I think a short explanation is a sensible approach. Students may use AI for very different tasks, such as checking grammar or generating a whole answer. A simple note could help the teacher understand what happened. The university should give examples of allowed uses and explain the rules before the assignment begins. I would not want a long technical report for every piece of work. The aim should be honest communication and real learning, not making students afraid to ask whether a tool is allowed.
- such as checking grammar or generating a whole answer · 拿改语法和生成整篇作对比,解释为何要说明用途
- before the assignment begins · 提醒规则要在布置作业前讲清楚
I'd support a brief disclosure requirement, together with clear rules for each assignment. A blanket ban can be difficult to interpret, while unrestricted use leaves students unsure which skills they are expected to demonstrate themselves. A note saying what tool was used, for which task, and how the output was checked would make the process more visible. It shouldn't require students to share private conversations or produce pages of technical detail. For me, the goal is to make responsibility clear: students should understand, verify, and be able to explain the work they submit, regardless of what assistance they received.
- for which task, and how the output was checked · 列出要说明的两件事:用途和检查方法
- be able to explain the work they submit · 要求学生能讲清自己交上去的内容