Teaching & Learning
- Schools must tell students which category applies to each assessment
- The university uses an assessment-by-assessment traffic-light model rather than a single rule for all coursework
- For some assignments, AI use is prohibited; for others, students may use AI only for preparatory or review support and not to generate the submitted content; and for green-category assignments, students may generate content with AI within the assessment brief
9.4 The University has identified three broad categories of assessment for the purposes of determining whether students may use Generative AI in the process of completing the assessment. Students will be informed which assessments fall into which categories.
9.7 Generative AI and, unless required for an individual student’s reasonable adjustment, Assistive Technology, is not permitted to be used in any capacity for Red category assessments.
9.11 Within the Amber Category students may use Generative AI to support the development and review of an assessment submission, but not to create the text/media of the actual submission itself.
9.16 In green assessments students are permitted to use AI to generate content for an assessment, within the framework set out in the relevant assessment brief.
- The university requires every assessment to be categorized and communicated to students
- Red-category assessments prohibit AI use entirely, and campus-based assessments, especially examinations, are red by default unless stated otherwise
5.3 There should be clear expectations set for students and effective communication as to whether Generative AI or Assistive Technology can or cannot be used for individual assessments. Where it is allowed, clear guidance should be in place on how it should be used.
9.7 Generative AI and, unless required for an individual student’s reasonable adjustment, Assistive Technology, is not permitted to be used in any capacity for Red category assessments.
9.8 Red category assessments will be invigilated assessments, which will typically be on-campus but may include activities such as vivas/presentations/interviews conducted remotely via MS Teams or other distance learning assessments where the assessor can clearly observe the student(s).
9.9 Campus-based assessments, notably examinations, will be considered by default in the red category, unless indicated otherwise.
- The university supports student use of AI for learning and study support when permitted and provides guidance and support for responsible use
- It also requires that if a module requires students to engage with generative AI in teaching or formative activities, the tools must be freely available to all students
5.2 Staff and students will receive the support that they need to be confident in the ethical, responsible and effective use of AI in learning, teaching and assessment.
8.9 Where a student is required to engage with Generative AI through the learning and teaching for a module, for example within a teaching session or formative exercising exploring the process of giving prompts, module convenors must ensure that the Generative AI tools required to complete the tasks are freely available to all students.
This includes our AI guidance for students on using AI effectively and responsibly when permitted.
- The university does not set a separate AI rule for programming work
- Instead, code is covered by the same assessment-category approach as other student submissions, and unacknowledged AI-generated code can be treated as academic misconduct
9.4 The University has identified three broad categories of assessment for the purposes of determining whether students may use Generative AI in the process of completing the assessment. Students will be informed which assessments fall into which categories.
Submitting written work that contains material authored by another person or persons or generated by a platform (for example using artificial intelligence), whether published or unpublished, without appropriate acknowledgement. This includes online and print sources, prose, code, graphs, and University- owned teaching and learning materials.
Research
- The provided sources do not otherwise define how AI may or may not be used for drafting or editing manuscripts
- For research outputs, the university requires explicit disclosure when artificial intelligence, machine learning, or large language models are used
7.2.7.Where Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning or Large Language Models are used this must be explicitly stated on the output
- The provided research ethics sources do not give additional explicit AI-specific rules for grant proposals, ethics applications, or declarations
- The university's research integrity materials explicitly require disclosure when AI, machine learning, or large language models are used in research outputs
7.2.7.Where Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning or Large Language Models are used this must be explicitly stated on the output
Academic Integrity
- For research outputs, AI, machine learning, or large language model use must be explicitly stated on the output
- In green-category assignments, students should be advised to cite or report AI use in line with the university's referencing guidelines
- For student academic work, the university requires appropriate acknowledgement of AI-generated material; failing to acknowledge it may be treated as plagiarism
Submitting written work that contains material authored by another person or persons or generated by a platform (for example using artificial intelligence), whether published or unpublished, without appropriate acknowledgement. This includes online and print sources, prose, code, graphs, and University- owned teaching and learning materials.
9.17 In assignments where students are using Generative AI to create text/media for their submission, they should be advised of any need to cite/report their use of Generative AI and/or Assistive Tools in line with the University’s referencing guidelines.
7.2.7.Where Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning or Large Language Models are used this must be explicitly stated on the output
- The sources provided do not define a specific policy on AI detection tools
- The university states that using AI where it is not permitted, or generating submitted content where that is not permitted, is a breach of academic integrity and may lead to sanctions under Senate Regulation 11
5.7 Academic integrity is at the heart of higher education. The use of Generative AI and/or Assistive Technology does not equate automatically to academic misconduct. Assessments will clearly articulate where the use of Generative AI and/or Assistive Tools is or is not permitted. Use of Generative AI and/or Assistive Tools where not permitted (Red Category) or to generate content for submission where not permitted (Amber Category) will be considered a breach of academic integrity and sanctions under Senate Regulation 11 may be applied.
‘Academic Misconduct’ refers to any behaviour by a student that may give them or another student an unfair academic advantage. The University will investigate any actions or behaviour that it considers academic misconduct based on this broad definition.
Institutional & Administrative
- Staff may use generative AI to help develop assessments, but the final assessment must be reviewed and validated by appropriate academic staff
- The university says students should normally be taught and assessed by trained human experts rather than AI tools, and AI should not usually generate marks and feedback
- Staff may request an exemption where AI-generated marks or feedback provides a clear benefit, but any such marks and feedback must be reviewed by the relevant expert staff member
5.1 Students at the University of Leicester can expect to be taught and assessed by trained, human experts in their chosen academic discipline rather than AI tools. Under the following policy AI will not usually have a role in generating marks and feedback. However, where the use of AI to generate marks and feedback provides a clear benefit, staff may request exemption from this point. Where AI has been used, the marks and feedback for each student will be reviewed by the relevant expert member of staff.
- Generative AI can be useful to assist development of assessment tools, but the final assessment that is set to students must be reviewed and validated by appropriate academic staff.
- The provided sources do not set out an AI-specific data classification or prohibited-data policy
- However, the university does state that module convenors must ensure required generative AI tools are freely available to students, and university news materials state that Microsoft 365 Copilot is being rolled out with full access for all students and staff and described as a safe, secure, enterprise-level institutional provision
8.9 Where a student is required to engage with Generative AI through the learning and teaching for a module, for example within a teaching session or formative exercising exploring the process of giving prompts, module convenors must ensure that the Generative AI tools required to complete the tasks are freely available to all students.
The University of Leicester has today (Wednesday 3 June) announced a collaboration with Microsoft to provide full access to Microsoft 365 Copilot for all students and staff, becoming one of the first UK universities to do so.
Microsoft 365 Copilot will be integrated across the University, enabling students and staff to work more efficiently, collaborate in new ways and develop future-ready skills in a safe and secure environment.
As part of this strategy, Leicester is rolling out Microsoft Copilot across the institution, providing all students and staff with secure, enterprise-level access to AI.
- The university has an institution-wide policy framework for AI in learning, teaching, and assessment, including responsibilities for schools and staff, assessment categorization, and curriculum expectations
- It also describes a broader institutional strategy of embedding AI across teaching, learning, research, and professional services, with universal Microsoft 365 Copilot access and training for students and staff
4.6 Programmes of study at the University of Leicester will have due regard to the benefits and risks of Generative AI within the framework presented by this policy, the University’s Senate Regulations regarding Academic Misconduct, and the specific disciplinary requirements of each subject area, including any set by Professional Bodies.
9.5 To support students to become knowledgeable, effective, and ethical users of AI, from 2025/26 there should be at least one assessment on every undergraduate programme where students are required to use Generative AI as part of an assessment.
The rollout places the University of Leicester at the forefront of artificial intelligence in higher education and marks a significant step in embedding AI across teaching, learning, research and professional services.
All students and staff will receive full Microsoft 365 Copilot access and training as Leicester follows the University of Manchester in offering universal provision across its entire community.
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 Leicester's AI Policies
University of Leicester has defined AI policies in 11 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 92%.
For student academic work, the university requires appropriate acknowledgement of AI-generated material; failing to acknowledge it may be treated as plagiarism. In green-category assignments, students should be advised to cite or report AI use in line with the university's referencing guidelines. For research outputs, AI, machine learning, or large language model use must be explicitly stated on the output.
The university states that using AI where it is not permitted, or generating submitted content where that is not permitted, is a breach of academic integrity and may lead to sanctions under Senate Regulation 11. The sources provided do not define a specific policy on AI detection tools.
The provided sources do not set out an AI-specific data classification or prohibited-data policy. However, the university does state that module convenors must ensure required generative AI tools are freely available to students, and university news materials state that Microsoft 365 Copilot is being rolled out with full access for all students and staff and described as a safe, secure, enterprise-level institutional provision.