Students are turning to ChatGPT and other generative AI tools for help with schoolwork, but guidance from universities and educators is emphasizing that the technology can support study without replacing students’ own thinking and writing.
The University of Chicago’s guidance, cited in the reporting, says AI can help students “understand concepts or generate ideas,” but “it should never replace your own thinking and effort.” The university also instructs students to “Always produce original work, and use AI tools for guidance and clarity, not for doing the work for you.”
Yale University’s Poorvu Center for Teaching and Learning similarly warns that the way students use AI matters. Its guidance cautions that “If you use an AI chatbot to write for you — whether explanations, summaries, topic ideas, or even initial outlines — you will learn less and perform more poorly on subsequent exams and attempts to use that knowledge.”
Reporting from the “One Tech Tip” segment also highlights an approach centered on studying with AI rather than outsourcing assignments. Casey Cuny, a California high school English teacher, advised that students use ChatGPT to quiz themselves ahead of tests. Cuny recommended that students upload class notes and study guides, and then prompt the chatbot to: “Quiz me one question at a time based on all the material cited, and after that create a teaching plan for everything I got wrong.”
In Cuny’s classroom guidance, AI use is presented as a traffic-light system. The reporting says green-lighted uses include brainstorming, asking for feedback on a presentation, or doing research, while red-light uses are prohibited and include asking an AI tool to write a thesis statement, a rough draft, or to revise an essay. A yellow light indicates uncertainty, and students are told to ask the teacher if they are unsure whether AI use is allowed.
The reporting also describes a study-aid use case from Sohan Choudhury, CEO of Flint, an AI-powered education platform. Choudhury said using ChatGPT’s voice dictation function can help students “brain dump” what they understand and don’t, and he described receiving back responses that reflect those inputs and what they know or do not know about a topic.
Because policies vary, the segment also directs readers to check their school’s rules. It notes that about two dozen states have state-level AI guidance for schools, but that it is applied unevenly. It says the University of Toronto’s stance is that “students are not allowed to use generative AI in a course unless the instructor explicitly permits it,” and it adds that students should consult course descriptions for permitted uses.
Other schools handle the issue differently. The reporting says the State University of New York at Buffalo has “no universal policy,” and that instructors decide what tools students can and cannot use to meet course learning objectives, “This includes artificial intelligence tools such as ChatGPT.”
Beyond rules, the reporting urges transparency between students and teachers. Choudhury said discussing AI use with teachers can prevent misunderstandings, adding that teachers have become more open to conversations about classroom AI use since the debut of ChatGPT. Rebekah Fitzsimmons, chair of the AI faculty advising committee at Carnegie Mellon University’s Heinz College of Information Systems and Public Policy, said students may not realize when they are crossing a line between a tool that helps them fix content they created and a tool that generates content for them.
The segment also points to citation and ethics expectations at the institutional level. It says the University of Chicago tells students to cite AI when it was used to come up with ideas, summarize texts, or help with drafting a paper, saying “Just as you would cite a book or a website, giving credit to AI where applicable helps maintain transparency.” It further notes that the University of Florida tells students to review honor code and academic integrity policies “to ensure your use of AI aligns with ethical standards,” and that Oxford University says AI tools must be used “responsibly and ethically” and in line with academic standards, including “integrity, honesty, and transparency,” and maintaining a “critical approach” to AI output.