Institutions · The RAFT Framework for Ethical AI Use
Policy to practice mapping guide
Institutional implementation guide
Open resource · No email required
Translate actual institutional requirements into actions students and faculty can use. RAFT supplies a teaching process; the authoritative policy and responsible institutional owner determine what is permitted.
Start with the actual clause
- Copy the exact clause, source link or document name, version, and effective date.
- Identify who it applies to, what it requires, and any exceptions or delegated authority.
- Name the responsible policy owner. Resolve conflicts before writing student instructions.
- Write a plain-language assignment action and the minimum evidence needed.
- Check access, privacy, workload, and the no-AI route with the appropriate local owners.
Map to a teaching action
| RAFT connection | Useful assignment action |
|---|---|
| Preflight | State the learning goal, permission, and approved route. |
| Research Independently First | Require a proportionate initial attempt or evidence notes. |
| Augment Your Work | Name what help is permitted and what remains the learner’s task. |
| Fact-Check Everything | Show one meaningful source or calculation check. |
| Transform Into Your Own Work | Explain a final decision in the student’s own reasoning. |
A clause may apply to several steps. Do not force every institutional requirement into the acronym; procurement, privacy, accessibility, and misconduct processes retain their own owners.
Worked mapping example
Illustrative policy only: “Students may use instructor-approved AI assistance and must disclose material use. Confidential information must not be entered into external tools.” This wording is invented for the example and is not a RAFT or campus policy.
Resolve the ambiguous terms
Ask the policy owner or designated instructor to define approved assistance, material use, and the permitted tool/input boundary. Until clarified, do not infer permission from the existence of RAFT materials.
Assignment instruction derived from the example
“For this memo, after preparing your own evidence notes, you may ask an approved tool to identify gaps. Do not ask it to write the memo. Use only the supplied fictional packet. Keep real personal or confidential information out of the tool. Submit a short disclosure identifying the tool, task, retained suggestions, and checks. A peer-feedback route is available.”
Evidence and responsibility
| Requirement | Practice | Owner |
|---|---|---|
| Instructor-approved assistance | Bounded critique after initial notes | Instructor confirms scope. |
| Disclosure | Short account of assistance and checks | Student supplies; instructor specifies format. |
| Confidential input restriction | Use only supplied fictional material | Institution defines restrictions; instructor supplies safe packet. |
This is a teaching example. Local owners must review the derived instruction before use; the guide does not determine legal or regulatory compliance.
Use this mapping record
Exact clause source version and effective date
[Enter your response here.]
People or tasks covered and any exceptions
[Enter your response here.]
Policy owner and unresolved interpretation
[Enter your response here.]
Student action and faculty instruction
[Enter your response here.]
RAFT step or separate institutional process
[Enter your response here.]
Minimum evidence and disclosure location
[Enter your response here.]
Access privacy no-AI route and review date
[Enter your response here.]
Check the result
- Can a student tell what to do before opening a tool?
- Does the instruction preserve the policy’s actual scope?
- Is the evidence useful and proportionate?
- Is there an owner for questions and conflicting requirements?
Review mappings when the policy, assignment, approved tools, or data conditions change. Keep the source version beside the derived instruction so future edits can be traced.
By Dr. Chase Cookson · v2.1 (009019026)
Course, assignment, and institutional rules take priority.