Teaching & Learning
- Academic staff must state in assessment briefs whether AI use is permitted, encouraged, restricted, or prohibited
- Use of generative AI in assessed coursework is set at discipline, course, and module level rather than uniformly permitted or banned across the university
- If students use generative AI to create or substantially edit assessed work without explicit permission and without acknowledging it, this is academic misconduct
11. Expectations for the appropriate use of Generative AI within a discipline must be clearly defined, consistently applied, and communicated to students by academic staff, including explicitly within assessment briefs.
a) Establish and maintain a shared understanding within teaching teams regarding
permitted, encouraged, restricted, or prohibited uses of Generative AI for each
module or course.
d) Embed clear discipline-appropriate guidance within course and module materials
on when and how students may use Generative AI tools, and when such use is
restricted or prohibited, including expectations for transparency and
acknowledgement.
15. The use of Generative AI tools to give the impression that a student has learned more than
they have is academic misconduct. Using Generative AI to create or substantially edit work
submitted for assessment, without explicit permission and without acknowledging its contribution,
constitutes academic misconduct.
- Assessment rules on AI are determined and communicated through assessment briefs and course or module materials
- For assessments generally, students must complete an AI use declaration, and undisclosed use may be treated as misconduct
- The general regulations also treat use of AI to generate a submission presented as the student's own work, and use of unfair means in examinations, under separate academic misconduct procedures
11. Expectations for the appropriate use of Generative AI within a discipline must be clearly
defined, consistently applied, and communicated to students by academic staff, including explicitly
within assessment briefs.
23. Students will be required to complete an AI use declaration for all assessments. Failure to
accurately declare use may constitute academic misconduct.
130. There is a separate procedure for dealing with allegations of professional misconduct
and/or professional unsuitability (the Fitness to Practise Procedure) which applies to students
enrolled on courses which lead to professional registration. There is also a separate procedure for
dealing with cases of academic misconduct including plagiarism and/or collusion, contract
cheating (which includes the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to generate some or all of a
submission subsequently presented as the student’s own work), and use of unfair means in
examinations.
- Discipline-specific boundaries still apply and must be communicated by academic staff
- Students are expected to develop skills in critically evaluating AI outputs, and the university provides mandatory training and guidance
- The university supports use of generative AI for learning support, with academic staff expected to identify where it has pedagogical value and to teach students responsible use
37. It is important that students develop skills in using digital tools and Generative AI tools
effectively to support their studies, including an awareness of their strengths and limitations and
learn how to challenge (interpret) and critically reflect on the outputs.
b) Review curriculum content regularly to identify where Generative AI may have
pedagogical value (e.g. as a learning support tool, for simulation or scenario-based
planning) and where its use may undermine core learning outcomes.
e) Embed instruction on responsible AI use in the curriculum where appropriate,
ensuring students develop skills in critical evaluation of AI-generated output, and an
understanding of ethical and professional obligations.
26. Support will be provided to students through mandatory training accompanied by guidance
including the ‘AI traffic light system’. Any discipline-specific information or guidance should be
clarified as needed to students.
- Undisclosed or unauthorized use in assessed work falls under academic misconduct rules
- Use is left to discipline, module, or course guidance that must specify whether AI use is permitted, encouraged, restricted, or prohibited
- The policy recognizes generative AI as including tools that generate code, but it does not set a single university-wide rule for programming assignments
6. Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI): This is defined as any type of artificial intelligence
system that identifies patterns and structures in data/information/material and generates content,
including but not limited to: audio, code, images, text, simulations, and videos in response to
instructions (‘prompts’) that resembles human-created content.
a) Establish and maintain a shared understanding within teaching teams regarding
permitted, encouraged, restricted, or prohibited uses of Generative AI for each
module or course.
15. The use of Generative AI tools to give the impression that a student has learned more than
they have is academic misconduct. Using Generative AI to create or substantially edit work
submitted for assessment, without explicit permission and without acknowledging its contribution,
constitutes academic misconduct.
Research
- Researchers must also critically evaluate outputs and comply with funder, journal, and university ethics requirements
- AI contributions to writing must be clearly documented, and AI-generated content must not be presented as original work
- For research activities, including postgraduate research and undergraduate research projects, researchers may use AI in writing-related parts of the research process only if they are transparent about that use
13. The use of Generative AI in research activities, including postgraduate research
programmes and undergraduate research projects, must align with the University's commitment
to research integrity and ethical practice. Researchers should:
a) Be transparent about their use of AI tools, clearly documenting where such tools have
contributed to data analysis, literature review, writing, or other aspects of the research
process. AI-generated content must not be presented as original work.
b) Critically evaluate all AI outputs for accuracy, bias, and relevance, recognising that
these tools can produce misleading or fabricated information, including false citations.
c) Comply with internal and external requirements, including funder requirements, journal
submission guidelines, and the University's Research and Knowledge Exchange Ethics
Governance Framework.
- Researchers must document where AI contributed to data analysis and evaluate outputs for accuracy, bias, and relevance
- The university allows AI use in research data analysis only with transparency, critical review, and compliance with ethics and external requirements
- Personal, sensitive, confidential, unpublished, or other protected research data must not be entered into AI tools unless safeguards or explicit approval are in place
13. The use of Generative AI in research activities, including postgraduate research
programmes and undergraduate research projects, must align with the University's commitment
to research integrity and ethical practice. Researchers should:
a) Be transparent about their use of AI tools, clearly documenting where such tools have
contributed to data analysis, literature review, writing, or other aspects of the research
process. AI-generated content must not be presented as original work.
b) Critically evaluate all AI outputs for accuracy, bias, and relevance, recognising that
these tools can produce misleading or fabricated information, including false citations.
14. Personal, sensitive, or confidential research data should not be entered into AI tools unless
appropriate data protection safeguards are in place.
18. No personal data, confidential research materials, unpublished data, or
sensitive/commercial University information may be uploaded into any external AI system unless
explicitly approved and compliant with data protection and ethics requirements.
- The university requires AI use in research to align with research integrity and ethical practice
- Researchers must disclose AI contributions, must not present AI-generated content as original work, and must comply with internal and external rules including funder requirements, journal submission guidelines, and the university's research ethics governance framework
13. The use of Generative AI in research activities, including postgraduate research
programmes and undergraduate research projects, must align with the University's commitment
to research integrity and ethical practice. Researchers should:
a) Be transparent about their use of AI tools, clearly documenting where such tools have
contributed to data analysis, literature review, writing, or other aspects of the research
process. AI-generated content must not be presented as original work.
c) Comply with internal and external requirements, including funder requirements, journal
submission guidelines, and the University's Research and Knowledge Exchange Ethics
Governance Framework.
Academic Integrity
- Disclosure and attribution of AI use are mandatory
- Staff must also communicate transparency expectations in course materials
- Students must acknowledge and properly reference AI use, complete an AI use declaration for all assessments, and follow institutional guidance on acknowledgement, attribution, and referencing
d) Embed clear discipline-appropriate guidance within course and module materials
on when and how students may use Generative AI tools, and when such use is
restricted or prohibited, including expectations for transparency and
acknowledgement.
22. Where AI tools, including AI language models are used, for assistance with writing, research
or analysis, this must be acknowledged and properly referenced. This is important to maintain
academic integrity.
23. Students will be required to complete an AI use declaration for all assessments. Failure to
accurately declare use may constitute academic misconduct.
24. Students must follow institutional guidance for acknowledgement, attribution and
referencing; and what constitutes inappropriate or unacceptable use.
- Academic misconduct procedures can apply to AI-generated submissions presented as a student's own work
- Unauthorized AI use may be treated as academic misconduct, including contract cheating, and failure to declare AI use may also trigger misconduct procedures
- The university states that AI detection tools are unreliable and should not be the basis for allegations, although misconduct investigations may consider data from services designed to detect AI use as part of broader evidence
15. The use of Generative AI tools to give the impression that a student has learned more than
they have is academic misconduct. Using Generative AI to create or substantially edit work
submitted for assessment, without explicit permission and without acknowledging its contribution,
constitutes academic misconduct.
21. AI detection tools are unreliable and should not be used as the basis for academic
misconduct allegations.
23. Students will be required to complete an AI use declaration for all assessments. Failure to
accurately declare use may constitute academic misconduct.
31. Contract cheating can also include the unauthorised use of artificial intelligence systems
to generate some or all of a submission subsequently presented as the student’s own work.
Students will be provided with clear discipline appropriate guidance within course and module
materials of when and how they may use Generative AI tools and when such use is restricted or
prohibited. Failure to accurately declare use of AI may also constitute academic misconduct.
• Data from Services designed to detect the use of artificial intelligence in the production of
work;
Institutional & Administrative
- The policy also provides staff support and training on AI literacy
- Staff must disclose when AI-generated output is used in lectures or learning resources
- Academic staff are required to define and communicate AI rules for each module or course, review curriculum and assessment design in light of AI, monitor student use, and model transparent AI use in teaching materials
11. Expectations for the appropriate use of Generative AI within a discipline must be clearly
defined, consistently applied, and communicated to students by academic staff, including explicitly
within assessment briefs. To ensure clarity and consistency, academic staff are required to:
a) Establish and maintain a shared understanding within teaching teams regarding
permitted, encouraged, restricted, or prohibited uses of Generative AI for each
module or course.
g) Review and adapt assessment design on an ongoing basis to ensure
assessments remain authentic, robust, and aligned with intended learning outcomes
in the context of evolving Generative AI capabilities.
h) Monitor and respond to student use of Generative AI within learning activities and
assessments, taking appropriate action where misuse, misunderstanding, or
academic integrity concerns are identified, in accordance with University Academic
Misconduct procedures.
i) Engage in continuing professional development (CPD) related to AI literacy,
including the capabilities and limitations of AI tools and their pedagogical or ethical,
and disciplinary implications.
j) Model responsible and transparent use of Generative AI in teaching materials and
interactions with students, including clear disclosure when AI-generated output is
used in lectures or learning resources.
25. Support will be given to staff through asynchronous materials, in-person training sessions
and opportunities for discussion.
- The university does not provide a centrally supported or fully licensed generative AI solution for general use, except dedicated licenses for select roles and accessibility support
- Users must follow university data handling and confidentiality rules, and no sensitive or restricted information may be entered into AI systems operating within the university environment
- External AI systems may not receive personal data, confidential research materials, unpublished data, or sensitive/commercial university information unless explicitly approved and compliant with data protection and ethics requirements
16. A centrally supported or fully licensed Generative AI solution, outside of dedicated licenses
for select roles and accessibility support, is not provided by the University.
17. Users must continue to follow all University policies on information classification, data
handling, and confidentiality when using a Generative AI system that operates securely within the
University’s environment, ensuring no sensitive or restricted information is entered into the service.
18. No personal data, confidential research materials, unpublished data, or
sensitive/commercial University information may be uploaded into any external AI system unless
explicitly approved and compliant with data protection and ethics requirements.
The University of Suffolk has to comply with the UK General Data Protection Regulations (UK GDPR) which is tailored by the Data Protection Act 2018.
Under these regulations we have a duty to protect any personal data that we hold about you.
- The university also states that emerging AI opportunities and challenges will be surfaced and interrogated as required
- The policy allows differential approaches by discipline but requires alignment with institutional policy and, where needed, governance approval for exceptions
- The university has an institution-level AI policy for learning and teaching that aims to balance use of AI with judgment, increase AI literacy, and embed AI in curricula and assessment where it enhances student skills
1. The Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy for Learning and Teaching is intended to
balance the use of AI tools with good judgement and provide support to staff and students in using
these tools sensibly and ethically.
2. Generative AI should be embedded in curricula and assessment in ways which enhance
and deepen key student skills such as critical analysis and evaluation and play a role in increasing
the AI literacy of the University community.
3. The University of Suffolk is committed to transparency and openness in how Generative AI
and related tools are used across the institution.
4. The Policy allows for differential use across the University according to discipline but must
align with institutional policy and guidance and be clearly and consistently communicated to
students.
12. Where specific disciplinary practices or concerns necessitate approaches that differ from
the University’s overarching commitment to increasing AI literacy and promoting responsible use
of Generative of AI for learning and skills development, these should be discussed with the Pro
Vice-Chancellor Education and Student Experience, or equivalent at partner institutions, and,
where appropriate, approved through the governance structure.
19. Emerging technologies, opportunities and challenges in this field will be surfaced and
interrogated as required.
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 Suffolk's AI Policies
University of Suffolk has defined AI policies in 12 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 100%.
Disclosure and attribution of AI use are mandatory. Students must acknowledge and properly reference AI use, complete an AI use declaration for all assessments, and follow institutional guidance on acknowledgement, attribution, and referencing. Staff must also communicate transparency expectations in course materials.
Unauthorized AI use may be treated as academic misconduct, including contract cheating, and failure to declare AI use may also trigger misconduct procedures. The university states that AI detection tools are unreliable and should not be the basis for allegations, although misconduct investigations may consider data from services designed to detect AI use as part of broader evidence. Academic misconduct procedures can apply to AI-generated submissions presented as a student's own work.
The university does not provide a centrally supported or fully licensed generative AI solution for general use, except dedicated licenses for select roles and accessibility support. Users must follow university data handling and confidentiality rules, and no sensitive or restricted information may be entered into AI systems operating within the university environment. External AI systems may not receive personal data, confidential research materials, unpublished data, or sensitive/commercial university information unless explicitly approved and compliant with data protection and ethics requirements.