Institutions should define generative-AI prohibitions by function, distinguish generation from format conversion, and require validated evidential methods before sanctions¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · no claims cited

Description¶

The paper's normative policy recommendations are that institutions should consider 'defining 'use of generative AI' by reference to function rather than platform identity; explicitly distinguishing content generation from format conversion; adopting the operational criteria proposed in Section 4; and requiring validated evidential methods before imposing sanctions.' On the function-based interpretation, sanctioning students for transcription-only use is best characterised as policy misapplication rather than a proper misconduct finding. Policies should also specify which learning outcomes the prohibition serves.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Policies must specify which learning outcomes are served by the prohibition so the function-based interpretation can be applied with precision

Constraints¶

• The paper does not claim to have empirically tested these proposals; it sets out an agenda for such testing
• Claims about UK institutional policy prevalence rely on secondary sources

Target Learners¶

• higher education students
• policy-makers
• faculty

Target Learning Goals¶

• assessment validity
• procedural fairness
• preventing wrongful accusations

Related Strategies¶

• Design task-sensitive institutional AI policies rather than blanket permitted/prohibited distinctions
• Replace detector-centred assessment with a four-stage process-oriented model: declared starting point, versioned drafting, process artefacts, and targeted oral verification
• Institutional governance should establish practical conditions supporting AI literacy, learner agency, and critical evaluation rather than relying on prohibition and detection
• Apply four operational criteria—fidelity, non-augmentation, traceability, attestation—to identify transcription-only AI use
• Design assignments that explicitly specify which tasks may be delegated to AI and which may not
• Assess GenAI misconduct evidence against three probative credentials — relevance, credibility and inferential force — before imposing sanctions

Examples¶

-

Key Sources¶

• Craig Wright. (2026). Transcription is not generation: distinguishing non-generative AI tool use from academic misconduct in higher education assessment. International Journal for Educational Integrity. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-026-00234-w