Teaching & Learning
- In placement-related work, students must submit their own work and must not submit AI-generated work as their own
- For assessed course work, generative AI is prohibited unless the module leader has explicitly authorised it as part of the assessment design
The University’s Academic Board, which includes representation from Brighton Students’ Union and your School, has agreed that you can only use generative AI in assessment when authorised. Therefore, using these tools is not permitted unless your module leader has given you permission to do so and incorporated it into the design of the assessment.
Our university policy states that students must ensure that any work submitted to their educators (such as personal reflections, treatment plans, classroom lesson plans, presentations) or written notes (e.g. patients records, classroom reports) is their own work.
• Not submit Gen-AI generated work as their own
- Otherwise, its use in assessments is not permitted
- The university states that generative AI may be used in assessments only when authorised by the module leader and built into the assessment design
Please find below a statement on the University’s position on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools when producing work for assessment as part of your course.
The University’s Academic Board, which includes representation from Brighton Students’ Union and your School, has agreed that you can only use generative AI in assessment when authorised. Therefore, using these tools is not permitted unless your module leader has given you permission to do so and incorporated it into the design of the assessment. If you are unclear about this, please ask your module leader.
- The university permits AI for learning support in some contexts, including brainstorming, proofreading, quizzes, translation, explanation of complex ideas, and supporting students on placement
- It says such use should enhance learning rather than replace students' own thinking, and students are expected to use it cautiously, check accuracy and bias, and discuss application with educators in practice settings
You can use Gen AI tools (eg Chat GTP, Gemini) to support your application but you must not use Gen AI to generate large amounts of content. This means you may, for example, use AI to help you brainstorm ideas or proofread your writing but you must not ask AI to write your personal statement or research proposal.
They can provide educators with useful technology to help support students on placement, for example providing quizzes, translating / breaking down complex ideas, understanding diagnosis as well as learning about how AI is being used in practice.
Generative AI should be used to enhance a student's learning and development on placement and not to deskill them or replace their own thinking, reasoning and learning that is essential to them as qualified professionals.
• Discuss with educators how they apply the knowledge generated through Gen-AI to the practice context to ensure understanding
• Use Gen-AI with caution- check for factual accuracy and or bias
Research
- No broader university policy for manuscripts, theses, or dissertations is explicitly defined in the provided sources
- For PhD applications, the university allows limited AI support such as brainstorming and proofreading, but prohibits using generative AI to write substantial content such as the personal statement or research proposal
We support the ethical and responsible use of Generative AI in alignment with the guiding principle of good academic practice. This principle requires academic work to be completed independently and honestly, using appropriate referencing and acknowledging all sources.
You can use Gen AI tools (eg Chat GTP, Gemini) to support your application but you must not use Gen AI to generate large amounts of content. This means you may, for example, use AI to help you brainstorm ideas or proofread your writing but you must not ask AI to write your personal statement or research proposal.
- It requires independent and honest work with appropriate referencing and acknowledgement of sources during the application process
- For postgraduate research admissions, the university ties AI use to good academic practice and warns that applicants who do not follow the guidance risk rejection
We support the ethical and responsible use of Generative AI in alignment with the guiding principle of good academic practice. This principle requires academic work to be completed independently and honestly, using appropriate referencing and acknowledging all sources.
This guiding principle also pertains to the application process. Applicants should adhere to the guidance below or risk rejection of their application.
Academic Integrity
- In placement learning, students must be transparent about when and where they used generative AI to support learning
- The university requires transparency when AI use is allowed in assessed work, and for PhD applications it expects appropriate referencing and acknowledgement of all sources
We want to make sure you understand the opportunities and limitations posed by AI tools – such as ChatGPT and Midjourney – and how you can use them, where appropriate, in a transparent manner.
This principle requires academic work to be completed independently and honestly, using appropriate referencing and acknowledging all sources.
This statement outlines the Universities policy: AI can be used when expressly permitted by the module leader, and when it is allowed, it must be declared.
• Be transparent about when and where they have used Gen-AI to support their learning
- The university indicates enforcement through academic misconduct concerns and states that PhD applicants who do not follow the AI guidance risk rejection of their application
- A student-facing article also says the university did not want to focus on an AI-detection 'arms race,' but no formal detection-tool policy is set out in the provided sources
- It also states that if staff have concerns about students not following practice-learning AI guidance, they should escalate those concerns to the relevant practice learning leader or lead mentor
This guiding principle also pertains to the application process. Applicants should adhere to the guidance below or risk rejection of their application.
“Nobody wants to be tarnished with academic misconduct”
“We did not want to get into an arms race where we were trying to detect a technology that was far more sophisticated and was going to develop much quicker.”
If you have any concerns about students not adhering to our guidance then please contact the relevant Practice learning leader (Health and Sport) / Lead Mentor (Education)
Institutional & Administrative
- For practice staff, the university allows generative AI to support students and to help with student reports and feedback, but says this must be done cautiously
- Feedback and assessment must be tailored to the student rather than generic, staff should avoid uploading student data into unprotected AI tools, and they are asked to discuss AI use with students during placement induction
This document aims to provide guidance for practice staff if using Generative Artificial intelligence (Gen AI) to support students on placement.
They can provide educators with useful technology to help support students on placement, for example providing quizzes, translating / breaking down complex ideas, understanding diagnosis as well as learning about how AI is being used in practice.
We would ask that the use of Generative AI is discussed with students in their placement induction and they are made aware of, and become familiar with, any local policies you have.
Whilst we recognise that AI may be useful in helping complete student reports and feedback, it is important that this is done with caution and that a student’s formative or summative assessment / feedback has been tailored to them and they are not receiving generic feedback.
Students often put a lot of effort into the work that they produce for you as educators and we would ask that time is given to provide individualised feedback on the work they provide for you.
- In practice-learning guidance, it prohibits sharing personal data with generative AI sites and tells staff not to upload student data into non-protected tools such as ChatGPT
- The university identifies Microsoft Copilot under its institutional license as the protected AI chatbot available to staff and students, and contrasts it with third-party tools on data protection grounds
Under our University of Brighton institutional license, we have the version of Copilot which refers to the AI chatbot. This is accessible to staff and students using their university logins.
The main advantage of using our institutional Copilot generative AI tool rather than a 3rd party tool such as ChatGPT is down to data protection. Use of Copilot is under commercial data protection regulations – this means that neither we as an institution or Microsoft have eyes-on access to anything that you input and your user account is protected. Additionally, chat data will not be used to train future AI language models.
• Never share personal data (i.e. patient/ class/ school/ organisation data) with Gen-AI sites
Please do not upload student data into non-protected AI tools such as Chat GPT. We use CoPilot at the University as this is protected within the organisation, so please check your own organisation policy.
- The university describes an institution-level position in which Academic Board agreed the assessment rule for generative AI, and it presents itself as taking an exploratory and open-minded approach to AI in teaching and learning
- The student Q&A also describes an internal engagement exercise with research experts and colleagues using AI professionally, indicating institutional coordination, but no formal university-wide strategy document or roadmap is explicitly provided in the sources
The University’s Academic Board, which includes representation from Brighton Students’ Union and your School, has agreed that you can only use generative AI in assessment when authorised.
When it comes to the use of AI in teaching and learning, we are still in the exploratory stage in higher education with best practice and emerging use cases.
“We began with an engagement exercise where we reached out to our internal research experts, we also had several colleagues working with a lot of AI tools within their professional fields, just to get a sense of the pace of development.”
We did not want to get into an arms race where we were trying to detect a technology that was far more sophisticated and was going to develop much quicker.
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 of Brighton's AI Policies
University of Brighton has defined AI policies in 10 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 83%.
The university requires transparency when AI use is allowed in assessed work, and for PhD applications it expects appropriate referencing and acknowledgement of all sources. In placement learning, students must be transparent about when and where they used generative AI to support learning.
The university indicates enforcement through academic misconduct concerns and states that PhD applicants who do not follow the AI guidance risk rejection of their application. It also states that if staff have concerns about students not following practice-learning AI guidance, they should escalate those concerns to the relevant practice learning leader or lead mentor. A student-facing article also says the university did not want to focus on an AI-detection 'arms race,' but no formal detection-tool policy is set out in the provided sources.
The university identifies Microsoft Copilot under its institutional license as the protected AI chatbot available to staff and students, and contrasts it with third-party tools on data protection grounds. In practice-learning guidance, it prohibits sharing personal data with generative AI sites and tells staff not to upload student data into non-protected tools such as ChatGPT.