Calibrated disclosure templates scaled to risk of the permitted use¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · no claims cited

Description¶

The article proposes a three-tier disclosure model: no disclosure for embedded low-risk functions such as basic spellcheck; a one-line disclosure for external language editing; and a short process note only where an assessment expressly permits higher-risk assistance. The one-line disclosure is 'intentionally shorter than a typical bibliographic entry', so EAL students using routine language support face no greater compliance costs than monolingual peers. Box 2 provides ready-made templates.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Disclosure requirements must be tied to what is meaningful for construct protection
• Assessment instructions must state which disclosure tier applies

Constraints¶

• Exhaustive prompt logging is disproportionate and can chill legitimate support; chat logs are curatable, incomplete, and differentially burdensome for EAL students

Target Learners¶

• EAL and multilingual students in higher education

Target Learning Goals¶

• Transparent, feasible disclosure of GenAI use without punitive burden on legitimate language support

Related Strategies¶

• Replace detector-centred assessment with a four-stage process-oriented model: declared starting point, versioned drafting, process artefacts, and targeted oral verification
• Provide explicit instructional boundary cues, process-oriented assessment, and peer modeling of verification to frame responsible GenAI use

Examples¶

-

Key Sources¶

• Grace Li. (2026). GenAI Assessment and Language Equity: Drawing the Line between Support and Substitution. Journal of Academic Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-026-09760-1