{"id":3494,"date":"2026-11-10T13:04:48","date_gmt":"2026-11-10T13:04:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.manchester.ac.uk\/itl\/?p=3494"},"modified":"2026-11-10T15:18:24","modified_gmt":"2026-11-10T15:18:24","slug":"what-we-learned-from-the-programme-directors-event-ai-in-teaching-and-learning-policy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.manchester.ac.uk\/itl\/2026\/11\/10\/what-we-learned-from-the-programme-directors-event-ai-in-teaching-and-learning-policy\/","title":{"rendered":"Reflections on the AI in Teaching and Learning policy event for Programme Directors – what we learned"},"content":{"rendered":"

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ fullwidth=”on” admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”4.27.9″ global_module=”322″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_fullwidth_menu menu_id=”7″ submenu_direction=”downwards” fullwidth_menu=”off” module_class=”main-navigation” _builder_version=”4.16″ background_layout=”dark” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_fullwidth_menu][\/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ specialty=”on” _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”2_3″ specialty_columns=”2″ _builder_version=”4.16″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_row_inner _builder_version=”4.16″ locked=”off” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column_inner saved_specialty_column_type=”2_3″ _builder_version=”4.16″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_post_title comments=”off” featured_image=”off” _builder_version=”4.16″ locked=”on” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_post_title][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.9″ hover_enabled=”0″ global_colors_info=”{}” sticky_enabled=”0″]<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/b><\/h4>\n

 <\/p>\n

We recently (September 2026), held our first University-wide event for Programme Directors (PDs), which aimed to give PDs a space to ask questions, seek clarification and discuss the practical implications of the University’s new AI in Teaching and Learning policy. The session provided useful insight into both the implementation of the policy and how we engage PDs more broadly. My colleagues and I in the Teaching Excellence team are really committed to developing support for programme directors. This work will gain new momentum in December when we are joined by a new Academic Delivery Lead for Programme Leadership. This support is a work in progress, and we\u2019re learning as we go. In this blog, I\u2019m sharing my own reflections on what we got right, what we need to do differently, and what we learnt through the process.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

From a policy perspective, the discussions highlighted key areas where we need to do more to support PDs, and academic colleagues more generally, in putting the policy into practice, as well as\u00a0variations in how it has been interpreted and applied\u00a0across disciplines.\u00a0The event also highlighted the value of the resources developed for the <\/span>AI in Teaching and Learning Needs Hub<\/span><\/a> and how these are supporting colleagues with their teaching.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

When engaging with PDs, there was clear appetite among\u00a0colleagues\u00a0for opportunities to connect, share practice and discuss common challenges.\u00a0We also learned a lot about how we can do this more effectively in future, for example, by having events with a clearly defined purpose\u00a0\u2013 are we sharing information, facilitating discussion, or creating an opportunity for connection? – and by creating space for discipline specific discussions (and ensuring better acoustics!).\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

What we learned and next steps about the policy<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/h4>\n

For the AI policy specifically, the event was valuable not because it resolved every question, but because it surfaced where colleagues need greater clarity, practical guidance and support. <\/span>From the insight we gained from PDs\u00a0before, during and after the event, there were three key things\u00a0we took away that need\u00a0attention:<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

1. A need to look at the Academic Malpractice procedure and support<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n

The relationship between application of the policy and academic malpractice was a recurring concern. There are some fundamental questions about\u00a0whether the policy is primarily intended to guide conversations about AI use in teaching and learning\u00a0or to\u00a0establish rules that can be monitored and enforced and, if the latter, how this might work in practice. <\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

PDs also raised practical questions about how the policy works at programme and course-unit level, who is responsible for ensuring consistency, and what role PDs should play where individual course units or colleagues take different approaches.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

To help answer some of these questions, the Copilot Co-ordination and Advisory (CoCoA) Group continues to support the implementation of the AI in Teaching and Learning Policy, reviewing practical challenges and creating the resources\u00a0on the <\/span>AI Teaching and Learning Needs Hub<\/span><\/a>\u00a0to support colleagues across the University. CoCoA is also\u00a0liaising with colleagues responsible for academic malpractice procedures to explore how these align with the policy and identify where further clarification or guidance may be needed, particularly around consistent application of the policy\u00a0and the responsibilities of PDs and other colleagues. The group has also reviewed the questions raised by PDs before, during and after\u00a0our September event\u00a0(see\u00a0<\/span>AI in Teaching and Learning policy: Pre-submitted questions from Programme Directors<\/span><\/a>).<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

2. Better support for colleagues in redesigning assessments<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n

Assessment and assessment design\u00a0was\u00a0at the heart of many conversations, from questions about applying the policy to different types of assessment through to bigger discussions\u00a0about the suitability of existing assessment approaches in an AI-enabled environment.\u00a0Questions about what constitutes AI-Minimal (Category B)\u00a0versus AI-Permitted (Category C)\u00a0use arose repeatedly, including how this applies to language support, translation, restructuring text and discipline-specific practice.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The University has recently appointed an Academic Delivery Lead for Assessment, who will help support colleagues in reviewing and developing assessment practices in response to emerging challenges and opportunities, including those associated with generative AI. This work will help inform the continued development of practical guidance and support on the AI Needs Hub\u00a0for colleagues <\/span>designing assessments in<\/span> an AI-enabled world<\/span><\/a>.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

3. Fostering more conversations with students about how to make decisions around AI use<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n

The challenge is increasingly about implementation, rather than simply awareness of the policy. This encompasses both supporting students to make decisions about how to use AI responsibly in the context of their learning, and providing practical resources for colleagues to help guide these conversations. Conversations\u00a0highlighted the importance of accessible guidance, examples and tools that colleagues can use immediately within their programmes, whilst allowing for disciplinary context.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In response to these challenges, the <\/span>AI Teaching and Learning Needs Hub<\/span><\/a> brings together <\/span>practical guidance, resources and worked examples to help colleagues support students in making informed decisions about responsible AI use. This includes guidance on communicating the policy to students, study skills resources and examples of how AI can be used appropriately in different learning and assessment contexts. Colleagues may also find the following resources helpful:<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n