Abstract

This article presents the ongoing conversation about generative AI guidance and policy in higher education. The article examines syllabus policies, including analyzing sentiment, emotion, and common themes in GenAI policies. Findings show that policies should be audience-focused, clearly written, and grounded in strategies to promote ethical AI use in academia and the workforce. Practical tips for policy writing and sample policies are provided.

Journal
Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
Published
2024-12-01
DOI
10.1177/23294906241254786
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Topics

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (3)

  1. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
  2. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
  3. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly

Cites in this index (2)

  1. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
  2. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
Also cites 12 works outside this index ↓
  1. 10.1186/s41239-023-00408-3
  2. 10.5688/ajpe9025
  3. 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642
  4. 10.26686/pq.v19i3.8308
  5. 10.1002/asi.23616
  6. 10.1080/02602938.2024.2309963
  7. Maehre J. (2009). What it means to ban Wikipedia: An exploration of the pedagogical principles at stake. Coll…
  8. 10.46328/ijonse.174
  9. 10.1155/2023/6660371
  10. 10.4085/1062-6050-0275.20
  11. Xiao P., Chen Y., Bao W. (2023). Waiting, banning, and embracing: An empirical analysis of adapting policies …
  12. 10.1177/0893318915619755
CrossRef global citation count: 23 View in citation network →