Pillar 2: Practical Tools & Decision Support

Built to support you in making informed decisions about when to use AI, when to not, and which tools to use.

This pillar equips you to make responsible AI choices by aligning tool selection, critical verification, and human oversight with Butler’s academic standards.

To AI or Not to AI?

Artificial intelligence tools offer exciting opportunities to enhance teaching, streamline routine tasks, and spark creative assignment ideas. However, AI is not a one-size-fits-all solution, and there are times when traditional methods, such as oral presentations, handwritten essays, and remain the better choice. Using AI effectively means balancing its power as an efficiency booster against potential risks to data privacy, accessibility, and academic rigor. Ensuring that any digital tool in a Butler course is properly vetted protects student privacy, maintains equity, and avoids unforeseen security or legal issues.

Faculty Quick-Starts for the Beginning of the Semester

Check List of Approved AI Tools
Explore Canvas Gemini Integrations

Why Using Approved Tools Matters

Navigating the growing world of classroom technology requires balancing innovation with institutional responsibility. Using Butler-approved tools ensures that every software platform introduced into a course has been thoroughly vetted for data security, FERPA compliance, accessibility, and vendor sustainability. Unapproved third-party tools can expose sensitive student data, create severe accessibility barriers for learners using assistive technologies, or introduce sudden paywalls and contractual risks. Sticking to our vetted tool ecosystem ensures a safe, equitable, and reliable learning environment for all students while keeping faculty protected.

View Butler’s Approved AI Tool List
Request a New Tool

Butler Tool Support Levels for Faculty

Not all technology tools come with the same level of assistance or integration at Butler. Understanding our support tiers helps you plan effectively for your course and know what to expect if something goes wrong. Choosing a Fully Supported tool means you get peace of mind: OEET and campus helpdesks have administrative access to fix issues, provide direct training, and maintain complete documentation. On the other hand, using Approved Standalone or Vendor-Supported tools gives you flexibility to experiment, but means helpdesk support is limited and troubleshooting often relies on third-party guides. Sticking to higher-support tiers minimizes technical friction for both you and your students during the semester.

  • Fully Supported Tools: Complete helpdesk backing, backend administration, and full training (e.g., Canvas, Zoom, Panopto, Microsoft 365, Turnitin).
  • Canvas-Integrated & Publisher Tools: Specialty apps, textbook platforms, and built-in AI tools like the Canvas Gemini Integration that work inside Canvas with some on-site help; however, may not have administrative access to these applications and may only be used by specific departments or units.
  • Approved Standalone Tools: Vetted for privacy and security for faculty experimentation, though helpdesk technical support is limited (e.g., ChatGPT, Claude, Google Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, NotebookLM).
  • Unapproved Tools: Platforms that have not passed IT or legal review (e.g., Perusall, TopHat). Please use fully supported alternatives like Hypothes.is or Poll Everywhere instead.
View Full List of Tools

BoodleBox is a secure, multi-model AI workspace for faculty to test tools safely without institutional or personal data being used to train public models.

  • All-in-One Access: BoodleBox allows faculty and students to test different tools and compare them within the same tool, shifting between leading models like ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini in a single chat window.
  • Custom Course Bots: Build and share tailored assistants loaded with your syllabus or assignment prompts, or customize existing bots to your course’s purposes.
  • Scaffolded Coaching and Built-In Assignments: Receive scaffolded support for prompt engineering and directly build assignments and resources for your class within Boodle Box.
  • FERPA-Safe Environment: Designed specifically for higher education with strict data privacy controls.
  • Get Access: Want to test BoodleBox for your class? Email mmgrady@butler.edu to get started. Because we are currently in a pilot stage with this tool, licenses are limited; however, please express your interest and needs to see if we have options available for you.

Understanding Plagiarism Checkers vs. AI Detectors vs. Provenance Tools

Butler University does not recommend AI detection tools and prohibits using detection scores as sole evidence of academic misconduct. When evaluating student work, it is important to understand the differences in these technologies:

  • Plagiarism Checkers (Reliable): Match text to real, existing sources to identify uncredited copying.
  • AI Detectors (Unreliable): Guess statistical writing patterns rather than finding exact matches, resulting in frequent false positives.
  • Provenance Tools (Emerging): Track a document’s digital history and metadata to show how it was created, rather than guessing based on text patterns.

Human-Centered Alternatives for Academic Integrity

Rather than relying on flawed automated detection algorithms, protect academic integrity through process-focused course design and open dialogue.

AI detectors rely on statistical predictability to guess whether a text is machine-generated. This creates significant linguistic and disability biases across student submissions:

  • Linguistic Bias: Studies show these algorithms consistently flag non-native English speakers at much higher rates. Because ESL writers often use more standardized syntax, simpler vocabulary, and predictable grammatical structures, detectors routinely misinterpret their authentic work as AI-generated output.
  • Disability Bias: AI detectors frequently misidentify text created by neurodivergent students or those using assistive technologies. Tools like grammar checkers, predictive text, speech-to-text software, and screen readers alter sentence mechanics in ways that algorithms falsely flag as machine writing.

To ensure equitable, meaningful assessment, adopt these pedagogical practices:

  • Clear Syllabus Policies: Establish explicit guidelines on when AI is permitted, restricted, or encouraged in your course.
  • Process-Based Assessment: Evaluate progress across multiple milestones, such as initial outlines, annotated bibliographies, and draft revisions, rather than relying solely on a final product.
  • Direct Student Dialogue: If questions arise about a submission, engage the student in a supportive, open conversation about their writing, revision process, and any assistive tools they used.