Wollongong, Australia

University of Wollongong

University of Wollongong has 11 source-backed AI policy claims from 7 official source attributions. Review state: agent reviewed; 11 reviewed claims. Last checked May 23, 2026.

University of Wollongong AI policy short answer

v1 public contract

University of Wollongong has 11 source-backed AI policy claims from 7 official source attributions, including 11 reviewed claims. The record review state is agent reviewed; original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, confidence, and public JSON are preserved for citation. Last checked May 23, 2026. Discovery context: University of Wollongong is listed as QS 2026 rank =184.

Citation-ready summary

As of this public record, University AI Policy Tracker lists University of Wollongong as an agent-reviewed AI policy record last checked on May 23, 2026 and last changed on May 23, 2026. The record contains 11 source-backed claims, including 11 reviewed claims, from 7 official source attributions. Original-language evidence snippets and source URLs remain canonical, with public JSON available at https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/university-of-wollongong.json. The entity-level confidence is 96%. This tracker is not legal advice, not academic integrity advice, and not an official university statement unless the linked source is the university's own official page.

Claim coverage11 reviewedSource languageen, en-AUPublic JSON/api/public/v1/universities/university-of-wollongong.json

Policy signals in this record

  • Evidence includes Teaching claims.
  • Evidence includes Privacy claims.
  • Evidence includes Academic integrity claims.
  • Evidence includes AI tool treatment claims.
  • Evidence includes Other policy claims.
  • Named AI services detected in public claims: Microsoft Copilot.
  • Disclosure, acknowledgment, citation, or attribution language appears in the public claim text.
  • Teaching, assessment, coursework, or syllabus-related language appears in the public claim text.
Policy statusReviewed evidence-backed recordReview: Agent reviewedEvidence-backed claims11Reviewed11Candidate0Official sources7

This reference record summarizes visible public data only. Official sources and original-language evidence remain canonical; confidence is separate from review state.

This page is not legal advice, not academic integrity advice, and not an official university statement unless a linked source is the university's own official page.

Policy profile

Deterministic source-backed dimensions derived from this record's public claims.

Coverage score100/100Coverage labelbroad public coverageReview: Machine candidateAnalysis confidence79%

Policy profile rows are machine-candidate derived metadata. They are not final policy conclusions; inspect the linked claim evidence before reuse.

Analysis page-quality metadata is available at /api/public/v1/analysis/page-quality.json.

Research guidance

No source-backed public claim about research AI use is present in this profile.

The current public tracker record does not contain claim evidence about research use, publication ethics, research data, grants, or human-subjects compliance.

Not MentionedMachine candidateConfidence0%Evidence0Sources0

Coverage score measures breadth of public, source-backed coverage only. It is not a policy quality, strictness, legal adequacy, safety, or compliance score.

Evidence-backed claims

11 reviewed evidence-backed public claim

Teaching

UOW's Subject Delivery Policy requires assessment information in each Subject Outline to include a statement indicating whether and how generative artificial intelligence tools can be used in the subject, including for each assessment task.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence96%

Normalized value: subject_outline_must_include_genai_use_statement

Bukti asal

Evidence 1
A statement that indicates whether and how generative artificial intelligence tools can be used in the subject, including in relation to each assessment task.

Privacy

UOW's Assessment and Feedback Policy says staff are not permitted to upload student work to third-party tools, including GenAI or misconduct detection software, in the context of privacy and data policies.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence96%

Normalized value: staff_no_upload_student_work_to_third_party_genai

Bukti asal

Evidence 1
It is important that such processes and technologies are institutionally supported and ethical in accord with associated privacy and data policies (e.g. staff are not permitted to upload student work to third party tools, including generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) or misconduct detection software).

Academic Integrity

UOW's Academic Integrity Policy lists misuse of generative artificial intelligence technology as academic misconduct when work is generated by an unauthorised AI tool without subject coordinator permission, or when permitted AI-generated work lacks appropriate acknowledgement.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence96%

Normalized value: academic_integrity_policy_genai_misuse_definition

Bukti asal

Evidence 1
Misuse of Generative Artificial Intelligence Technology Using work (e.g. assignment, essay, exam paper, research paper, creative project, data) generated by an unauthorised artificial intelligence (AI) tool in an assessment without permission from the subject coordinator; Using work generated by an artificial intelligence (AI) tool in an assessment where this is permitted, but without appropriate acknowledgement.

Academic Integrity

UOW states that misusing GenAI in assessments includes use where it is prohibited or beyond assessment instructions, and that misuse constitutes academic misconduct under University policy.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence95%

Normalized value: misuse_constitutes_academic_misconduct

Bukti asal

Evidence 1
Misuse of gen AI in assessments includes using gen AI where it is prohibited or using it beyond the scope set out in the assessment instructions. Misuse of gen AI in assessments constitutes academic misconduct (as specified by University Policy).

Ai Tool Treatment

UOW tells students to check the Subject Outline or subject Moodle site before using GenAI in an assessment task, because those sources specify the permitted extent of GenAI use and acknowledgement instructions.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence94%

Normalized value: subject_specific_permission_and_acknowledgement

Bukti asal

Evidence 1
Before using gen AI for an assessment task, make sure you check your Subject Outline and/or subject Moodle site to see to what extent gen AI may be used and associated instructions regarding acknowledgement.

Ai Tool Treatment

University of Wollongong tells students to use UOW-approved tools such as Microsoft Copilot with enterprise data protection.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence90%

Normalized value: University of Wollongong tells students to use UOW-approved tools such as Microsoft Copilot with enterprise data protection.

Bukti asal

Evidence 1
Use UOW-approved tools such as Microsoft Copilot that is secured by enterprise data protection.

Academic Integrity

University of Wollongong tells students to acknowledge generative AI use where appropriate.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence90%

Normalized value: University of Wollongong tells students to acknowledge generative AI use where appropriate.

Bukti asal

Evidence 1
Ensure that you acknowledge the use of gen AI, as appropriate for the context.

Privacy

University of Wollongong warns that uploading personal, sensitive, or confidential information to generative AI may compromise privacy.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence90%

Normalized value: University of Wollongong warns that uploading personal, sensitive, or confidential information to generative AI may compromise privacy.

Bukti asal

Evidence 1
Uploading personal, sensitive or confidential information may cause unintended or harmful outcomes.

Other

University of Wollongong says students must verify generative AI outputs against reliable sources.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence90%

Normalized value: University of Wollongong says students must verify generative AI outputs against reliable sources.

Bukti asal

Evidence 1
Fact verification against reliable sources is essential as gen AI outputs can be inaccurate, fabricated or biased.

Teaching

UOW's Learning and Teaching Hub FAQ encourages academics to discuss AI technologies with students and allow appropriate use in assessments, while noting that implementation varies by discipline, assessment type, and other factors.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence86%

Normalized value: educator_guidance_discuss_and_allow_appropriate_ai_use

Bukti asal

Evidence 1
Therefore, academics are encouraged to discuss the use of these technologies with their students and allow their appropriate use in assessments. How this can be done will vary depending on several factors (such as the discipline, the assessment type, etc.).

Candidate claims

0 machine or needs-review claim

Candidate claims are not final policy conclusions. They preserve source URL, source snapshot hash, evidence, confidence, and review state so the record can be audited before review.

Official sources

7 source attribution

Frequently Asked Questions: Artificial Intelligence in Education (UOW) - L&T Hub

ltc.uow.edu.au

Snapshot hash
ba637ee3adc948b5f094a8028f3364025432c50f2e47f4b6488d75538dbf217a

Change log

Source-check timeline and diff-style claim/evidence preview.

View the public change record for this university, including source snapshot hashes, claim review states, and a diff-style preview of current source-backed evidence.

Last checkedMay 23, 2026Last changedMay 23, 2026Open change log

Corrections and missing evidence

Corrections create review tasks and do not directly change this public record.

If an official source is missing, stale, moved, blocked, or incorrectly summarized, submit a source URL, policy change report, or institution correction for review. Corrections must preserve source URLs, source language, original evidence, review state, and audit history.

Back to universities