This policy statement sets out Cambridge International’s position on the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in student work submitted for assessment as coursework. It applies to all Cambridge International qualifications.
1. Principles
- We recognise that generative AI programs of various kinds have the potential to provide a valuable resource for students and can support the learning process as students research, design and plan coursework projects.
- However, the inappropriate use of generative AI to create or enhance student work without acknowledgement risks being classed as plagiarism and, like other forms of malpractice, may be subject to penalty. (See the Cambridge Handbook (PDF, 6MB) section 5.6.)
- As with our existing guidance relating to the submission and authentication of coursework, the primary responsibility for identifying any inappropriate use of generative AI by students remains with centres and teachers who know the students best. Teachers must keep student work submitted for assessment as coursework under supervision and must be able to authenticate it as the candidate’s own original unaided work. (See the Cambridge Handbook (PDF, 6MB) section 3 on 'Coursework and moderation)
- All use of generative AI programs to conduct initial research, create text, images, sound or video or plan a project must be acknowledged in the work and AI-generated material must be clearly referenced. Mark schemes and assessment criteria will not award credit specifically for the use of generative AI and there is no expectation that candidates will use AI (unless the ability to demonstrate the use of AI is one of the constructs being assessed) to support their learning or production of work (unless the use of AI is identified as an assessment objective within the syllabus). The only credit will be for the way the candidate has made use of the material produced in this way, in the same way that merely citing sources in a bibliography does not of itself deserve credit.
- Using AI appropriately to support their work will not give the candidate an advantage over any other way of initiating research or planning a project.
2. Acceptable use of generative AI in student work
- The following uses of generative AI programs by students in the preparation of material for submission as coursework are acceptable if clearly acknowledged in the work:
- To carry out initial research into a topic in preparation for a written study. This is no different from consulting published articles or books or browsing in a search engine and citing websites visited in the bibliography. Candidates should clearly state the prompt or series of prompts they used, the name and version of the generative AI program used and when it was accessed. Candidates should check any websites cited by AI and include discussion of the reliability of any material identified, for example explaining how they have accounted for potential bias in a response or how they have checked for accuracy. Candidates should be made aware that AI programs can sometimes ‘hallucinate’ non-existent sources.
- To quote briefly from AI-generated text within an essay and engage in critical discussion of the quotation. (We suggest a limit of two or three sentences or about 50 words in a single quotation. The use of longer AI-generated material is likely to be self-penalising if candidates do not fully engage in critical discussion of it.) Quotations must be clearly acknowledged and identified within the candidate’s writing, and like any other source of evidence should be contextualised and reviewed. Students might do this to help them identify core aspects of a question or outline the issues involved, but credit will only be awarded for their own work and judgements in response to the AI-generated material and other appropriate sources of evidence.
3. Guidance for teachers
This guidance should be read in conjunction with existing guidance on Preventing Plagiarism – guidance for teachers. Teachers are also advised to consult new guidance: Artificial intelligence and teaching, learning and assessment.
- Teachers must authenticate coursework as the candidate’s own unaided work. Where teachers suspect plagiarism or inappropriate use of AI they should not authenticate the work and should be prepared to investigate further.
- We will take appropriate action if we suspect work submitted for coursework is plagiarised or has been produced using AI inappropriately. This will include treating the work, and in some cases its authentication, as malpractice and opening an investigation.
- Advice on how to guard against inappropriate use of AI by students.
- Keep drafts and plans of coursework under supervision. A sudden significant development of earlier work, for example a handwritten draft being presented in typed format with markedly improved content, should be questioned by the teacher. Material which is written in a different style in terms of vocabulary and syntax from work that the student characteristically produces may also invite investigation. Students can be asked to explain unusual vocabulary or concepts or comment on what they read in any academic references cited.
- Work produced partly or completely by AI is likely to be strong on evidence and information and weak on analysis and evaluation or the expression of a distinctive point of view. There may be unexplained or illogical sequences of material, or a series of false endings/starts indicating the AI program has been prompted to provide more material.
- Other potential identifiers include:
- an uncharacteristically high level of accuracy of spelling, punctuation and grammar
- a lack of any references after 2021
- a consistent use of Americanised spelling conventions in a candidate not normally spelling in this way
- discourse markers followed by a comma used to start paragraphs (However, / In conclusion,)
- journalistic collocations (phrases uncharacteristic of student writers such as ‘disaster relief efforts’)
- Latinate vocabulary
- pleonasm (use of more words than is necessary) or tautology (saying the same thing twice)
- repetition of content or ideas or whole phrases.
Sources
This guidance has been developed in the light of the JCQ document AI Use in Assessment: Protecting the Integrity of Qualifications.
See preventing plagiarism for more information and support.