AI Use Statement
How AI Was Used in the Development of This Book
Generative artificial intelligence was used in the development of this book. Because there are important and ongoing conversations about the role of AI in writing and authorship, we want to be transparent about how AI was used, what it contributed, and what remained the responsibility of the author.
This Book Began With Existing Work and Experience
This book did not begin with a prompt asking AI to create a guide to OER.
It began with two existing OER books that had previously been adapted for use at Palomar College and with years of resources, experiences, and feedback related to supporting faculty with OER. These included:
- questions faculty frequently ask when adopting, adapting, and creating OER;
- feedback and experiences shared by faculty authors;
- professional development workshops offered at Palomar;
- existing guides and faculty support materials;
- Palomar’s CALM OER training course; and
- the instructional design and OER experience of the author, Kelly Falcone.
The goal was to bring these resources and experiences together into one guide that would be concise, practical, and specific to the needs of Palomar faculty.
How ChatGPT Was Used
ChatGPT was used as an assistant throughout the development and revision process.
Much of the process began with the author providing ideas, existing content, source materials, and detailed direction without worrying about grammar, spelling, or organization. ChatGPT helped transform these “brain dumps” and existing materials into organized drafts that could then be reviewed and revised.
ChatGPT was used to:
- synthesize information from the existing materials provided by the author;
- organize content around the questions Palomar faculty most often ask;
- identify overlap and redundancy across existing resources and early drafts;
- draft and revise text based on the author’s ideas, content, and direction;
- help make sections more concise and easier to navigate;
- identify useful connections between chapters and places where links to related information could help readers;
- compare revisions and help identify gaps or unnecessary repetition; and
- produce HTML code used to format the final content in Pressbooks.
The process was iterative. AI-generated drafts were not simply accepted and published. The author reviewed the output, provided additional context and detailed instructions, identified inaccurate or unnecessary content, corrected misunderstandings, rejected suggestions, and repeatedly directed revisions.
In many cases, effective use of AI required explaining not only what the author wanted, but also why a response did not work and what needed to change.
AI Was Part of the Process, Not the Source of the Expertise
The ideas, source materials, institutional knowledge, instructional design decisions, and OER expertise that shaped this book came from the author and the existing work and experiences brought into the project.
ChatGPT helped organize, synthesize, draft, revise, and produce that work. It did not replace the expertise required to determine what the book should say or whether the finished content was accurate and useful.
What AI Did Not Do
ChatGPT did not determine what Palomar faculty needed to know about OER. It did not supply the author’s instructional design expertise or experience supporting faculty. It did not independently decide the purpose, philosophy, organization, or final content of this guide.
AI also did not replace the author’s responsibility to evaluate the accuracy, usefulness, relevance, accessibility, and appropriateness of the finished resource.
The author made the final decisions about:
- the purpose and intended audience of the guide;
- which existing materials and experiences should inform the resource;
- which questions the guide needed to answer;
- how concepts should be explained and organized;
- what information should be added, revised, moved, or removed;
- whether AI-generated drafts accurately represented the author’s ideas and Palomar’s context;
- whether suggestions made by AI were useful or appropriate; and
- whether the finished content was ready to publish.
AI was a tool used in the development process. Human expertise, judgment, feedback, revision, and responsibility remained essential throughout.
You Are the Expert. AI Is Your Assistant.
This book reflects the same approach to AI encouraged throughout this guide. AI can be a powerful assistant, but useful results depend on what the human brings to the process.
In developing this book, AI was most useful when it was given strong source material, clear goals, detailed instructions, context, and ongoing feedback. The author still had to recognize when something was inaccurate, redundant, unnecessary, unclear, or simply not what was intended.
Using AI did not eliminate the need for expertise. It made that expertise easier to organize, develop, revise, and turn into a finished resource.
This Statement Is Also an Example for Your Own OER
Creating an AI Use Statement for Your Own OER
If you use generative AI while developing an OER, consider being transparent about how it contributed to the finished resource. Your statement does not need to defend the use of AI or simply declare that “AI was used.” Instead, help readers understand what actually happened.
Consider explaining:
- What informed the resource: your expertise, existing OER, research, course materials, institutional resources, or other source materials;
- Which AI tools you used: identify tools such as ChatGPT when appropriate;
- What AI helped you do: for example, brainstorming, organizing, synthesizing, drafting, revising, reviewing, creating media, developing activities, or formatting content;
- How you worked with the AI: describe the human direction, review, feedback, correction, and revision that were part of the process; and
- What remained your responsibility: identify the expertise, decisions, verification, review, and final responsibility that remained with the human author.
There are legitimate concerns and ongoing discussions about AI-assisted writing and authorship. Clear disclosure gives readers useful information about how a resource was created and makes the human contribution and responsibility visible.
Want additional guidance or examples?
- OER Commons Guidance on AI Use for OER Creation provides guidance for transparently and responsibly using AI in the creation of OER;
- Kwantlen Polytechnic University’s AI Declaration Statement provides an example of how AI contributions can be described in an OER;
- OER Commons AI & OER Hub provides additional resources related to artificial intelligence and open education; and
- ASCCC OERI: Harnessing the Power of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Open Educational Resources (OER) to Support Student Learning provides a California Community Colleges perspective on using AI with OER.
Transparency does not require minimizing AI’s role or overstating it. The goal is to give readers enough information to understand how AI contributed to the resource and where human expertise, judgment, review, and responsibility remained part of the process.
