic.
- Generating outlines or high-level structure.
- Identifying gaps in coverage or suggesting additional perspectives.
- Providing alternative wording or starter drafts for specific elements (e.g., discussion prompts, case study frameworks).
- Ideating scenario components.
- Suggesting alternative phrasings for clarity.
Unacceptable Use:
- Copy/pasting AI text directly into course materials.
- Submitting AI output without adding your own analysis, context, and stories.
- Allowing AI to determine the depth or scope of coverage without your subject-matter
judgment.
Note: AI should never be used as a “write and submit” shortcut. Any AI-assisted content must be thoroughly reviewed, revised, and rewritten to reflect the SME’s expertise, instructional voice, and professional judgment. Regardless of how content is created, the SME is ultimately responsible for ensuring all materials are accurate, pedagogically sound, appropriately detailed, and aligned with the academic standards and voice of the institution.
Indicators That Content Needs Further Revision
The following characteristics often indicate that content has not been sufficiently reviewed or personalized. While they may appear in AI-generated text, they can also occur in human writing. IDs use these indicators as prompts for revision—not as evidence that AI was used.
- Generic or surface-level explanations
- Limited subject-matter insight or professional perspective
- Repetitive sentence patterns or unnecessary restatements
- Formulaic transitions (e.g., “In conclusion,” “On the other hand”)
- Frequent use of the “Not X, but Y” sentence construction
- Overuse of AI-associated vocabulary (e.g., delve, realm, pivotal, transformative)
- Robotic or unnatural sentence structure
- Excessive bold formatting or em dashes
- Broad claims without examples or supporting evidence
- Missing real-world applications, case studies, or practical context
Expectations for Content Creation
- All content must be in your voice.
- Use language you would naturally use when teaching or explaining the topic
- to a student.
- Include personal insights, real-world examples, and stories from your own
- experience.
- Avoid generic, encyclopedic, or repetitive phrasing.
- AI output is a starting point, not the final product.
- It needs significant refinement.
- Rephrase, reorganize, and supplement with your own analysis and interpretation.
- Preserve academic integrity and accuracy.
- Fact-check all AI-generated material.
- Ensure sources and references meet scholarly standards. AI may provide incorrect, outdated, or fabricated citations.
- Add depth and context.
- Go beyond definitions. Explain why concepts matter and how they apply.
- Include case studies, practical applications, and scenario-based examples relevant to your field
Review and Revision
IDs will review all submitted content for quality, clarity, and evidence of SME authorship. Content that appears generic, lacks disciplinary insight, or exhibits characteristics of unedited AI-generated writing may be returned for revision. The focus of this review is not determining whether AI was used, but ensuring that all course materials meet the university’s standards for academic quality and instructional excellence.
SMEs may be asked to:
- Rewrite sections in their own instructional voice.
- Add examples, professional experience, or disciplinary insights.
- Expand explanations to provide greater depth and context.
- Improve clarity, accuracy, and learner relevance.
- Verify facts, references, and citations.
The goal of this process is to ensure every course reflects the expertise of the SME and provides students with a rich, authentic learning experience.