{"resourceId":"cod-courier-college-of-dupage-leaves-ai-rules-to-faculty-no-detector-20261026","versions":[{"version":"external-e08982634d40d97bbf7ffb8782a244eb578ec14f639ac56bba001ba20cdb1dc9","resource":{"id":"cod-courier-college-of-dupage-leaves-ai-rules-to-faculty-no-detector-20261026","title":"College of DuPage leaves classroom AI rules to faculty, has no college-wide detector or AI-specific appeals process, and is surveying students on AI readiness","organization":"College of DuPage","sector":"Community college teaching, assessment and academic integrity","geography":"Glen Ellyn, Illinois, United States","publishedAt":"The Courier (College of DuPage student newspaper), 26 October 2026","publicationDate":"2026-10-26","eventDate":null,"sourceName":"The Courier","sourceLabel":"Student newspaper reporting","sourceUrl":"https://codcourier.org/professors-rework-assignments-as-cod-leaves-ai-rules-to-faculty/","evidenceClass":"independent-reporting","outcomeClass":"mixed","topics":["governance-procurement","accessibility-workforce"],"finding":"College of DuPage has no official college-wide rules for classroom AI use; the president said teaching is left to faculty and the college provides resources and training. Faculty association leaders said the faculty contract protects academic freedom. Instructors described reworking assignments toward in-class assessment, personal essays and analysis tied to specific research. The president said COD has not adopted a college-wide AI detection tool, that no detector is perfect, and that he was not aware of an AI-specific appeals process; the Academic Code of Conduct does not explicitly address AI. Some students who do not use AI worry their work will be mistaken for AI-generated, one reason COD is developing an AI student readiness survey with Phi Theta Kappa. Adjuncts are rarely on policy committees.","sledRelevance":"Shows a large community college relying on faculty-level assessment redesign rather than detection, with gaps in AI-specific integrity procedures and adjunct input.","evidence":"Interviews in student reporting; no quantitative data.","architectureImplications":"No campus detector integration; instructors may use outside tools independently, creating uneven data handling.","governanceImplications":"Faculty contract and academic freedom shape policy; conduct code predates AI; no AI-specific appeals path identified.","securityPrivacyImplications":"Instructors independently choosing outside detectors may send student work to third parties without central review; interpretation, not stated in the source.","caveats":"Single institution; interview-based; survey results not yet available.","streamIds":["student-success"],"roles":{"sales":"Sales framing: this shows a community college relying on instructor-led assessment redesign, with no campus detector and no AI-specific appeals route. Use it to ask academic affairs leaders how students accused of AI misuse are treated consistently and how adjunct faculty are supported. A bounded engagement could review integrity procedures and help design the student readiness survey analysis. Do not claim misconduct is rising or falling at COD; the article reports no case data.","engineering":"Engineering framing: there is no central detection or AI platform here, so the technical fit is light: survey tooling, LMS guidance and possibly vetted assessment tools. Check whether instructors use outside detectors that handle student work without central privacy review. Proof of value would be a data-handling inventory of tools used for integrity checks and survey analysis that segments students by fear of false accusation and by enrollment type.","delivery":"Delivery framing: the practical gap is process, not technology. Delivery work would map how AI-related integrity cases move through existing procedures, draft AI-specific guidance for the conduct code and appeals, and include adjunct faculty in policy committees. Pair this with faculty development on in-class and process-based assessment that instructors already describe. Use the student readiness survey to set a baseline and revisit procedures after one term."},"roleDetails":{"sales":{"customerProblem":"Course-by-course AI rules and a conduct code that does not mention AI leave students uncertain and integrity handling uneven.","stakeholders":["College president and vice president of academic affairs","Faculty association leaders","Student conduct office","Adjunct faculty representatives"],"discoveryQuestions":["How are AI-related integrity cases handled and appealed today?","Which outside detectors do instructors use, if any?","How are adjuncts included in AI policy decisions?"],"valueHypothesis":"Interpretation: clear AI-specific procedures and shared assessment guidance could reduce inconsistent treatment of students.","potentialEngagement":"An integrity-procedure review plus support analysing the AI student readiness survey.","unsupportedClaims":["That misconduct is increasing at COD","That detectors would solve the problem","Any measured student outcome"]},"engineering":{"fit":"Low technical intensity; focus on survey analysis and vetting of any tools used on student work.","architectureIntegration":"LMS-based guidance and survey platform; no campus detector integration.","prerequisites":["Inventory of tools faculty use on student work","Survey instrument and data access","Privacy review process"],"constraints":["Academic freedom protections in faculty contract","Decentralised tool choices","No outcome data"],"security":"Assess whether independently chosen detectors transmit student work to third parties.","proofOfValue":["Tool inventory completed and reviewed","Survey segments students reporting fear of false accusation","Track AI-related case volumes once procedures exist"]},"delivery":{"work":"Map integrity workflows, draft AI-specific conduct and appeals guidance, and support assessment redesign training.","dependencies":["Faculty association agreement","Student conduct office","Phi Theta Kappa survey partnership"],"ownership":"Vice president of academic affairs with the faculty association.","skillsAdoption":"Faculty and adjunct training on assessment redesign and on fair handling of suspected AI use.","governanceCheckpoints":["Faculty association consultation","Board or policy committee review of conduct-code changes","Survey results review"],"acceptanceCriteria":["Proposed: conduct code references AI explicitly","Proposed: documented appeals route for AI cases","Proposed: adjunct representation on the AI policy committee"],"risks":["Inconsistent treatment across sections","False accusations without recourse","Faculty resistance to perceived limits on academic freedom"]}},"retrievedAt":"2026-10-27T03:21:13Z","enrichedAt":"2026-10-27T03:25:47Z","enrichmentBasis":"retrieved source","accessibilityWorkforceImplications":"AI literacy classes open to faculty, staff and students including adjuncts; adjuncts have little policy input; one faculty leader had not used the college resources.","procurementImplications":"No central detector purchased.","operatingModelImplications":"Course-by-course policy places integrity decisions and assessment redesign on individual instructors.","sourceVerification":{"openedUrl":"https://codcourier.org/professors-rework-assignments-as-cod-leaves-ai-rules-to-faculty/","referenceExcerpt":"COD has not adopted a college-wide AI detection tool, and no detector is perfect.","promptVersion":"sled-research-v4.0","model":null,"basis":"agent-reported inspection"}}}]}