Findings
Institutional Silence Dominates
Analysis reveals 239 of 330 syllabi (72%) make no mention of AI whatsoever. This silence 
spans studio arts and art-based lecture courses, online and in-person modalities, and all 
institutional campuses. Students enrolling in art courses receive no guidance about AI tool 
expectations in nearly three-quarters of their coursework. Table 1 presents the complete 
distribution of integration levels across the corpus, revealing the concentration of syllabi in 
the Absent category compared to Wang et al.’s (2023) finding that 60% of 100 universities 
had developed some form of institutional AI guidance by late 2023.
Prohibition Prevails Among Those Who Speak
Among 91 syllabi mentioning AI, 51 (56%) prohibit use. However, most prohibitive language 
employs weak framing (82%) rather than strong punishment. Typical weak prohibition 
examples include: “Assignments should be the intellectual work of the student” (ARTS 
1301 syllabus) or “You should not use generative AI to complete assignments” (Drawing I 
syllabus). These statements lack definitions, enforcement mechanisms, or consequences. 
Only one syllabus uses strong prohibition: “Use of AI tools including ChatGPT, Midjourney, 
or similar systems is strictly prohibited. Failure to comply results in automatic assignment 
failure and potential course-level consequences” (Painting II syllabus). This pattern suggests 
faculty discomfort with AI rather than outright rejection, framing restrictions pedagogically (“I 
want your authentic voice”) rather than punitively.
The Missing Middle: Zero Augmentative Integration
No syllabi demonstrate Level 3 (Augmentative) integration, where AI serves as a tool requiring 
citation, reflection, and critical evaluation. Faculty jump directly from Selective restriction 
(29 syllabi, 8.8%) to Integrative incorporation (5 syllabi, 1.5%), bypassing the pedagogical 
54
TRENDS 2026 	
	
PAGE

View this content as a flipbook by clicking here.