Durham College GenAI use is moving beyond a debate about whether students should encounter the technology, with professors describing ways to use it for tutoring while students question how to preserve independent thinking.
In a November 10 report, The Chronicle interviewed faculty and students at the Oshawa college about generative artificial intelligence in coursework and preparation for employment.
The examples reflect teaching practices and individual views, not a new blanket permission for students to use AI on every assignment. Durham College’s published guidance says instructors must communicate permitted or prohibited uses clearly in writing before the relevant learning activity or assessment.
Coaching rather than completing an assignment
Human Resources professor and programme co-ordinator Corey Gill told The Chronicle he uses Microsoft Copilot as a tutoring aid. He described a setup intended to guide students toward answers and provide feedback against assignment rubrics, rather than simply produce their work.
Marketing programme co-ordinator Jonathan Carrigan said AI is changing the skills graduates will need. His classroom approach combines instruction with AI-supported learning while retaining an emphasis on critical thinking.
Those accounts come from interviews with the responsible educators. They do not establish that the same tools or permissions apply to all programmes.
Students identify limits
The Chronicle also heard from students who see value in assistance but want to retain control of their work. Entrepreneurship and Small Business student Ahanae Lydner described using AI to review work against a rubric and organize ideas, while cautioning against dependence.
Paralegal student Aaliyah Alexander raised a different concern: finding information quickly does not demonstrate that a student understands or can interpret it. Her comments focused on whether students have the underlying knowledge needed to assess an AI-generated answer.
Permission remains course-specific
The college’s current interim teaching statement supports purposeful exploration of GenAI where it enhances learning and reflects industry expectations. It also makes students responsible for following each course’s directions and seeking clarification when expectations are unclear.
Separate academic-integrity guidance says authorized AI contributions need appropriate attribution. It also states that an AI-detector score cannot, by itself, establish that a student used generative AI.
For students, the practical distinction is between an instructor-approved learning activity and unauthorized substitution for their own work. For faculty, the published guidance emphasizes explicit instructions, relevant assessments and continued student engagement.
The Durham College GenAI discussion reported this week illustrates both sides of that approach: preparation for changing workplaces and the need to protect the skills students are attending college to develop.
