University of Bradford AI Policy

5.3.2. Assessment aims

* Learning outcomes tested.

* Marking criteria.

* Level of generative Artificial Intelligence permitted.

* Level of English language proficiency tested.

 Using generative AI tools outside the given parameters of the assessment brief

without acknowledgement or attribution.

5.3.2. Assessment aims

* Learning outcomes tested.

* Marking criteria.

* Level of generative Artificial Intelligence permitted.

* Level of English language proficiency tested.

 Accessing unauthorised materials or assistance during exams.

 Using generative AI tools outside the given parameters of the assessment brief

without acknowledgement or attribution.

Using generative AI tools outside the given parameters of the assessment brief without

acknowledgement or attribution.

Using generative AI tools outside the given parameters of the assessment brief without

acknowledgement or attribution.

Penalty dependent on the nature and extent of the misconduct,

but could include:

 Component capped at zero.

 Module capped at pass mark.

 Module capped at zero (i.e. for credit only).

And, where applicable:

 Attend the Plagiarism Awareness Programme (PAP).

 Attend an Academic Concern Meeting/Tutorial.

 Pass the module in full, if failed.

 The nature of the allegation means that a conversation with the student

about their work is necessary to determine genuine authorship, and the

academic concern meeting did not provide sufficient clarity for the

investigator to reach a decision (e.g. in the case of generative AI use on a

dissertation-type assignment).

Penalty dependent on the nature and extent of the misconduct,

but could include:

 Upheld misconduct outcome on record and transcript.

 Reassessment for capped mark or credit only.

 No opportunity for reassessment

 Repeat elements of programme (e.g. modules or stage).

 Suspension from studies.

 Withdrawal from programme with or without award of

credit.

 Rescinding of credit/award.