Navigation auf uzh.ch
UZH has a broad range of teaching and learning formats. The way in which generative artificial intelligence AI can be used in the various formats varies widely depending on the discipline and subject matter.
The faculties and the individual study program directors are responsible for drawing up specific guidelines and policies. The topic of generative AI should be considered when designing the overall curriculum and the necessary measures taken. Those responsible must ensure that students are aware of whether and to what extent generative AI may be used in assessments. If the use of generative AI is not or only partially permitted, they should ensure the relevant assessments are conducted fairly.
Based on the guiding principles of the Extended Executive Board of the University, and the guidelines or policies that apply to the faculty or relevant study program, the following key questions will help teaching staff understand how they can integrate generative AI tools in their teaching and learning formats:
Specific ways of actively using generative AI tools such as ChatGPT in teaching and assessments are available on Teaching Tools. In any case it is important to ensure that all involved know whether and how the use of generative AI tools is permitted in each particular context and the consequences of violating the relevant regulations.
Teaching staff may not require students to use generative AI tools that request personal data to log in or register or that entail costs during their courses. This is in line with the principle of equality of opportunity in teaching and learning and in assessments.
It is also the responsibility of students to actively inform themselves of how and to what extent generative AI tools may be used as aids in each individual course.
Helpful didactic resources on generative AI can be found on the UZH Teaching Tools website:
Teaching Tools: Didactic Resources on generative AI at UZH
A declaration of authenticity can be used for written assessments to confirm, among other things, that the tools and sources used have been correctly cited and referenced. Depending on the subject, generative AI tools are deemed aids and would therefore fall under the scope of the standard declaration of authenticity.
If, however, subject-specific features mean it would make sense to include explicit information about the use of generative AI tools, this can be added to the existing declaration of authenticity.
UZH Legal Services and Data Protection has summarised the legal aspects that must be borne in mind below.
Taking into account these points and the relevant learning objectives, the following wording could be added to a declaration of authenticity to address generative AI tools:
“I hereby declare that I carried out this work independently and without the use of unauthorized aids (generative AI tools are also aids). I am aware that I bear full responsibility for the selection (delete if specifications were given on generative AI tools), adoption and results of the AI-generated outputs I used. I also declare that all use of generative AI is fully disclosed. I have listed the generative AI tools used along with their product names in the list of aids and resources (modify if there is no list of aids and resources).
I acknowledge that work that violates the principles set out in this declaration of authenticity may have legal and disciplinary consequences.”
A central and generally-accepted principle of good scientific practice is transparency and reproducibility when describing research methods and results in scientific or academic works and publications. This includes the use of generative tools.
Typically, generative tools have to be declared, while non-generative AI-based tools, such as a spell check in Microsoft Word, do not.
Depending on the subject area, the relevance of a specific tool or aid may vary and a declaration may be advisable (e.g. the difference between using a translation tool in a language course versus in a mathematical context). If a declaration requirement is sought, it helps to be guided by different levels of intended use.
When referencing generative tools, it is advisable to be guided by common referencing formats, such as the American Psychological Association (APA) or the Modern Language Association of America (MLA). The two examples below show the use of both formats to directly quote texts generated by ChatGPT.
The question of which citation method is suited to which purpose and subject area is ultimately down to the discretion of the study program coordinator or instructor. In any case, it should be ensured that students are actively informed of the requirements.
APA format |
Author (year). Title (date and version) [description of the model]. URL |
APA bibliography entry, example | OpenAI (2023). ChatGPT (May 2023 version) [large language model]. https://chatopenai.com |
APA in-text Zitation, Beispiel |
«Zitat» (OpenAI, 2023) |
MLA format |
“Prompt text” prompt. Title, day month version, author, day month year, chat.openai.com |
MLA bibliography entry, example | How do I cite ChatGPT in MLA-Style?” prompt. ChatGPT, May 2023 version, OpenAI, 23 July 2023, chat.openai.com |
MLA in-text citation, example | (“How do I cite ChatGPT in MLA style?”) |
If generative tools are used for more than one purpose, such as direct citation, paraphrasing or even translation, it may make sense to reference these purposes accordingly in the running text and in the bibliography in the form of an index of aids or resources in the form of a table or list.
For scientific publications, the specific guidelines and policies of the relevant journal or publisher with regard to AI should always be borne in mind.
For example, Nature and Elsevier have defined regulations on dealing with authorship and AI-generated content (e.g. text, figures, images):
Nature: Editorial Policies
Elsevier: AI Policies