Griffith University

Learning and assessments Generative AI can be used for self-study without citation. However, for assessments you must acknowledge its use and ensure the accuracy and quality of your submissions. If you are unsure, consult your course convenor. Overuse of generative AI in your assessments may breach academic integrity and does not reflect genuine learning. View our referencing guides Acknowledging generative AI use If you use generative AI at any point in completing your assessment tasks, make sure you include a short declaration with your submission explaining how you used it. Using a declaration like this supports academic integrity by clearly stating which tools you used and how you applied them. Check your course site to see if a different declaration or format is required. Example declaration I acknowledge the use of [AI tool name, for example Copilot] for [describe specific activities such as brainstorming ideas, planning, editing for clarity] in the preparation of this [name the assessment type]. AI -generated outputs were used as a support only and were critically reviewed, adapted and incorporated by me. The final content reflects my own understanding and conclusions.

Zebrano: 2026-10-09 · 148–157
SHA-256: caf6e1c573c8c7d56c38e99d3b5ea9d4788db6bb3bcde410d14a50736d0dc139

Academic integrity Maintaining academic integrity is important so you should avoid presenting AI-generated work as your own. If permitted, the use of AI-generated content in assessments should be acknowledged and cited following our referencing guides. If you are unsure if they are permitted, check with your course convenor. By being transparent about your use of generative AI tools, you protect your credibility and the integrity of your degree. Ultimately, you are responsible for the quality and originality of your work.

Zebrano: 2026-10-09 · 187–191
SHA-256: caf6e1c573c8c7d56c38e99d3b5ea9d4788db6bb3bcde410d14a50736d0dc139

Protect privacy, security and integrity Many generative AI tools, especially open or public ones do not guarantee the confidentiality of the information you enter. That means anything you type in could be stored, reused or shared. To protect yourself and others, do not enter: your own personal information information about others (for example, peers, students or staff) course materials (for example, assessment tasks, marking rubrics). Sharing this kind of information could breach privacy laws, copyright or academic policies. When you’re signed into your Griffith student account, tools like Microsoft Copilot offer some data protection. However, you should still think carefully before uploading any content. Using generative AI to help with your studies is not a free pass. Submitting AI-generated work as your own, or sharing restricted materials through these tools can be considered as a breach of academic integrity. Use responsibly and sustainably Generative AI can consume large amounts of energy and resources, including electricity, water for data centre cooling and raw materials for hardware, so use it thoughtfully and avoid unnecessary or excessive use. Balance the convenience of using these tools with ethical responsibility by thinking about whether using them truly adds value to your learning, or simply replaces work you should do yourself. By using generative AI in mindful ways, you contribute to a culture of fairness and trust, where technology supports, rather than undermines learning. What generative AI tool does Griffith support? Griffith provides free access to Microsoft Copilot for staff and students. It is the preferred tool because it operates as a closed system. When you sign in with your Griffith credentials, your data is protected. This means your prompts and responses are not used to train the model and are only visible in your own chat history.

Zebrano: 2026-10-09 · 208–221
SHA-256: caf6e1c573c8c7d56c38e99d3b5ea9d4788db6bb3bcde410d14a50736d0dc139

2. Staff should issue the written notice (which may also be supported by face-to-face, videoconference or telephone conversations) using the appropriate template, which may be edited as necessary. The communication must include the following: a. details of the student conduct that represents a possible act of Academic Misconduct b. whether the student’s alleged conduct involves the Misrepresentation of the Student’s Identity or Activities and/or undermines the core values of academic integrity c. whether the student's alleged conduct falls within one of the listed categories of Academic Misconduct (as outlined in the Student Academic Integrity Policy) d. whether the student is required to respond to the written notice in writing and/or appear before the Decision-maker (when a student is required to appear before the Decision- maker, they must be informed of their option to be accompanied by a support person, noting the role of the support person is to provide support and not to act as a legal representative) e. a timeframe of 10 working days from the date of the written notice to respond to the Decision-maker f. links to the Student Academic Integrity Policy and this Procedure g. copies of, or an opportunity for the student to inspect, all relevant documents under consideration h. advice on the outcomes and potential consequences if, on investigation, the matter is referred to a more serious Decision-maker i. advice on how to access advocacy and support services within the University, including Counselling and Wellbeing, Health and Medical Services and Student Safety and Wellbeing. 3. If a meeting occurs between the student and the less serious Decision-maker, a record must be made of the conversation. A note taker may be used, but the Decision-maker must agree on the notes. This record and any correspondence from the student are entered into the Student Academic Integrity Management System for Coursework Students or recorded centrally by the GGRS for HDR candidates. 4. If a student does not respond within the timeframe and the matter remains a less serious matter, then the less serious Decision-maker reaches a decision, selects an outcome from the available options in Table 2 (clause 3.4), and records the result. This is recorded in the

Zebrano: 2026-10-09 · 212–242
SHA-256: af9bde514210eeccc58e9449881ba4f22b4a8e566181351f1f4e41a88fd23743

Warunki i wyjątki

Waiver of non-compliance is discretionary.

3.0 Procedure To formally apply for a Review of a decision or to Appeal a decision by the University, a student’s application must: • be submitted using the Review of Decision form and • be made within 10 working days of the decision and • comply with the Student Review and Appeals Policy and this procedure. If the application is not submitted in accordance with these requirements, the application may be deemed invalid. The Review Officer or Appeal Body will advise, within 10 working days, that the application is invalid and which of the above requirements the application failed to meet. The application will not be further considered unless the Review Officer or the Appeal Body waives non- compliance in their absolute discretion.

Zebrano: 2026-10-09 · 52–62
SHA-256: 6b46377d12b5eca55ec49d0c2972dfd96176c3000618f10ea9a0beaa7ea444cf

Warunki i wyjątki

Internal appeal only where the schedule provides an appeal body.

3.1.2 Reviewing the decision (Review) 1. The student submits a formal application to the Review Officer who has not been involved in making the decision. The Review Officer is set out in the Schedule of Decision-Makers, Review Officers and Appeal Bodies. 2. In applying for a Review of a decision to a Review Officer, the student must specify the grounds using the Review of Decision form and attach copies of all documents relevant to the decision. 3. The outcomes of a Review may include: a. the Review Officer Upholds the original decision b. the Review Officer deems the application to be invalid, leaving the original decision unchanged c. the Review Officer sets aside the original decision on grounds specified in the Student Review and Appeals Policy and refers it back to the original Decision- maker for new consideration. 4. The student, following notification of the Review decision, may: a. with a better understanding of the grounds upon which the decision was made, accept the Review decision 2 Student Review and Appeals Procedure | July 2026 Document number: 2026/0000606 Griffith University – CRICOS Provider Number 00233E b. submit a new Review of Decision form selecting the Appeal option (for decisions where an Appeal to an Appeal Body is available) c. if no Appeal within the University is available, the student may lodge a complaint with an agency external to the University (where relevant and available). 3.1.3 Appealing the decision (Appeal) 1. The student submits a formal application for Appeal if they believe they meet the grounds specified in the Student Review and Appeals Policy. The appropriate internal Appeal Body is set out in the Schedule of Decision-makers, Review Officers and Appeal Bodies. 2. To apply for an Appeal of a decision to an Appeal Body under the Student Review and Appeals Policy, a student must complete a new Review of Decision form, choosing the Appeal option. 3. The student should provide copies of all relevant documentation, including documentation from earlier steps. A student must attach all correspondence from the Review Officer, including the letter advising the student of the outcome of the Review process.

Zebrano: 2026-10-09 · 75–113
SHA-256: 6b46377d12b5eca55ec49d0c2972dfd96176c3000618f10ea9a0beaa7ea444cf