AI Tools for Teaching and Learning

CM 121: Fundamentals of Construction Estimating

Precise, Practical, Foundational

Reflection on Instructional Change:

I developed an AI policy from practices learnt from the AI Tools for Teaching & Learning Workshop from the Chancellor's Office course. First, I generated policy using Pepperdine's non-AI Syllabus Statement Crafting Tool and combine it with my own writing. I used the following prompt engineering: combine these two texts into one combined policy document, eliminate redundancies and make it a student-facing document. Second, I fine-tuned it to fit my purpose. I was happy with the outcome as it is comprehensive and detailed to the extent that it provides the guidelines to use AI tools and how to document that also on the consequences if not reported.

Implementing an AI use policy, as developed in Module 4, has had a meaningful impact on both my teaching and student learning. Introducing a clear, structured AI policy at the start of the course helped set expectations, increased transparency, and fostered a learning environment built on integrity and responsible use of emerging technologies. Students became more conscious about how and when to use AI tools, and they were encouraged to reflect on their learning rather than blindly relying on technology. Students responded positively to the policy and were open about their use of AI in their submissions. For example, several students included statements like:

"ChatGPT, to assist in drafting sections and to correct grammar."
"ChatGPT for phrases and correction of sentences, and some few explanations of certain terms."

These acknowledgments reflect both adherence to the policy and a growing sense of digital responsibility. Rather than seeing AI as a shortcut, students began viewing it as a support tool—something to complement, not replace, their thinking. This practice not only improved the quality of their submissions but also contributed to a deeper engagement with the material, ultimately enhancing their learning experience.

Through my participation in the Faculty Learning Community (FLC) activities, I gained valuable insights into the role of AI in higher education and how to responsibly integrate it into my teaching. Among the various learning activities, the AI Policy Development assignment had the most significant influence on changes I made to my instruction. Developing a student-facing AI policy required me to think critically about how AI tools are used, the ethical boundaries involved, and the level of transparency that should be expected from students. This activity not only helped me structure a clear set of guidelines, but also made it easier to initiate open conversations with students about academic integrity in the age of AI.

During the "Observe and Analyze Session" with my colleagues, a colleague pointed out the importance of showing an example of how to cite AI tools rather than just referring students to a resource or link. While I initially thought providing a link to citation guidelines would suffice, I realized that some students may not be familiar with how to apply those guidelines in practice. Another colleague supported the idea I raised that students should verify the accuracy of AI-generated information. It was reassuring to hear agreement on this point and it underscored the shared belief that while AI can be a powerful tool, it is not always reliable. This encourages me to continue promoting critical thinking and source-checking as essential academic skills.

Evidence of Instructional Change

Evidence of Instructional Change
Example 1	Example 2	Example 3
During week 1 I explained the course deliverables including the use of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) as a policy included in the course syllabus.	Screenshot of course syllabus with the addition of the use of AI policy stating what it may be used for and a link for properly citing AI language; additional statement that the student is responsible for fact-checking statements composed by AI language models. Failure to acknowledge or cite GAI use will constitute academic misconduct and may be subject to discipline.	AI Tools for Teaching & Learning Completion Certificate or badge.

Practice and Reflect Teaching and Learning with AI:

The AI Tools for Teaching & Learning Workshop has had a meaningful impact on how I approach my teaching practice. It helped shift my perspective on AI from being a tool of convenience to being a powerful educational ally when used thoughtfully and ethically. One of the most valuable takeaways was the emphasis on transparency and clear policy development. These insights have guided me in creating a structured, student-facing AI use policy that I now plan to include in all future course syllabi. The policy outlines acceptable uses, how to cite AI-generated content, and the consequences of misuse—setting expectations early and fostering a responsible learning environment.

Integrating AI has brought new opportunities, such as enhancing student productivity and offering real-time assistance with writing and idea generation. However, it also presents challenges, such as ensuring students do not over-rely on AI, guarding against academic dishonesty, and addressing the potential for misinformation or bias in AI-generated outputs.

An example of an AI tool I’ve incorporated into my course is ChatGPT, which students are allowed to use—with documentation—for support in writing, editing, or clarifying complex terms.

Course Syllabus

CM 121 Course Syllabus

Faculty Bio

Faculty Bio
Faculty Picture	Faculty Professional Background
	Dr. Mohammed Alsharqawi is a faculty member in the Construction Management Department with over 14 years of experience in construction management, infrastructure planning and delivery, asset management, and academia. Dr. Alsharqawi is passionate about teaching, research, and mentoring students and young professionals. He identifies as an Empowered Educator, Research Collaborator, Digital Transformer, and Lifelong Learner.

Funding Source
	This work was supported by: US Department of Education P031S230256 and P031C210012 *Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or the US Department of Education.