Harvard Extension School instructors are taking varying approaches to artificial intelligence in the classroom, with course policies ranging from outright bans to limited AI use on assignments.|By Jonathan G. Yuan
By Francesco Palma and Andrew Park, Crimson Staff Writers
With most Harvard Extension School courses taking place online, decisions about artificial intelligence use beyond school-wide guidelines have largely fallen to individual instructors — some of whom are gradually allowing AI back into the classroom.
Under the Extension School’s general policy, instructors are encouraged to craft course-specific rules that “differ from and supersede” baseline school guidelines. The school requires students to acknowledge any AI assistance or outside tutoring if permitted. But it leaves the ultimate verdict to faculty, and resulting policies so far have ranged from outright bans to structured use on assignments.
Many faculty credit HES with providing helpful guidance, workshops, and forums on classroom technology — even as the administration maintains a decentralized posture on the use of AI broadly.
In some classes, like Bios E-10: “Introduction to Biochemistry,” students are prohibited from using AI on any graded assignments. The course’s joint instructors, Robin Haynes and Roopali Roy, wrote in a statement that encouraging students’ independent thought was important on their problem sets, which are “more conceptual in nature,” though AI could easily “draft a comprehensive answer that would probably earn them points.”
But outside of graded work, Haynes and Roy have allowed students to leverage AI tools to create custom study guides or additional practice problems. Still, they cautioned that relying on generative AI will be a disservice to students’ academic growth in the long run.
“AI is not accessible during the exams and by using AI on the problem sets, it will only hinder their ability to think through problems on the exams,” Haynes and Roy wrote. “Ultimately, it is on the student to take responsibility for learning, and by using AI, the impact of learning and thinking is lessened as they move forward in their education and career.”
In Math E-3: “Quantitative Reasoning,” instructor Graeme D. Bird shifted away from an outright ban after consulting with colleagues, choosing instead to permit narrow, constructive applications of AI. Under Bird’s syllabus, AI use is limited to explaining confusing terms and generating practice problems.
“After years of having an outright ban, I was persuaded by talking to various colleagues that I should try letting or even encouraging students to use AI constructively but within certain well-defined limits. I have no idea how many of them actually do use it though,” Bird wrote.
Get The Crimson in your inbox.
Beyond classwork, ensuring academic integrity is preserved in exams for largely virtual classes has posed another challenge for instructors. While Bird relies on closed-book, human-proctored final exams to guard against students “‘faking’ it,” Haynes and Roy have introduced in-class pop quizzes during lectures, where students are prevented from accessing any AI tools.
In writing-intensive programs, like the HES Writing Program, the program provides stricter guidelines for instructors regarding generative AI. Thomas A. Underwood, one of the program’s instructors, pointed to the program’s independent policy, which prohibits the use of AI entirely because the purpose of the courses involves “learning to develop, structure, revise, and edit your own text.”
“AI technologies may not be used in any phase of the process, including brainstorming, outlining, drafting, revising, and editing,” the Writing Program’s policy reads.
Despite fears that generative AI might erode student learning, instructors report little disruption in long-term performance. Haynes and Roy observed that recent exam averages align closely with scores from five years ago, while Bird noted that graders have encountered only “rare” instances of blatant AI usage.
“I hope that means that our students, even if they are using AI to some degree, are taking the time to understand the material in a relatively comprehensive way,” Haynes and Roy wrote.
Navigating the technology remains an evolving pedagogical challenge
“I feel like this is a work in progress,” Bird said. “I hope to refine things each semester.”
—Staff writer Francesco Palma can be reached at [email protected].
—Staff writer Andrew Park can be reached at [email protected]. Follow him on X@AndrewParkNews.
Want to keep up with breaking news?Subscribe to our email newsletter
Have a tip for The Crimson?Share it confidentially
See more on:Extension School, Academics, Academic Integrity, Artificial Intelligence
