Rubric Analysis

What the Rubric Is Measuring — and Why Generic Responses Fail Every Criterion

The Core Competency Being Tested

This project tests your ability to act as an institutional leader, not a student summarizing readings. The five rubric criteria — SACSCOC Good Practices application, institutional alignment, ethical leadership reasoning, structure and professionalism, and citations — each require a different intellectual task. SACSCOC application means you can read a guidance document and translate specific provisions into policy language. Institutional alignment means you can locate real university documents and connect them to your work. Ethical leadership reasoning means you can apply theory. Structure means you can produce a professional deliverable, not a course assignment that looks like one. Citations mean you can use sources the way a policy document or academic paper uses them — not as decoration.

The rubric allocates 30 points to each of the five criteria, for a total of 150 points. That equal weighting is significant: you cannot compensate for a weak institutional alignment section with a strong ethical reasoning section. Every criterion must be addressed at the Proficient or Advanced level independently. Students who write a sophisticated ethical analysis while referencing only vague “institutional policies” — without naming specific FSU documents and connecting them to their argument — will score well on reasoning and poorly on alignment, regardless of how strong the rest of the paper is.

⚠️

The Rubric Distinguishes Proficient from Advanced on Every Criterion

Proficient requires meeting the minimum threshold — at least two SACSCOC guidelines, real institutional policies referenced, ethical theory present, generally organized, minimum sources cited. Advanced requires comprehensive, multiple, direct, and accurate integration across all those dimensions simultaneously. If your goal is Advanced, you need to go beyond naming sources and explain how each one shapes a specific element of your policy or presentation. The rubric rewards integration — the active work of connecting framework to institution to policy to practice — not enumeration.

The simulation framing — you are the CAO — also matters. This project is not asking you to write a research paper about AI in higher education. It is asking you to produce institutional deliverables: a policy document and a faculty training presentation that look, read, and function the way actual institutional documents do. A presentation with no slide design logic, no presenter notes, and no actionable guidance for faculty is not a training presentation — it is a slide outline. The rubric criterion for Structure and Professionalism specifically rewards formatting appropriate to an academic or professional setting. That means your Part 3 slides need to look like something that could be presented at a faculty orientation, not a student PowerPoint.

Primary Framework

Reading the SACSCOC Good Practices Document — What to Extract and How to Apply It

The SACSCOC Good Practices on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education (June 2025) is the anchor document for this entire project. Every policy decision you make as CAO must be traceable to something in this document. Students who write general AI ethics content — plagiarism risks, academic dishonesty, the importance of transparency — without citing the SACSCOC document specifically will score in the Developing range on the first criterion, regardless of how accurate their claims are.

What to Pull From the SACSCOC Document

Governance structures: SACSCOC addresses how institutions should build oversight mechanisms for AI use — look for language about institutional responsibility, faculty governance roles, and the CAO’s accountability in policy development.

Academic integrity provisions: The document distinguishes between permitted and prohibited AI use in academic work. Extract the specific language it uses — these terms should appear in your policy’s definitions section and in your faculty training slides.

Disclosure and transparency expectations: SACSCOC addresses what students and faculty are expected to disclose about AI-assisted work. These expectations are the basis for the syllabus statement requirement in Part 3.

Faculty responsibilities: The document outlines what faculty are expected to do in communicating policy to students. This maps directly onto Part 3’s faculty responsibilities slide.

Institutional compliance context: SACSCOC accreditation standards require member institutions to demonstrate that their academic integrity policies address emerging technology. This accreditation pressure is the institutional rationale for why the policy matters — use it in your introduction and policy rationale section.

The rubric’s Advanced threshold for SACSCOC application requires you to apply multiple relevant guidelines directly and accurately. That means you cannot satisfy the criterion with one reference to the document in your introduction. The SACSCOC provisions need to appear at the point in your policy and presentation where they actually govern the decision being made. If your faculty training slide on permitted versus prohibited AI use does not cite the specific SACSCOC language that draws that distinction, you have referenced the document without applying it.

💡

Access the SACSCOC Document Directly

The June 2025 Good Practices document is publicly available at sacscoc.org/app/uploads/2025/06/AI-Good-Practices-Document.pdf. Read the full document before outlining your project. Note the section headings and the specific guidance under each — these become your chapter-level citations. When you cite SACSCOC in APA format, you cite the organization as author: Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges. (2025, June). Good practices on the use of artificial intelligence in higher education. SACSCOC. Use this citation at every point in your work where a specific SACSCOC provision governs a decision, not just once at the end of a paragraph.

One practical approach: create a two-column document before drafting. Column one lists each SACSCOC good practice you identify as relevant to FSU’s context. Column two maps it to the specific element of your policy or training presentation it should govern. That mapping becomes your citation plan — you will know in advance where each reference to SACSCOC belongs and what analytical work it needs to do in that location. Students who do this mapping step produce work that scores Advanced on criterion one. Students who skip it produce work where SACSCOC appears in the introduction and disappears for the rest of the document.

Institutional Alignment

Using FSU’s Institutional Documents — What to Find, Where to Find It, and How to Use It

The second rubric criterion — institutional alignment — rewards students who treat FSU as a real institution with real documents, not a placeholder name attached to generic higher education content. The assignment specifies Fayetteville State University. That means your work must reflect FSU’s actual policies, actual mission language, and actual strategic plan — not what a generic HBCU or regional comprehensive university might say.

DocumentWhere to Find ItHow to Use It in Your Project
Faculty Handbook (2023) FSU Office of Academic Affairs — cited URL in the assignment: uncfsu.edu/assets/Documents/Office%20of%20Legal%20Affairs/Policies/Chapter%20500%20%282023%29/502_2020%20Handbook%20%5BRev%202021%5D.pdf Extract the faculty responsibilities language relevant to academic integrity and course policy. Your Part 3 slide on faculty responsibilities should cite specific handbook provisions — not just acknowledge that a handbook exists. The handbook defines what faculty are contractually expected to do; your policy adds AI-specific requirements on top of that baseline.
Student Handbook / Code of Conduct (2022–23) FSU Division of Student Affairs — cited URL in the assignment: uncfsu.edu/assets/Documents/Office%20of%20Legal%20Affairs/Policies/Chapter%20700%20%282023%29/FSU_Student_Handbook_2022-23.pdf The student handbook’s academic integrity section defines prohibited conduct and disciplinary procedures. Your AI policy must be written to align with — and extend — these existing definitions. If the student handbook defines academic dishonesty in terms that predate generative AI, your policy’s definitions section needs to explicitly update those terms. Cite the handbook when explaining what already governs student conduct, then explain what your AI-specific policy adds.
Strategic Plan: Ready for Tomorrow 2022–2027 FSU website — fsu.edu strategic planning section FSU’s strategic plan contains mission language, institutional values, and priorities that your policy must align with. Look for the pillars or goals that address academic excellence, student success, and technology integration. Your policy rationale in Part 3’s introduction slide should cite specific strategic plan language to demonstrate that the AI policy is not imposed externally — it advances FSU’s own stated institutional direction.
Existing AI or Technology Use Policy (if any) FSU website, Faculty Affairs or Academic Affairs section If FSU has published any existing guidance on AI use in academic work, your project must acknowledge it. A policy that ignores existing institutional guidance is not a CAO-level document — it is a draft that missed the first step of policy development, which is auditing what already exists. If no AI-specific policy exists, state that explicitly in your introduction and use that gap as the justification for why the new policy is needed.
Institutional Mission Statement FSU About page — fsu.edu/about FSU’s mission as an HBCU — its commitment to access, academic excellence, and preparing students for civic and professional life — is the institutional context within which your policy must operate. AI policy for an HBCU has equity dimensions that generic higher education policy guidance does not address: differential access to AI tools, algorithmic bias, and the historical context of institutions that have served underrepresented communities. Your ethical leadership reasoning section should engage with these dimensions and connect them to FSU’s mission.
📋

Integration Means Quoting and Applying, Not Just Citing

The rubric distinguishes between Developing (vague or generic references) and Proficient/Advanced (real policies connected to the topic). A citation at the end of a sentence that names FSU’s faculty handbook does not demonstrate institutional alignment. Alignment is demonstrated when you extract specific language from the handbook — a definition, a responsibility clause, a disciplinary threshold — and explain how your policy provision builds on, extends, or implements that language. The grader needs to see the thread between the institutional document and the policy decision. That thread must be made explicit.

Part 3 Deliverable

The Faculty Training Presentation — What Each of the 10–12 Slides Must Do

Part 3 requires a 10–12 slide professional training module with presenter notes for each slide. The assignment specifies six required content components. Each component maps to one or more slides. The most common structural error is front-loading slides with policy content and collapsing the practical implementation guidance into a single closing slide. Faculty training is designed to change behavior — if your presentation tells faculty what the policy says but does not show them how to act on it, it has failed its primary purpose.

Slide-by-Slide Requirements for Part 3

Each required component is listed with the analytical and presentational work it must accomplish. Presenter notes are required on every slide — they are where your SACSCOC citations, institutional references, and ethical reasoning live. The slide itself communicates; the notes explain the evidence behind the communication.

Slides 1–2

Introduction and Policy Rationale

  • Slide 1: Title slide — CAO name, date, institution, presentation title. Professional formatting required.
  • Slide 2: Why this policy now — not a general statement about AI proliferation, but a specific institutional rationale grounded in SACSCOC’s June 2025 guidance and FSU’s strategic plan priorities
  • The rationale should answer: what changed, what risk does the institution face without a policy, and what does the SACSCOC framework require FSU to do in response
  • Presenter notes: cite the SACSCOC document and FSU’s strategic plan by name, with specific page or section references where possible
  • Avoid opening with a generic AI statistics slide — graders have seen it. Open with FSU’s specific institutional context.
Slides 3–4

Policy Overview — Key Terms and Permitted vs. Prohibited Uses

  • This is where the policy content itself appears — not a summary of what AI is, but what FSU’s policy specifies
  • Define key terms as the policy defines them: what counts as generative AI, what counts as AI-assisted work, what counts as AI-generated work, and where the academic integrity line falls
  • The permitted vs. prohibited framework should be drawn from the SACSCOC Good Practices language — show faculty that FSU’s distinctions are grounded in accreditation guidance, not invented by administration
  • One slide for definitions, one slide for the permitted/prohibited breakdown — or combine if your policy is concise enough to fit clearly on one slide
  • Presenter notes: connect each definition to the relevant SACSCOC provision and the student handbook’s existing academic integrity language
Slides 5–6

Faculty Responsibilities — Syllabi, Assignments, and Student Advising

  • This is the most practically important section for faculty — it tells them what they are expected to do differently starting immediately
  • Address three distinct responsibility domains: course syllabus (what AI-use statement must appear), assignment design (how to structure assignments to address AI use), and student advising (how to respond when a student discloses AI use or when AI use is suspected)
  • Each responsibility should cite the faculty handbook provision that creates the baseline obligation, then explain what the new AI policy adds
  • Do not frame these as suggestions — frame them as institutional expectations with the CAO’s endorsement
  • Presenter notes: address the “what if a faculty member disagrees with the policy” scenario — this is a real faculty concern and a presentation that does not acknowledge it loses credibility with the audience
Slide 7

Sample Scenario or Suggested Syllabus Statement

  • The assignment explicitly requires one sample scenario or suggested syllabus statement — include both if slide count allows, or choose the one most useful to faculty
  • A sample scenario should be realistic and specific: not “a student uses AI on an assignment” but “a student submits a paper in which 80% of the text is AI-generated without disclosure in a course where the syllabus prohibits undisclosed AI use — walk through how faculty should handle this under the new policy”
  • A suggested syllabus statement should be ready to copy and adapt — faculty will actually use it. It should specify permitted AI tools (if any), required disclosure format, and the consequence for violation
  • Presenter notes: explain the reasoning behind the sample statement’s specific wording and cite the SACSCOC disclosure expectations that shaped it
Slide 8

Institutional and Biblical Integration

  • One Bible verse aligned with faculty responsibility or academic truth — not chosen for brevity but for fit with the slide’s argument
  • The institutional integration component on this slide means you connect the policy to FSU’s mission language — quote the mission directly and explain how the AI policy is a natural extension of FSU’s institutional commitments
  • For an HBCU like FSU, the mission connection should address the equity dimension: ensuring AI tools do not replicate or amplify existing educational inequities is consistent with FSU’s historical mission of access and excellence
  • The biblical verse and the institutional mission should reinforce each other on this slide — not appear as unrelated items stacked together
  • Presenter notes: explain why this verse was selected, what its application to faculty responsibility is, and how both the verse and the mission statement arrive at the same ethical conclusion about the policy
Slides 9–10 (+ optional 11–12)

Support, Resources, and Next Steps

  • List specific FSU offices and contacts — not “contact your department chair” but the actual Office of Academic Affairs, Center for Teaching and Learning, or equivalent FSU unit responsible for policy implementation support
  • Include a next-steps timeline: when must syllabi be updated, when will implementation begin, when will faculty receive follow-up training
  • Optional slides: Q&A prompt slide, resource list with URLs to FSU policy documents and the SACSCOC document, glossary of key terms for faculty reference
  • The final slide should leave faculty with one clear, actionable item — not a general closing statement about the importance of academic integrity
  • Presenter notes: address anticipated faculty questions or resistance points; prepare the presenter for the conversation that follows the formal presentation

A faculty training presentation that tells faculty what the policy says without showing them exactly how to implement it in their courses has not completed the assignment. Policy communication and practice translation are two different tasks — Part 3 requires both.

— The analytical gap most Part 3 submissions fail to close
Rubric Criterion 3

Ethical Leadership Reasoning — What Theory Looks Like When It Is Applied Rather Than Named

The third rubric criterion rewards depth of ethical analysis grounded in theory and supported by sources. The Advanced threshold requires strong ethical analysis grounded in theory with appropriate sources and biblical integration. The Developing threshold describes work that lacks theoretical grounding or ethical application. The gap between those two levels is not about how many ethics terms you use — it is about whether you use theory to explain a decision rather than to label it.

Naming a theory (“this is a transformational leadership approach”) is not applying it. Applying it means explaining what transformational leadership theory predicts about how institutional change is best achieved, then showing how your specific policy development decisions — the consultative process, the framing of the faculty training, the emphasis on mission alignment — were shaped by those theoretical predictions. The theory needs to do explanatory work in your argument, not serve as a category label attached to a decision you would have made anyway.

Leadership Theory

Transformational vs. Transactional Leadership

Transformational leadership theory (Burns, 1978; Bass, 1985) argues that institutional change is most durable when leaders appeal to shared values and inspire intrinsic commitment rather than imposing compliance. A CAO who develops an AI policy by citing accreditation pressure and enforcement consequences is operating transactionally. A CAO who frames the policy around FSU’s mission, academic integrity as a shared value, and faculty’s professional identity as educators is operating transformationally. Explain which approach your Part 3 presentation uses and why — and cite the theory that supports that choice.

Change Theory

Kezar’s Framework for Institutional Change

Adrianna Kezar’s work on how colleges change (cited in the assignment’s reference list) argues that successful policy implementation requires attending to institutional culture, building coalitions, and working through existing governance structures. Apply this framework to explain why your faculty training presentation is designed the way it is: why it connects to FSU’s mission, why it acknowledges faculty concerns, why it provides concrete implementation support rather than just policy mandates. Kezar is already in your required reference list — use her, do not just cite her.

AI Ethics

Equity and Algorithmic Fairness in HBCU Context

The ethical dimensions of AI in higher education extend beyond academic dishonesty. For FSU — an HBCU serving a student population that has historically faced systemic barriers — the ethical leadership question includes: do AI tools create new equity gaps? Do AI detection tools perform equitably across different student writing styles and linguistic backgrounds? Research (Lim et al., 2023; Perkins et al., 2024 — both in your reference list) addresses the limits and biases of AI detection. An ethical leader at FSU cannot adopt an AI policy without addressing these dimensions. Build that analysis into your ethical reasoning section.

💡

Bowen and Watson’s Teaching With AI Is in Your Reference List — Use the Argument, Not Just the Citation

José Antonio Bowen and Edward Watson’s Teaching with AI: A Practical Guide to a New Era of Human Learning (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2024) argues that institutions’ most productive response to generative AI is redesigning pedagogy to make AI a learning partner rather than an integrity threat — and that policies focused exclusively on prohibition will fail because they fight against the tool’s proliferation rather than adapting to it. If your ethical leadership argument engages with this tension — acknowledging that prohibition-only approaches have limits while still establishing the integrity standards FSU requires — you demonstrate the kind of nuanced reasoning the Advanced rubric criterion describes. Summarize the tension Bowen and Watson identify, then explain how your policy navigates it.

Integration Requirement

Biblical Integration — What Meaningful Integration Looks Like vs. Decorative Quotation

The biblical integration requirement appears in both Part 3’s slide requirements and the broader rubric criterion for ethical leadership reasoning. The Developing threshold describes work with “minimal integration of biblical support.” The Advanced threshold requires biblical integration alongside theoretical grounding. The distinction the rubric is drawing is between a Bible verse that appears because the assignment requires one and a Bible verse that participates in the argument.

✓ Meaningful Integration
“Proverbs 11:14 — ‘For lack of guidance a nation falls, but victory is won through many advisers’ — grounds the CAO’s consultative policy development process in a biblical principle about the necessity of shared discernment in institutional decision-making. FSU’s AI policy was not developed unilaterally; it was developed through faculty consultation, student handbook review, and alignment with SACSCOC guidance. That consultative structure reflects both Kezar’s coalition-building model and this principle that institutional wisdom requires many voices. Faculty who implement this policy are themselves acting as advisers in an ongoing institutional conversation about what ethical AI use looks like — not simply receiving directives from administration.”

This integration works because the verse is connected to a specific structural decision (consultation), explained in terms of that decision, and connected to both theoretical and institutional context.
✗ Decorative Quotation
“As the Bible says in Proverbs 4:7, ‘The beginning of wisdom is this: Get wisdom, and whatever you get, get insight.’ This verse reminds us of the importance of wisdom in our academic pursuits. Fayetteville State University is committed to academic integrity and the pursuit of knowledge. It is important for faculty to guide students in using AI tools wisely and ethically. Wisdom is a core value in higher education and in Christian leadership.”

This does not integrate — it quotes, then makes general statements that do not connect the verse to any specific policy decision, faculty responsibility, or institutional context. The verse could be removed without changing any argument.

When selecting your verse, work backward from the policy element you need to support. If your slide is about faculty responsibility to update syllabi and disclose AI use expectations, look for a verse about faithfulness in one’s assigned role or the responsibility that comes with teaching. If your slide is about the equity dimensions of AI policy, look for a verse about justice and protecting those who are vulnerable to harm. The verse should arrive at the same conclusion the slide’s argument is building toward, not appear as a separate item after the slide’s content is already complete.

Evidence and Citations

Citations, Sources, and APA Requirements — What the Rubric Means by “Integrated Effectively”

The fifth rubric criterion distinguishes between sources that are “integrated effectively” (Advanced) and sources that are merely cited with mostly correct APA style (Proficient) or inadequate with poor citation format (Developing). Integration means the source is doing work in the argument at the point where it is cited — not appearing in a reference list at the end while the actual argument is unsupported. The five-source minimum is a floor, not a target; the Advanced threshold specifies 5+ high-quality scholarly or institutional sources.

Required Sources Already in Your Reference List

  • SACSCOC. (2025, June). Good practices on the use of artificial intelligence in higher education. — Primary framework document; must be cited multiple times at specific policy decision points
  • FSU Faculty Handbook (2023) — Must be cited when addressing faculty responsibilities; extract specific provisions, not just the document name
  • FSU Student Handbook (2022–23) — Must be cited when addressing academic integrity definitions and disciplinary procedures
  • Lim et al. (2023). Generative AI and the future of education. International Journal of Management Education. — Scholarly source on AI’s role in education; use the paradox argument the authors develop
  • Perkins et al. (2024). Detection of GPT-4 generated text in higher education. Journal of Academic Ethics. — Addresses limits of AI detection tools; directly relevant to enforcement provisions
  • Zawacki-Richter et al. (2019). Systematic review of research on AI applications in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. — Background on AI in higher education research
  • Bowen & Watson. (2024). Teaching with AI. Johns Hopkins University Press — Applied institutional framework; use the argument, not just the citation
  • Kezar. (2018). How colleges change. Routledge — Change leadership theory; cite when explaining your policy development or training design choices

APA 7th Edition Rules That Apply to Institutional Documents

  • Institutional authors: when the organization is both author and publisher, list organization as author and omit publisher. Example: Fayetteville State University. (2023). Faculty handbook. https://[URL]
  • Web documents with no date: use (n.d.) in place of year — FSU’s mission statement may not carry a publication date
  • SACSCOC as author: Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges. (2025, June). Include the month because the document’s June 2025 release date is significant to the assignment context
  • In-text for organizational authors: first citation uses full name with abbreviation — (Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges [SACSCOC], 2025) — subsequent citations use (SACSCOC, 2025)
  • Presenter notes citations: apply the same in-text citation rules in presenter notes as you would in a paper — notes are evaluated as part of the submission
  • For books cited as institutional reports or edited volumes, follow the authored book format: Bowen, J. A., & Watson, C. E. (2024). Teaching with AI: A practical guide to a new era of human learning. Johns Hopkins University Press.
📚

Verified External Resource: SACSCOC Accreditation Standards

SACSCOC publishes its complete accreditation principles and supplementary guidance at sacscoc.org/accrediting-standards/. The Good Practices document supplements these standards — it does not replace them. For Advanced-level SACSCOC integration, you should be able to explain how the AI Good Practices document connects to specific SACSCOC accreditation standards, particularly those related to institutional effectiveness, academic programs, and student outcomes. This connection — between the Good Practices guidance and the underlying accreditation standard it serves — is the kind of multi-layer SACSCOC application that distinguishes Advanced from Proficient.

Quality Control

Common Errors That Cost Points — and How to Prevent Each One

#The ErrorWhy It Costs PointsThe Fix
1 Writing a generic AI ethics paper instead of an institutional policy deliverable The project asks you to produce institutional documents — a policy and a faculty training presentation — not a research paper about AI in higher education. A submission that argues for why AI policy matters in general, reviews the literature on AI and academic integrity, and concludes with recommendations does not meet the deliverable requirement. It will score poorly on structure and professionalism because it is not formatted like a policy document or a training presentation. Before writing anything, identify the deliverable format for each part. Part 3 is a slide deck with presenter notes. Format it as one. The content within the slides is where your research appears — but the format must be a presentation, not a paper presented as slides. Use slide titles that communicate actions or conclusions, not just topic labels.
2 Referencing FSU by name without using any FSU-specific document content Naming FSU without integrating FSU’s actual policy language scores in the Developing range for institutional alignment — the rubric is explicit that Developing work uses “vague or generic references” with “limited connection to chosen institution.” If your policy and presentation would read identically if you substituted any other university’s name, you have not achieved institutional alignment. Open FSU’s faculty handbook, student handbook, and strategic plan before drafting. Extract at least three specific quotes or provisions from these documents — actual language, not paraphrases — and build your policy and presentation around them. The specific language of FSU’s existing academic integrity definitions should appear verbatim in your policy’s definitions section, with your AI-specific additions clearly layered on top of them.
3 Citing SACSCOC only in the introduction and nowhere else A single SACSCOC citation in the introduction signals to the grader that you consulted the document but did not use it. The Advanced criterion requires applying “multiple relevant SACSCOC guidelines directly and accurately” — the word “directly” means at the point in the text where the guideline governs a decision. A SACSCOC citation belongs wherever a specific SACSCOC provision is the basis for a policy requirement or training recommendation. After drafting your slides and presenter notes, search for every SACSCOC citation. If they are all in the first two slides, redistribute them. Every slide that presents a policy requirement or faculty expectation grounded in SACSCOC guidance should carry a SACSCOC citation at that point — in the presenter notes if not on the slide face itself.
4 Presenter notes that just repeat what the slide says Presenter notes are where your evidence, citations, and extended reasoning live. They are evaluated as part of your submission. Notes that say “This slide explains the policy” or restate the bullet points in sentence form are not adding information — they are wasting the evaluation opportunity that notes provide. The rubric’s evidence criterion applies to presenter notes. Write presenter notes as if you are preparing to answer a faculty question on each slide. What is the evidence for this policy requirement? What does SACSCOC say? What does FSU’s handbook say? What should the presenter say if a faculty member pushes back? Notes written to that standard will automatically contain the citations and reasoning the rubric rewards.
5 Biblical verse that appears on one slide with no connection to the argument A verse that appears on a “Values” or “Mission” slide with no explanation of why that verse applies to this policy, at this institution, for this faculty audience does not meet the integration standard. The rubric’s Advanced threshold for ethical leadership reasoning requires biblical integration — not appearance. Integration means the verse is connected to a specific claim in the argument and that connection is made explicit. Write the explanation of the verse before you choose the slide to put it on. If you cannot write two to three sentences explaining how this verse specifically applies to a policy decision or faculty responsibility in the context of FSU’s AI policy, find a different verse. The explanation drives the integration — the slide placement follows.
6 No actionable guidance for faculty in the faculty responsibilities section Faculty attending a training presentation need to leave knowing exactly what they must do differently. A slide that says “Faculty should be aware of AI use in student work” provides no actionable guidance. The difference between a professional training presentation and a student assignment is that the former changes behavior — it tells people what to do, how to do it, and what happens if they do not. The faculty responsibilities section should answer three specific questions: What must appear in every syllabus? What should faculty do when they suspect AI misuse? Where do they go for support or clarification? If your slides cannot answer all three questions with specific, institution-referenced responses, revise them before submission.
✅

Pre-Submission Checklist for EDUC759 Part 3

  • Presentation is 10–12 slides with presenter notes on every slide
  • Slide 1 is a professional title slide with institution name, presenter role (CAO), date, and presentation title
  • Introduction slide states the policy rationale with citation to both SACSCOC (2025) and FSU’s strategic plan
  • Policy overview slide defines key terms using language drawn from FSU’s existing academic integrity documents
  • Permitted vs. prohibited uses are grounded in specific SACSCOC Good Practices language
  • Faculty responsibilities slide addresses syllabi, assignment design, and student advising — three distinct domains
  • Sample scenario or syllabus statement included and specific enough to be adopted by faculty directly
  • Biblical verse appears on a slide where it connects to a specific argument — not as a standalone quotation
  • FSU mission language quoted directly and connected to the AI policy rationale
  • Support and contact slide names specific FSU offices or units, not generic administrative categories
  • Presenter notes contain citations at the point of every SACSCOC or institutional document reference
  • Minimum 5 sources cited; all peer-reviewed or institutional; all in APA 7th format in a reference slide
  • SACSCOC cited in multiple slides, not only in the introduction
  • FSU Faculty Handbook and Student Handbook both cited with specific provisions referenced
  • Slide formatting is consistent, professional, and appropriate for a faculty audience at an academic institution

Need Expert Help With Your EDUC759 Final Project?

Our team covers educational leadership assignments, policy development papers, AI ethics analysis, and professional presentation design at the doctoral level.

Get Professional Help Now →
Common Questions

FAQs: EDUC759 Final Project on Ethical Leadership and AI Policy

What exactly does the rubric mean by “SACSCOC Good Practices” — and how many must I reference?
The SACSCOC Good Practices document (June 2025) is the primary external accreditation framework the assignment is built around. The rubric requires you to reference it as guidance that governs FSU’s institutional responsibilities regarding AI in academic work. The Advanced threshold uses the phrase “multiple relevant SACSCOC guidelines directly and accurately” — meaning you need to identify several distinct provisions from the document and apply each one to a specific element of your policy or presentation. There is no hard number specified, but if you are citing only one provision, you are not meeting the Advanced standard. Treat the document as a policy manual: identify the provisions relevant to academic integrity definitions, faculty responsibilities, disclosure expectations, and institutional governance, then cite each at the point in your submission where it governs a decision. Our EdD assignment help service includes specialists who work with accreditation frameworks including SACSCOC documentation.
Can I use a university other than Fayetteville State University for this assignment?
The assignment instructions specify Fayetteville State University as the institutional context. You must use FSU’s actual documents — faculty handbook, student handbook, strategic plan, and any AI-specific guidance — as the institutional alignment foundation for your work. The only flexibility the assignment provides is in earlier parts where it references selecting “a real college or university (preferably SACSCOC-accredited)” — but Part 3 is tied to the institution already selected, which your assignment materials specify as FSU. Working with FSU specifically requires accessing publicly available documents from uncfsu.edu and the FSU Office of Academic Affairs. If you are uncertain about your specific section’s requirements, review the full assignment instructions with your course materials before finalizing your institutional context.
What is the difference between Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 — and does Part 3 stand alone?
The three-part structure is sequential: Part 1 establishes the institutional context and analyzes the policy landscape; Part 2 develops the actual academic integrity policy on AI; Part 3 translates that policy into a faculty training presentation. The assignment states “each part builds sequentially toward the final deliverable.” This means Part 3 is not a standalone task — it presupposes that you have developed a policy (Part 2) and that your training presentation is communicating that specific policy to FSU faculty. If you are working on Part 3 independently of Parts 1 and 2, you need to establish the policy content your presentation is communicating before designing the slides. The presentation is not about AI policy in general — it is about FSU’s specific AI policy developed in Part 2. Our presentation writing service covers both the content development and slide design components for doctoral-level training presentations.
How should I handle the Perkins et al. (2024) source about AI detection limits in my presentation?
Perkins et al. (2024) — “Detection of GPT-4 Generated Text in Higher Education: Combining Academic Judgement and Software to Identify Generative AI Tool Misuse,” published in the Journal of Academic Ethics — is one of the more analytically demanding sources in your reference list because its argument complicates the simple enforcement narrative that AI detection tools reliably identify AI-generated work. The article demonstrates the limitations of AI detection software and argues for combining software with academic judgment rather than relying on either alone. This is directly relevant to your faculty responsibilities slide: faculty cannot be instructed to “run all papers through an AI detector” as if that produces reliable outcomes. Your policy’s enforcement provisions and your faculty training guidance need to acknowledge what Perkins et al. found and explain how FSU’s approach handles those limitations — whether through contextual assessment, disclosure requirements, or assignment redesign that makes AI detection less necessary. Citing this source without engaging with its argument about detection limits is a missed analytical opportunity.
Does the presentation need to be submitted as an actual PowerPoint file, or can I describe the slides in a document?
The assignment specifies “10–12 slides (with presenter notes) or a narrated video” — meaning the deliverable should be an actual presentation file (PowerPoint, Google Slides, or equivalent) with real slides and notes fields, or a recorded video presentation. A document that describes what the slides would contain is not the specified deliverable format. The rubric criterion for Structure and Professionalism specifically rewards “well-organized, polished writing or presentation; appropriate tone and formatting for academic/professional setting” — which implies that the presentation’s visual and design quality is being evaluated alongside its content. If you are submitting slides, use a professional template, consistent fonts, and appropriate visual hierarchy. The slides should look like something a CAO would actually present at a faculty orientation, not a student project. Our PowerPoint presentation writing service covers the full design and content development process for academic and institutional presentations at the doctoral level.
What ethical leadership theory should I use, and does it need to be a specific named theory?
The rubric criterion specifies “ethical analysis grounded in theory” — it does not name a required theory. You have flexibility in selecting the theoretical framework, but it must be a recognized leadership or ethics theory that you apply explicitly rather than reference in passing. Strong options given the project’s context include transformational leadership theory (Burns, 1978; Bass, 1985) applied to the policy development and faculty engagement process; Kezar’s framework for institutional change — already in your reference list — applied to how the policy was developed and how the training is designed to achieve buy-in; ethical leadership frameworks from educational administration literature, including servant leadership or justice-oriented leadership given FSU’s mission as an HBCU; and AI-specific ethics frameworks such as those addressing algorithmic fairness, transparency, and accountability, which connect the technical dimensions of AI to institutional ethical obligations. The choice of theory matters less than the depth of application. A thorough application of one theory — explaining what it predicts, connecting those predictions to specific decisions in your project, and citing the theoretical literature that supports those connections — scores higher than surface-level references to three or four theories without developed application of any of them. Our EdD assignment help and ethical leadership paper help services support exactly this kind of theory-to-practice integration at the doctoral level.
Final Note

What Separates a Passing Submission From One That Scores at the Top of Every Criterion

The highest-scoring EDUC759 final project submissions share a common characteristic: every element of the work is connected to every other element through a coherent argument. The SACSCOC provisions connect to FSU’s institutional context. The institutional context connects to the policy’s specific requirements. The policy requirements connect to the faculty training slides. The training slides connect to the ethical leadership theory that explains why the policy was designed the way it was. The biblical integration connects to the institutional mission that provides the moral foundation for all of it.

That connective logic is what the rubric is evaluating when it awards Advanced-level scores across all five criteria simultaneously. It is not enough to address each criterion in isolation — the advanced-level work demonstrates that SACSCOC integration, institutional alignment, ethical theory, and professional presentation are all serving the same institutional argument, the same policy, the same faculty audience.

The Fayetteville State University context gives you everything you need to make this work specific: an HBCU mission with explicit equity commitments, a real faculty handbook with binding professional expectations, a strategic plan that names institutional priorities, and a SACSCOC accreditation relationship that makes the June 2025 Good Practices document directly relevant to FSU’s compliance obligations. None of that context is window dressing — it is the analytical substrate of the project. Submissions that use it earn the points. Submissions that treat FSU as a name attached to generic higher education content do not.

If you need professional support developing any component of the EDUC759 final project — policy drafting, faculty training presentation design, ethical leadership analysis, SACSCOC framework application, or APA citation formatting — our team at Smart Academic Writing covers doctoral-level educational leadership assignments at every stage. Visit our academic writing services, our EdD assignment help service, our policy paper writing service, our ethical leadership paper help, or our PowerPoint presentation writing service.

📖

Verified External Resource: SACSCOC Accreditation Standards and Good Practices

SACSCOC publishes both its Principles of Accreditation and supplementary guidance documents — including the June 2025 Good Practices on AI — at sacscoc.org/accrediting-standards/. The Good Practices document is directly linked from this page and is freely accessible as a PDF. Read the full document — not just the executive summary — before drafting your project. The specific provisions governing academic integrity, faculty responsibilities, and institutional governance of AI are located in the body of the document, not the introduction, and those provisions are the ones the rubric rewards you for applying. APA citation: Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges. (2025, June). Good practices on the use of artificial intelligence in higher education. SACSCOC. https://sacscoc.org/app/uploads/2025/06/AI-Good-Practices-Document.pdf