Teaching & Learning
- UCL also states that assessment-specific expectations should be made clear to students
- For coursework and other assessed work, UCL allows AI use only when the assessment guidance or module leader permits it
- Students remain responsible for the accuracy and originality of submitted work, and using AI beyond what has been explicitly allowed can be treated as academic misconduct
There is no one-size-fits-all approach to using AI in your assessments. What’s acceptable will depend on the learning outcomes and assessment design.
If your assessment guidance explicitly allows the use of AI tools, you may use them as directed.
If your assessment guidance does not mention AI use, you should assume that it is not permitted and ask your module leader or tutor for clarification.
You are responsible for the content you submit, even if it was generated or assisted by AI.
Submitting work generated by AI as if it were your own, where this has not been authorised, may be considered academic misconduct.
Assessment tasks must be designed with explicit consideration of whether and how GenAI tools may be used by students.
Students should be clearly informed when and how GenAI use is permitted, restricted, or prohibited in each assessment.
- Unauthorized AI use in assessed work may amount to academic misconduct
- Where no permission is given, students are told to assume AI is not allowed and to seek clarification
- UCL does not permit a single blanket rule across all assessments; AI use in assessments depends on the specific assessment instructions
There is no one-size-fits-all approach to using AI in your assessments. What’s acceptable will depend on the learning outcomes and assessment design.
If your assessment guidance explicitly allows the use of AI tools, you may use them as directed.
If your assessment guidance does not mention AI use, you should assume that it is not permitted and ask your module leader or tutor for clarification.
Submitting work generated by AI as if it were your own, where this has not been authorised, may be considered academic misconduct.
- Students are expected to check accuracy, bias, and appropriateness, and AI use for learning does not automatically transfer to permission for assessed work
- UCL encourages critical and reflective use of generative AI to support learning, such as exploring ideas and receiving feedback, but warns students not to rely on outputs uncritically
Used thoughtfully, GenAI can help you:
• clarify ideas or concepts
• receive feedback on drafts
• explore different viewpoints
• practise language or communication skills
• support revision or planning
You should always critically evaluate AI outputs. GenAI tools can produce inaccurate, biased or fabricated content.
Using AI to support your learning is not the same as being allowed to use it in an assessment.
- No distinct programming-only standard was identified in the provided sources
- UCL does not set a separate university-wide rule for AI code generation in student programming tasks beyond its general assessment rules
- Use of tools such as generative AI in coding assignments is therefore governed by assessment-specific instructions, and students should assume it is not permitted unless explicitly allowed
There is no one-size-fits-all approach to using AI in your assessments. What’s acceptable will depend on the learning outcomes and assessment design.
If your assessment guidance explicitly allows the use of AI tools, you may use them as directed.
If your assessment guidance does not mention AI use, you should assume that it is not permitted and ask your module leader or tutor for clarification.
Research
- AI tools cannot be listed as authors, and students must acknowledge relevant use
- The researcher remains accountable for accuracy, originality, and compliance with authorship expectations
- For doctoral research, UCL permits use of generative AI in writing support only with transparency and only where the researcher retains responsibility for the work
Students may use generative AI tools in support of their doctoral research, for example to assist with language editing, summarising, coding, or idea generation, where appropriate.
Students remain fully responsible for the accuracy, integrity and originality of all submitted work.
Generative AI tools cannot be attributed as authors.
Students must be transparent about their use of generative AI in their research and writing.
Any use of generative AI that materially contributes to the development of written work should be acknowledged appropriately.
- Research use is conditioned by transparency and by broader research ethics and integrity obligations
- The provided sources do not establish a more detailed university-wide rule specifically for AI-driven data analysis workflows beyond those general requirements
- UCL allows doctoral researchers to use generative AI for activities including coding and idea generation, but requires them to remain fully responsible for the integrity and accuracy of the resulting research
Students may use generative AI tools in support of their doctoral research, for example to assist with language editing, summarising, coding, or idea generation, where appropriate.
Students remain fully responsible for the accuracy, integrity and originality of all submitted work.
Students must be transparent about their use of generative AI in their research and writing.
Researchers must ensure that their research is conducted according to appropriate ethical, legal and professional frameworks, obligations and standards.
- For doctoral research, students must be transparent about generative AI use and cannot attribute authorship to AI tools
- UCL requires research involving AI to comply with research integrity and ethics standards, including legal, ethical, and professional obligations
- The sources support a general integrity framework and a specific transparency requirement for doctoral work, but do not provide a detailed university-wide rule about AI in grant proposals or ethics applications
Researchers must ensure that their research is conducted according to appropriate ethical, legal and professional frameworks, obligations and standards.
UCL expects all those engaged in research to maintain the highest standards of rigour and integrity in all aspects of research.
Students must be transparent about their use of generative AI in their research and writing.
Generative AI tools cannot be attributed as authors.
Academic Integrity
- UCL also makes clear that students remain responsible for the final submitted content
- UCL requires transparency when AI use has materially contributed to academic or research work where such use is allowed
- Students must acknowledge relevant use of generative AI, and doctoral researchers are explicitly told that AI tools cannot be named as authors
Students must be transparent about their use of generative AI in their research and writing.
Any use of generative AI that materially contributes to the development of written work should be acknowledged appropriately.
Generative AI tools cannot be attributed as authors.
You are responsible for the content you submit, even if it was generated or assisted by AI.
- UCL states that unauthorized AI-generated or AI-assisted submission can be treated as academic misconduct and places responsibility for submitted content on the student
- However, UCL explicitly does not support or use Turnitin's AI detection tool or other commercial AI detectors due to concerns over unreliability, false positives, and discriminatory bias
Submitting work generated by AI as if it were your own, where this has not been authorised, may be considered academic misconduct.
You are responsible for the content you submit, even if it was generated or assisted by AI.
We do not currently support the use of Turnitin's AI detection tool or other AI detectors. They can be unreliable and have been shown to be discriminatory.
Institutional & Administrative
- The institution also promotes a more secure university-provided AI tool for staff and students
- Staff are expected to make explicit decisions about whether AI is allowed in assessments and to communicate those conditions clearly to students
- UCL permits and supports staff use of generative AI in teaching and related work, but emphasizes human oversight, professional judgment, and careful design of assessment practices
Assessment tasks must be designed with explicit consideration of whether and how GenAI tools may be used by students.
Students should be clearly informed when and how GenAI use is permitted, restricted, or prohibited in each assessment.
A more secure generative AI tool is now available to staff and students at UCL.
It is important that we approach AI in education in a way that supports learning, safeguards academic standards and reflects our values as a university community.
- The clearest explicit position is the availability of a more secure UCL-supported tool
- UCL indicates that it has made a more secure generative AI tool available to staff and students, signaling an institutionally supported platform for safer use
- However, the provided sources do not set out a detailed data-classification regime or a full list of prohibited external platforms within the extracted materials
A more secure generative AI tool is now available to staff and students at UCL.
- It has published central teaching and learning guidance and publicly signaled strategic institutional reflection on AI adoption
- The provided sources show governance through central guidance and institutional messaging, rather than a single standalone AI strategy document
- UCL has an institution-level approach to AI in education that emphasizes supporting learning, protecting academic standards, and aligning AI use with university values
It is important that we approach AI in education in a way that supports learning, safeguards academic standards and reflects our values as a university community.
AI in Teaching and Learning at UCL
This guidance is intended to support staff in understanding and responding to the opportunities and challenges presented by generative AI in education.
DocuMark: Responsible AI Use for Academic Integrity
Knowing your institution's AI policy is step one. DocuMark helps enforce it fairly by empowering universities to manage AI-generated content, prevent cheating, and support student writing through responsible AI use.
Common Questions About University College London (UCL)'s AI Policies
University College London (UCL) has defined AI policies in 12 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 100%.
UCL requires transparency when AI use has materially contributed to academic or research work where such use is allowed. Students must acknowledge relevant use of generative AI, and doctoral researchers are explicitly told that AI tools cannot be named as authors. UCL also makes clear that students remain responsible for the final submitted content.
UCL states that unauthorized AI-generated or AI-assisted submission can be treated as academic misconduct and places responsibility for submitted content on the student. However, UCL explicitly does not support or use Turnitin's AI detection tool or other commercial AI detectors due to concerns over unreliability, false positives, and discriminatory bias.
UCL indicates that it has made a more secure generative AI tool available to staff and students, signaling an institutionally supported platform for safer use. However, the provided sources do not set out a detailed data-classification regime or a full list of prohibited external platforms within the extracted materials. The clearest explicit position is the availability of a more secure UCL-supported tool.