Teaching & Learning
- Use of generative AI in coursework is determined at the assessment level, not by a single university-wide permission rule
- Students may be allowed, encouraged, or prohibited from using AI depending on the specific assessment brief, and they must follow the stated limits; submitting AI-generated work as their own where it is not permitted is treated as academic misconduct
We have developed four versions of an AI usage statement for summative assessment briefs. These are designed to help programme and unit directors to explain to students where and how AI tools can be used. Depending on whether use is prohibited, unrestricted, integrated or selective, these statements can be added to summative assessment briefs.
It remains the responsibility of each Board of Examiners to decide whether and/or how AI can be used by their students in assessments.
No generative AI tools are permitted in the completion of this assessment.
The use of generative AI tools is allowed in the completion of this assessment.
You may use generative AI tools in this assessment to support specific tasks as directed in the assessment brief.
Presenting work for assessment created through generative AI as though it is a student’s own original work, where this is not explicitly permitted, will be regarded as academic misconduct under the relevant Code of Practice.
- AI use in assessments is governed by the assessment brief and examiner decision
- The university provides assessment-level AI usage statements ranging from complete prohibition to unrestricted or task-specific permission, and students must comply with the brief; unauthorized AI use in an assessment is academic misconduct
We have developed four versions of an AI usage statement for summative assessment briefs. These are designed to help programme and unit directors to explain to students where and how AI tools can be used. Depending on whether use is prohibited, unrestricted, integrated or selective, these statements can be added to summative assessment briefs.
It remains the responsibility of each Board of Examiners to decide whether and/or how AI can be used by their students in assessments.
No generative AI tools are permitted in the completion of this assessment.
You may use generative AI tools in this assessment to support specific tasks as directed in the assessment brief.
If the student has breached the conditions of the assignment, these concerns should be raised under the academic misconduct process.
- Students are permitted to use AI tools to support study and learning activities such as explaining concepts, generating ideas, and creating practice questions
- The university advises students to use AI critically because outputs may be inaccurate or biased, and warns that this support does not automatically extend to assessed work
There are lots of ways in which AI can support your studies. You can use it to:
• explain difficult concepts or simplify information
• create examples to illustrate key ideas
• generate ideas or suggest possible structures for your work
• create revision quizzes and practice questions
• ask for feedback on your work
• improve your understanding of grammar and spelling
• support coding and technical tasks
Remember that whatever support these tools offer, they do not replace your own judgement, critical thinking or responsibility for the work you submit.
AI tools are not always right. They can ‘hallucinate’, make things up, or give biased or misleading responses.
- The university expressly recognizes AI use for coding support, but whether it can be used in programming assignments depends on the assessment brief
- In assessed work, coding-related AI use may be prohibited, unrestricted, or allowed only for specified tasks, and students must stay within the stated conditions
There are lots of ways in which AI can support your studies. You can use it to:
• support coding and technical tasks
We have developed four versions of an AI usage statement for summative assessment briefs. These are designed to help programme and unit directors to explain to students where and how AI tools can be used. Depending on whether use is prohibited, unrestricted, integrated or selective, these statements can be added to summative assessment briefs.
No generative AI tools are permitted in the completion of this assessment.
The use of generative AI tools is allowed in the completion of this assessment.
You may use generative AI tools in this assessment to support specific tasks as directed in the assessment brief.
Research
- AI tools must not generate core academic content or substitute for the student's own analysis, interpretation, or argument, and their use must be declared
- For postgraduate research theses, AI tools may be used only for limited support functions such as proofreading, checking grammar, improving readability, or helping organize ideas, and the student remains responsible for the accuracy and originality of the thesis
PGR students may use AI tools in the writing of their thesis, where this is permitted by their school, for example to:
• Proofread and check grammar;
• Improve readability;
• Help organise ideas.
However, AI tools must not be used to generate content that presents ideas, arguments, results or analysis as if they were the student’s own.
Students remain fully responsible for the accuracy, integrity and originality of their thesis, regardless of any AI assistance.
Students must declare any use of AI tools in the preparation of their thesis, in line with school or faculty guidance.
You must not include AI generated text in your thesis as your own independent work.
- For postgraduate research, AI-generated outputs cannot replace the student's own independent analysis or interpretation in a thesis
- The provided sources do not set a broader university-wide rule on using AI for research data collection, statistical analysis, or synthetic data generation beyond this thesis-writing restriction
You must not include AI generated text in your thesis as your own independent work.
However, AI tools must not be used to generate content that presents ideas, arguments, results or analysis as if they were the student’s own.
- For PGR thesis work, students remain responsible for integrity and originality when using AI tools
- The university applies general research integrity expectations to research activity and requires honesty and accountability, but the provided sources do not define a specific AI policy for grant proposals, ethics applications, or IRB-style submissions
The University of Bristol is committed to promoting a culture of good research conduct based on the principles of honesty, rigour, transparency and open communication, care and respect, and accountability.
Students remain fully responsible for the accuracy, integrity and originality of their thesis, regardless of any AI assistance.
Academic Integrity
- Disclosure of AI use is required when AI has been used in assessed work, but the exact method depends on the assessment brief or school/faculty guidance
- The university instructs students to acknowledge AI use appropriately, and for PGR theses it specifically requires declaration of AI use in preparation of the thesis
If you use AI in your work, be transparent about it. Follow any instructions in your assessment brief about whether and how to acknowledge your use of AI.
You should acknowledge use of AI where appropriate and make sure that anything you submit is your own work.
Students must declare any use of AI tools in the preparation of their thesis, in line with school or faculty guidance.
Where AI use is permitted, students should be advised how to acknowledge it in the assessment brief.
- Undisclosed or unauthorized AI use can be pursued through the university's academic misconduct process
- The university cautions against relying on AI detection alone and states that detection tools may produce false positives, so suspected cases should be handled through normal academic judgment and formal procedures
Presenting work for assessment created through generative AI as though it is a student’s own original work, where this is not explicitly permitted, will be regarded as academic misconduct under the relevant Code of Practice.
If the student has breached the conditions of the assignment, these concerns should be raised under the academic misconduct process.
We do not recommend using AI detection tools as the sole basis for identifying academic misconduct.
AI detection tools can produce false positives and should be treated with caution.
Institutional & Administrative
- The university provides guidance for teaching staff on designing assessments and deciding whether AI is prohibited, unrestricted, integrated, or selectively permitted
- Staff are expected to make assessment-specific decisions and communicate permitted use clearly in briefs, but the provided sources do not set a detailed university-wide policy on staff use for grading, recommendation letters, or administrative communications
We have developed four versions of an AI usage statement for summative assessment briefs. These are designed to help programme and unit directors to explain to students where and how AI tools can be used.
It remains the responsibility of each Board of Examiners to decide whether and/or how AI can be used by their students in assessments.
Where AI use is permitted, students should be advised how to acknowledge it in the assessment brief.
- The provided sources do not identify a university-wide list of approved AI platforms, but they do set clear cautionary limits on what information should be entered into such tools
- The university warns users not to upload confidential, personal, or sensitive information into public AI tools and emphasizes checking privacy, copyright, and data-protection implications before use
Do not upload personal, confidential or sensitive information into public AI tools.
Before using any AI tool, consider issues of privacy, copyright, bias and accuracy.
Be especially careful not to share confidential, personal or commercially sensitive information with AI tools.
- The university has an overarching institutional approach to AI built around guiding principles and alignment with Russell Group principles
- Its strategy emphasizes responsible, transparent, assessment-specific use of AI, with governance expressed through institutional guidance, key messages, and commitments rather than a single standalone AI statute in the provided sources
The University of Bristol has developed guidance on the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in teaching, learning and assessment.
Our guidance is informed by the Russell Group principles on the use of generative AI tools in education.
We are committed to supporting staff and students to use AI responsibly, ethically and transparently.
AI should be used in ways that support learning, not undermine it.
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 Bristol's AI Policies
University of Bristol has defined AI policies in 12 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 100%.
Disclosure of AI use is required when AI has been used in assessed work, but the exact method depends on the assessment brief or school/faculty guidance. The university instructs students to acknowledge AI use appropriately, and for PGR theses it specifically requires declaration of AI use in preparation of the thesis.
Undisclosed or unauthorized AI use can be pursued through the university's academic misconduct process. The university cautions against relying on AI detection alone and states that detection tools may produce false positives, so suspected cases should be handled through normal academic judgment and formal procedures.
The university warns users not to upload confidential, personal, or sensitive information into public AI tools and emphasizes checking privacy, copyright, and data-protection implications before use. The provided sources do not identify a university-wide list of approved AI platforms, but they do set clear cautionary limits on what information should be entered into such tools.