You have likely heard that banning isn't an option because students will use it anyway. And it is true that students will use it regardless of what you say: 44% of non GenAI users and 78% of GenAI users say that they'll use GenAI even if it's banned. On the other hand, faculty have always banned behaviors that they couldn't actually prohibit like unauthorized collaboration on homework and created unenforceable rules like closed books on remote tests.
So, yes, you can ban GenAI use on unproctored assessments, but since some students will use it regardless, there are downsides.
If you ban it, you have to enforce that ban, which means trying to detect and report violations. That's a lot of extra work for you (work that can also be emotionally exhausting).
Alternatively, you could ignore the violations, but that's not helpful either. After all, students who violate the ban aren't only hurting themselves (that's a very popular myth). They are hurting other students who will either become unmotivated to learn or feel forced to cheat. It hurts your reputation as a fair, informed, and reasonable instructor. And it harms the integrity of the degree.
At the same time, some instructors will be stuck between a rock and a hard place: they don't have the time, training or support to redesign their courses or assessments, and yet some assessments will need to be completed without the aid of GenAI because otherwise students won't master the relevant knowledge and skills. So, what's the solution?
Craft a written policy that informs students they may not use GenAI in your class. You can use/adapt this template.
In each unproctored assessment prompt, remind students of the policy and that they should keep records of their process of completing the assessment. For example, encourage students to use Google docs to keep track of their version histories (for written assignments).
Be sure to talk to students about the "why". For example:
Generative AI output is NOT your work, even if your prompts led to the output. If you submit this output as if it is yours, that’s misrepresenting your knowledge and abilities. It is dishonest.
the knowledge we’re teaching in this course is fundamental - you need to know it to be able to accomplish more complex tasks later
GenAI tools make stuff up. So, in order to use GenAI successfully in future courses or your career, you need this fundamental knowledge so you can evaluate GenAI output.
Be specific on what tools are not allowed or for what purposes. For example:
you cannot use any person or machine to create content for you that you then submit as your own
can they use common tools like Grammarly to “help” with their writing?
State that you have the right to follow-up with an oral conversation to assess their learning
The ultimate responsibility of an instructor is to certify that a student has achieved the course learning outcomes to an acceptable level. In the age of AI, the only possible way to do that in most courses (at least those courses that haven't been redesigned) is to assess the students' knowledge and abilities in a venue and through a method which is secure. A secure assessment doesn't mean simply holding it in-person. Read further on how to secure assessments.
If you are banning GenAI use on unproctored assessments, you should rethink your grading structures so students cannot pass the class by violating the ban.
What might that look like?
you could minimize the value of unproctored assessments. That can create a "high stakes" environment for your secure assessments though, so if you do that, you might want to think about more frequent, secure assessments.
reconsider your grading rubric for each assessment. If GenAI tools can produce output that would receive a passing grade on your rubric, then maybe that's not acceptable. For example, if your essay rubric still gives points for "conciseness", "grammar/spelling", or "formatting", eliminate those points and weigh more heavily the skills that GenAI can't do.
If you are going to ban it on unproctored assessments, have a plan for identifying violations of the ban and for following up on them, and factor in the time this will take for you and your instructional assistants when scheduling grading periods.
NOTE: We want to reiterate here that we are NOT recommending trying to ban GenAI use on unproctored assessments. The temptations and opportunities to use the tools are too great. The pressure to achieve high grades is too intense. And the time crunch on students who have complicated lives is too real. In our experience, banning seems to be largely ineffective. However, we also understand that instructors do not necessarily have the time, training or support to do the course and assessment redesign that would be needed to make banning unnecessary, and these instructors need a short-term option like the ones we've outlined above.