Overview of AI Integration in Canadian Academic Settings: A Regulatory Affairs Perspective

Dr. Thomas Conway: Professor and Program Coordinator Algonquin College Regulatory Affairs - Sciences Program

?

Introduction

Academic institutions are increasingly interested in integrating Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) into their operations. However, they also want to maintain ethical standards and academic integrity. A survey of guidelines from different colleges and universities shows a shared commitment to these principles. However, differences and gaps exist in how they are applied and emphasized.

For more detailed information on each institution's specific policies and approaches to GenAI, it is advisable to consult their official academic integrity or digital literacy resources directly.? Their URL links are included in Annex 1 of this paper.

Shared Principles

Ethical Use and Academic Integrity

At the heart of GenAI integration lies a shared emphasis on ethical use and upholding academic integrity. Universities such as Carleton University and McGill University, among others, have established guidelines prioritizing the importance of using GenAI tools to uphold the fundamental values of honesty and fairness in academic work. This commonality highlights a collective acknowledgement of the potential risks associated with GenAI, such as plagiarism and the devaluation of individual academic efforts, and a joint effort to minimize them through clear policy directives.

Explicit Guidance and Consent

A common theme is the provision of clear guidance on using GenAI tools in academic settings. Many universities, including Concordia, the University of Manitoba, and the British Columbia Institute of Technology (BCIT), have developed comprehensive frameworks that outline the circumstances under which these tools can be used and how to use them properly. These guidelines often require explicit instructor consent and proper citation to ensure accountability and transparency. This approach clarifies expectations for students and faculty and promotes an environment of open communication and trust.

Integration into Teaching and Learning

Durham College, the University of Calgary and others have recognized the potential of GenAI to revolutionize teaching and learning. They have highlighted innovative applications of GenAI that enhance educational experiences. With GenAI's assistance, teachers can generate lesson plans and quiz questions and provide formative feedback. This integration of GenAI enriches the educational landscape, offering new avenues for engagement and learning.

Digital Fluency and Critical AI Literacy

Humber College, OCAD University and others emphasize developing digital fluency and critical AI literacy among students and faculty. They believe that it is crucial to prepare individuals to navigate AI-enhanced environments responsibly. For this reason, the institutions support educational initiatives that help build competencies in evaluating and ethically using GenAI tools. This focus is on understanding the broader implications of AI integration beyond the classroom, which extends to the ethical and responsible use of technology in professional and personal contexts.

Summary

Analyzing the commonalities in the academic community makes it evident that there is a proactive approach towards the challenges and opportunities GenAI presents. There is a collective emphasis on ethical use, explicit guidance, educational integration, and the development of AI literacy to ensure that the adoption of GenAI aligns with core values of integrity and responsibility. This commentary will delve into the differences in approaches and gaps in existing frameworks while exploring how Algonquin College's Regulatory Affairs program addresses these challenges through innovative practices.

Differences in Approaches

Although there is a general agreement on the potential and challenges of GenAI across academic institutions, each institution has different approaches to integrating and regulating its use in academic disciplines. These differences reflect each institution's unique context, priorities, and pedagogical philosophies.

Autonomy in AI Tool Adoption

There is a significant difference between two universities regarding the autonomy given to their faculty regarding adopting and using GenAI tools. For example, Kwantlen Polytechnic University allows individual faculty members to decide whether to use GenAI if it follows the institution's broader guidelines. On the other hand, the University of Guelph follows a more centralized approach by providing provisional recommendations that specify certain scenarios where GenAI may or may not be appropriate, narrowing individual discretion.

AI Use in Assessment and Grading

In the context of student assessment and grading, different institutions have varying approaches to using GenAI tools. For instance, McMaster University prohibits using GenAI tools for summative evaluation but permits their use for formative feedback and learning enhancement. On the other hand, Wilfrid Laurier University also emphasizes responsible use but encourages more innovative applications of GenAI, such as supporting the development of grading rubrics and generating exam questions. This suggests a broader acceptance of the role of AI in evaluative processes.

Development of AI Literacy

Different universities have varying approaches to developing AI literacy and critical thinking among students and faculty. For instance, OCAD University and Simon Fraser University concentrate on building critical AI literacy that empowers the community to exploit the opportunities of GenAI tools while recognizing their limitations and risks. On the other hand, Durham College and Humber College pair this approach with a strong emphasis on digital fluency to equip their community with the skills necessary to navigate AI-enhanced workplaces effectively. This expands the scope of AI education beyond critical evaluation.

Ethical and Privacy Considerations

GenAI tools in academia have prompted different approaches to ethical and privacy considerations. Carleton University and the University of Calgary have created comprehensive guidelines that cover data privacy, copyrights, commercialization of student text, and potential biases within AI tools. On the other hand, Seneca Polytechnic's statement focuses more on encouraging students to engage critically with emerging technologies, with less emphasis on the legal and ethical complexities.

Summary

These differences highlight the various strategies adopted by institutions in response to GenAI. They reflect a balance between fostering innovation and maintaining academic integrity, ethical standards, and student and faculty development. However, as we explore the gaps in existing frameworks, it becomes clear that there is a need for ongoing dialogue, research, and adaptation to fully leverage GenAI's potential while aligning with the core values of education.

Gaps In Approaches

Examining GenAI integration policies across academic institutions reveals gaps in guidelines addressing technology, ethics, and education.

Comprehensive Policy Frameworks

There is a noticeable gap in academia regarding using GenAI. Although some institutions like McMaster University and the University of Guelph have provided detailed guidelines, most policies focus on specific aspects such as academic integrity or privacy. This approach fails to offer a comprehensive framework considering all factors, including pedagogical innovation, ethical use, data protection, and equity issues. Consequently, this piecemeal approach leads to inconsistencies and confusion among faculty and students.

Equity and Access

There is a notable issue regarding equity and accessibility associated with GenAI tools. Institutions such as Humber College focus on digital literacy, but there is insufficient discussion on ensuring that students from diverse backgrounds or with limited technological resources can access GenAI tools. It is crucial to pay more explicit attention to how GenAI can worsen pre-existing educational inequalities (i.e., the digital divide) and ensure institutional policies address this issue.

Handling Biases and Ethical Implications

Many organizations recognize the importance of addressing biases and ethical considerations in using GenAI tools, but clear and actionable strategies are lacking. Although some institutions, such as Carleton University and Concordia University, discuss ethical and privacy concerns, guidelines on actively identifying, mitigating, and educating about AI biases are not commonly provided. This gap emphasizes the need for more comprehensive frameworks that not only acknowledge biases but also offer methodologies for their mitigation.? This issue is at the core of the response undertaken by the Algonquin College Regulatory Affairs-Sciences program.

Faculty and Student Training

It has become clear that there are gaps in the availability of structured training programs covering the effective, ethical, and critical use of GenAI for faculty and students. While OCAD University and Simon Fraser University have made strides in promoting AI literacy, there is a need for more comprehensive training programs that cover not only the technical aspects of GenAI but also its ethical, legal, and social implications.

Adaptation to Rapid Technological Changes

There is a lack of adaptability in current policies regarding the rapid evolution of GenAI technologies. The dynamic nature of AI development requires flexible and responsive guidelines to tackle new challenges and opportunities. Although institutions like the University of Toronto provide updates and resources, the agility of policy frameworks to adapt to technological advancements remains challenging.

Summary

To address these gaps, academic institutions must work together to develop comprehensive, adaptable, and equitable frameworks for GenAI integration. This involves creating policies and committing to ongoing dialogue, research, and collaboration within and across institutions.

Algonquin College Regulatory Affairs – Sciences Program Approach

Algonquin College's Regulatory Affairs program has identified gaps and diverse approaches in integrating Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) across various institutions. The program has taken a pioneering initiative to operationalize ethical AI integration within its curriculum. This initiative is a testament to the program's proactive stance on harnessing the potential of AI while upholding the highest standards of academic integrity and ethical conduct in regulatory affairs.

Ethical Framework and Doubt First Principle

Algonquin College places great importance on ethics and has established a strong ethical framework. Dr. Thomas Conway has developed an innovative "Doubt First Principle" fundamental to this framework (See Annex 2). This principle advocates for a critical and skeptical approach to AI-generated information. It aggregates a range of concerns found in the principles that academic institutions are adopting but in a more communicative and actionable format. It ensures that all data used in research and academic work are rigorously verified, ethically evaluated, and contextually analyzed before being integrated into curriculum or research findings. The Doubt First Principle is not just a guideline but an ethos that promotes a culture of integrity and ethical vigilance among students and faculty.

Transparency In AI Use: The AI Use Transparency Form

The AI Use Transparency Form is an essential component of the Regulatory Affairs program at Algonquin College (See Annex 3: Including a Declaration for this Paper). It promotes ethical research practices by ensuring that all AI-assisted work is conducted with transparency and integrity. This form encourages accountability among students and researchers and aligns with the program's commitment to upholding rigorous scholarly work and workplace practice standards.

Curriculum Integration and AI Literacy

Algonquin College's Regulatory Affairs program has incorporated AI tools and methodologies into its curriculum in a seamless manner. The program strongly emphasizes AI literacy, educating students on AI tools' capabilities, limitations, and ethical considerations. This holistic educational approach ensures students have a well-rounded understanding of AI beyond mere technical proficiency. Students are equipped with the critical thinking and analytical skills necessary to navigate the complexities of AI in regulatory affairs. This prepares them to be proficient in AI usage and vigilant of its ethical implications in their future professions.

Practical Application and Real-World Relevance

The program has been developed to highlight the practical applications of artificial intelligence (AI) in regulatory affairs. Its primary objective is to bridge the gap between theoretical knowledge and real-world situations by providing students with hands-on practical experience. By engaging in case studies, simulations, and project-based learning, students are encouraged to use AI tools to tackle actual regulatory challenges while adhering to the ethical guidelines set by the program. This approach ensures that graduates have the skills to leverage AI for regulatory tasks and are also conscious of the broader societal implications of their work.

Continuous Adaptation and Faculty Development

The Regulatory Affairs program acknowledges the dynamic nature of AI technology and is dedicated to keeping pace with the latest developments. To accomplish this, the program will consistently revise its curriculum, ensuring that students and faculty stay ahead of the curve in the field.

Community Engagement and Policy Advocacy

Algonquin College's Regulatory Affairs program is not just limited to classroom learning; it actively engages with the community and advocates for policy. The program seeks collaborations with various industry partners, regulatory bodies, and academic institutions to contribute to ethical AI integration in regulatory affairs training and work responsibilities. This collaborative approach enhances the program's relevance and positions Algonquin College as a leader in shaping the future of AI in regulatory affairs education.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Algonquin College's Regulatory Affairs program is a comprehensive and ethically grounded approach to integrating GenAI into academic settings. Through innovative principles, curriculum integration, practical application, continuous adaptation, and community engagement, the program sets a benchmark for responsible and effective AI usage in regulatory affairs education, addressing the gaps and challenges observed across other institutions.

Annex 1: Sources of Database Information

• British Columbia Institute of Technology
• Carleton University
• Concordia University
• Durham College
• Humber College
• Kwantlen Polytechnic University
• McGill University
• McMaster University
• OCAD University
• Red River College Polytechnic
• Seneca Polytechnic
• Simon Fraser University
• Thompson Rivers University
• Toronto Metropolitan University
• University of British Columbia
• University of Calgary
• University of Guelph
• University of Manitoba
• University of Northern British Columbia

Annex 2: The Doubt First Principle in Algonquin College’s Regulatory Affairs – Sciences Program

The “Doubt First Principle”: Guiding Ethical AI Research in Regulatory Sciences

Foreword

In our quest to harness the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT in the field of regulatory sciences, the cultivation of a critical mindset is imperative. As the Program Coordinator for Regulatory Affairs at Algonquin College, I have developed the "Doubt First Principle" to guide our graduate students in ethically navigating the complexities of AI-assisted research.

The Essence of the Doubt First Principle

This principle serves as a foundational ethos in our research methodology, advocating for an initial stance of skepticism and thorough analysis of all AI-derived information. It is rooted in a tradition of academic diligence and integrity, emphasizing the necessity of verifying factual accuracy, adhering to ethical standards, and performing an exhaustive contextual examination of LLM outputs.

Application in the Curriculum

The Doubt First Principle is integral to our curriculum and is applied through:

1. Proactive Fact Verification: Encouraging students to rigorously cross-verify LLM outputs with trusted and scholarly sources as a first step in their research process.
2. Ethical Deliberation: Instilling the practice of evaluating the moral implications of LLM outputs, focusing on identifying biases and upholding the ethical guidelines of regulatory sciences.
3. Contextual Analysis: Emphasizing the importance of placing LLM-generated information within the wider narrative of the research topic, ensuring its relevance and applicability.

Instructional Strategy

As educators, our approach includes:

• Integrating the Doubt First Principle and AI Use Transparency Form into the curriculum, providing structured training on its application.
• Document and reflect on case studies where this principle is employed to illustrate its importance and effectiveness.
• Fostering an academic culture where critical thinking, ethical consideration, and comprehensive analysis are at the forefront of AI-assisted research.

Concluding Reflections

The Doubt First Principle and AI Use Transparency Form, along with other features of AI integration in the Algonquin College Regulatory Affairs-Sciences program, is not merely a set of guidelines; it is a commitment to upholding the highest academic excellence and integrity standards in the face of rapidly evolving AI technologies. It represents our dedication to preparing students for the challenges and opportunities in the dynamic field of regulatory affairs.

Annex 3: The AI Use Transparency Form

Researcher and Project Information:

• Name: Dr. Thomas Conway
• Institution: Algonquin College
• Department: Regulatory Affairs-Sciences
• Project Title: Academic Institutions’ Integration of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) in Canada: Similarities, Differences and Gaps”

AI Tool/Model Details:

• AI Tool/Model Name: ChatGPT4
• Provider/Source: OpenAI
• Purpose: To analyze source data based on criteria set out in prompt engineering.

Initial Critical Assessment of AI Output:

• I checked AI's capability to analyze the AI integration against the provided criteria and verified it through a visual scan of all institutional website material.
• Focused on understanding the similarities and differences in principles adopted gaps in principles and implementation.

AI Integration in Research:

• Task: Summation of data set.
• Reason: To provide economy for an in-depth review of numerous websites and data presentation styles and formats.

Data and AI Model:

• Data Source(s): Academic Institutions AI-related websites.
• Data Type: Textual
• Pre-processing: Organized and structured data for focused analysis.

Ethical and Compliance Considerations:

• Adherence to revealing the data sources and providing verifiable links to the data for verification.
• Consent: Not applicable. Public information.

Results and Interpretation:

• Summary: AI provided a detailed comparative table based on criteria provided by the author.?
• Interpretation: This was critically assessed and documented in text with specific institution examples for each criterion.

Doubt First Principle Compliance:

• Factual Validation: Cross-referenced AI findings with institution AI sites.
• Ethical Practices: Assessed the analysis's ethical dimensions, ensuring it is consistent with ethical principles and adding ethical considerations such as the digital divide.
• Contextual Analysis: Evaluated the research findings relative to the efforts of the Algonquin College Regulatory Affairs- Sciences initiative.

Researcher Declaration:

• Statement of accurate AI use and adherence to "Doubt First Principle."

·?????? Signature: Dr. Thomas Conway

• Date: January 17, 2024

?