Artificial Intelligence Task Force: Executive Summary

Last Updated: May 9, 2024

In November of 2022, ChatGPT 3.0 was released to the general public. Google Bard (now Gemini) and Microsoft Bing (now Copilot) soon followed. These Generative AI tools had an immediate impact on higher education, presenting significant benefits and profound challenges in both the classroom and the workplace. The Artificial Intelligence Task Force (AITF) was established in March of 2023 with a charge to “Dialogue about new developments with artificial intelligence, their impact on higher education, and Maricopa’s response.” The AITF’s deliverable was a “recommendation for further steps.” Members of the AITF include the trichairs: Lisa Young, Patty Finkenstadt, and Matt Jolly, along with Jim Curtin (Legal), Tom Pearson (Workforce Dean), Jennifer Strickland (CTL ), Anne Suzuki (VPSA), Stephanie Polliard (VPAA), Steven Crawford (MCLI), Julie Stiak (District Workforce Education), and Serene Rock (Librarian). 

The Task Force conducted multiple sense-making sessions with a focus on understanding AI, clearly defining Generative AI, and developing guidance for educators related to AI in the classroom. This work culminated in two documents:

1. Generative (AI) and Teaching and Learning: Guidance for Maricopa Faculty
2. Syllabus Statements Regarding Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The guidance document provided a definition of AI, an overview of how it works, a description of pedagogically sound uses of AI in teaching and learning, and a discussion of the potential impact of AI on academic integrity. The syllabus statements included a recommended “Opening Statement” along with three models that could be copied directly into faculty syllabi: 1) No Generative AI Allowed, 2) Some Generative AI Allowed, and 3) Generative AI Allowed in All Contexts. These documents were shared with faculty through email by the Provost on June 23, 2023.

When the AITF reconvened in the Fall of 2023, the team saw a need for distinct subcommittees and an expanded membership. We established the following subcommittees and created a purpose and deliverables for each: AI Detection Tools (chaired by Jennifer Strickland), Policy/Common Pages Related to AI (chaired by Patty Finkenstadt), Uses of AI in Non-Instructional Work (chaired by Lisa Young), AI Professional Development (chaired by Stephen Crawford), and Communications/Website (chaired by Julie Stiak). These subcommittees recruited additional team members. The AITF met monthly; subcommittees were also on a monthly cadence.

AI Detection Tools

This team reviewed the literature regarding available tools for detecting AI and saw clearly that such detectors produced false positives with a potential to discriminate against non-native speakers of English. Collaboratively, they produced the Guidance for Maricopa Faculty Regarding Generative AI Tools and Academic Misconduct. The document, hosted on MCLI’s Artificial Intelligence Resources for Faculty and Staff website, describes how AI detectors work, examines their potential for false positives, encourages faculty to clearly articulate their expectations regarding the use of AI, and outlines steps to take if they suspect a student has used AI in violation of clearly set expectations.

Policy/Common Pages Related to AI

Current Maricopa policy related to academic misconduct (Admin Reg 2.3.11) is adequate to support faculty as they set expectations around the use of AI in their classrooms, but it needed to be improved. For example, the definition of plagiarism included the phrase “the published or unpublished work of another person;” AI is not a “person.” This team reviewed current policy and recommended revisions via the Common Pages Committee to sections 2.3.11. Additionally, they considered if other Administrative Regulations might need revisions in light of the AI revolution (e.g., 3.6). The team worked with FEC and other groups to revise the proposed language, and they informed the Common Pages Committee to shepherd the revisions through the year-long process. If the process goes as planned, revised language will be effective July 1, 2024.

Use of AI in Non-Instructional Work

This team examined where or when it is appropriate to use AI in non-instructional work and identified areas where it may be inappropriate. They worked to develop use cases, best practices, and recommend standards for documenting the use of AI in non-instructional work. They developed a survey to gauge employee understanding and adoption of AI using a framework developed by Barnard College (Understand / Use / Evaluate / Create) based on Bloom’s Taxonomy. That survey was distributed the week of March 18th. A report of the results was then developed–the report has been shared on the MCLI AI website. They also discussed the prevalence of AI meeting note takers. This issue implicates legal concerns, so District legal is currently developing guidance. The team continues to discuss the use of AI in performance evaluations (like the FEP), report writing and presentation building, and the potential security and privacy concerns raised by AI use.

AI Professional Development (PD)

This group looked to discover what PD was already being offered across the district and to learn what additional training would best support faculty and staff. They conducted an inventory of PD offerings. Their recommendations include a summary of the inventory that has been developed. As a result of their work, the MCLI planned an AI CreatorFest with support from Packback and other AI providers. The event is scheduled for the week after accountability. It will be hosted at Rio Salado’s Conference Center, and there is a virtual option. They are also developing a four-part professional development series for (1) business uses and (2) teaching and learning; the series is based on the Barnard College framework (Understand / Use / Evaluate / Create).

Communications/Website

The most immediate concern of this team was to address the confusion surrounding AI and academic integrity. The team drafted 1) a message to students warning about the potential for academic misconduct and 2) a message to faculty clarifying the limitations of AI detection tools and familiarizing them with current policy. These messages have been sent to the respective audiences. The team also crafted the Artificial Intelligence Resources for Faculty and Staff website which is now live on the MCLI page. They also developed a website for students, also live on maricopa.edu.

The initial charge of the Task Force will have been met by the end of the Spring 2024 semester, but team members believe this work will continue into the foreseeable future as the technology continues to evolve and as the institution adapts to those changes. We also see a significant need for a formal district-level process for the evaluation and purchase of instructional technology. To these ends, we recommend the formation of a standing committee so Maricopa can serve as a national leader in the changing landscape of AI and higher education.

AI Detection Tools

• Jennifer Strickland*
• Anne Suzuki*
• Jim Curtin*
• Matt Jolly*
• Matthew Emrick
• Meha Trivedi

Policy/Common Pages Related to AI

• Patty Finkenstadt*
• Donna Tannehill
• Jason Sweat
• Joshua LIndenberg
• Stephanie Polliard*
• Aubrei Smith

Use of AI in Non-Instructional Work

• Lisa Young*
• Calvin DeVoll
• Barry Vaughan
• Pedro Rodriguez
• Serene Rock*
• Jim Curtin*
• Steven Crawford*
• Patty Finkenstadt*
• Josh Bastian

AI Professional Development

• Steven Crawford*
• Lisa Young*
• Liz Cantu*
• Jennifer Strickland*
• Michelle Trejo
• Serene Rock*
• Tom Pearson*

Communications/Website

• Julie Stiak*
• Tim Wolsey
• Tawn Hauptli
• Andre Henderson
• Liz Cantu*
• Matt Jolly*
• Matthew Rodgers
• Felicia Ramirez-Perez
• Anika Hutchinson
• Cindy Ramos
• Jesus Chaidez
• Kevin Bilder
• Robert Peters

*AI Task Force Members