Macquarie University (Sydney, Australia)

To provide clarity for you, Macquarie has adopted a straightforward approach to providing you guidance on the use of Generative AI in assessment with two categories. Your assessment tasks will be categorised as either Open or Observed. **Open** These assessments do not restrict the application of AI tools. However, it is expected that the use of AI is acknowledged in an appropriate manner, similarly to an expectation to provide references for other resources or tools that are used in producing your work. **Observed** These tasks are either fully or partly observed or invigilated. AI use will either not be permitted or might be restricted in a particular way during the assessment. Some examples of a restricted use of AI may be: - the use AI to complete a task is observed as part of the assessment - you might be able to use AI to prepare for a task or to do part of the task, but then you complete the task without the use of AI, such as when you give a presentation. Your unit convenor will provide you with more detailed information on iLearn about any permitted use of AI in an Observed assessment.

Zebrano: 2026-10-07 · Wiersze: 29–44

Hash archiwum: d57e00c7526b30b5757cd7351bc8bc49d33e5223b22cfeacc43f8fe5d03a2f7b

(8) An Academic Integrity Officer will review the report and may decide to: dismiss the report if there is not enough evidence to substantiate a finding of a breach, investigate the report and either: determine that Poor Academic Practice has occurred and take action as per clause 9; determine that a breach has occurred and apply a level one outcome(s) as per clause 27; escalate the report to the Faculty Integrity Committee or the Macquarie University College (The College) Integrity Committee, or escalate the report to the Registrar for management under the Student Conduct Rule and Student Conduct Procedure. Poor Academic Practice (9) On receiving a report, an Academic Integrity Officer may determine that the student has engaged in poor academic practice but has not committed a breach, in which case they will take one or more of the following actions: warn the student that repetition of the same behaviour may constitute a breach; provide educative counselling to the student, or refer the student to educative counselling; direct the student to complete or repeat the Academic Integrity Module, and/or undertake another learning activity; and/or direct the student to re-submit the same or an alternative assessment item to be marked, in consultation with the unit convenor, (10) The Academic Integrity Officer will communicate these actions to relevant staff for action as required.

Zebrano: 2026-10-07 · Wiersze: 66–79

Hash archiwum: beae79e18c23fed1a33c7593a106328956bfeeaeb1ce6ed58d9c2bf8408b8e27

(11) If the Academic Integrity Officer determines there is sufficient evidence of a breach, they will send the student a notice that: provides enough information about the report to enable the student to respond, invites the student to respond to the report either by providing a written response and/or attending a meeting to discuss the concerns raised, includes all evidence available from the report, and includes an electronic copy of the Academic Integrity Policy and this Procedure or the address of the Academic Integrity Policy and this Procedure on the University website. (12) The University will provide the student with five (5) business days to respond to the notice. Students may request an extension of time to respond; reasonable requests should be accepted. (13) A student may bring a support person to the meeting. The role of a support person is to provide emotional support and not to present the student’s case. (14) If the student does not respond to the allegation, a decision may be made in their absence.

Zebrano: 2026-10-07 · Wiersze: 81–88

Hash archiwum: beae79e18c23fed1a33c7593a106328956bfeeaeb1ce6ed58d9c2bf8408b8e27

(23) The Deputy Dean, Education and Employability, or Associate Director, Macquarie University College, or nominee will inform the student in writing of the outcome within ten (10) business days of the Committee decision.

Zebrano: 2026-10-07 · Wiersze: 120–120

Hash archiwum: beae79e18c23fed1a33c7593a106328956bfeeaeb1ce6ed58d9c2bf8408b8e27

(6) If a Student or Staff member is alleged to have used Generative AI in a manner that is inconsistent with the principles of this Policy, the University may investigate the allegation in accordance the relevant policy (i.e. Academic Integrity Policy, Staff Code of Conduct, Macquarie University Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, Acceptable Use of IT Resources Policy).

Zebrano: 2026-10-07 · Wiersze: 74–74

Hash archiwum: e172e211b71015e8cdc53e3e64d359d194e8f9b491e2e05f316f96b3867cfa32

(26) Two levels of outcomes can be applied when a student has been found to have breached the Academic Integrity Policy: level one outcomes may be applied by an Academic Integrity Officer, or Faculty Integrity Committee or The College Integrity Committee, and level two outcomes may be applied by a Faculty Integrity Committee or The College Integrity Committee. (27) Level one outcomes are: a warning; a direction that the student has educative counselling from a specific person or service; a direction that the student complete or repeat the Academic Integrity Module, and/or undertake another learning activity; allow a corrected version of the assessment item to be submitted; allow a corrected version of the assessment item to be submitted, with a maximum grade for the assessment item being a Pass (50%); reduction of the student’s mark for the assessment item; and zero marks in the assessment item. (28) Level two outcomes are: a direction to complete or recomplete the Academic Integrity module, a direction that the student complete or repeat the Academic Integrity Module, and/or undertake another learning activity, failure in the Unit with a mark of zero (0) (FL Grade), exclusion from the course, for a period not exceeding two (2) years. (29) One or more outcomes may be applied by an Academic Integrity Officer, or Faculty Integrity Committee or The College Integrity Committee. (30) A poor academic practice or outcome decision must be proportionate to the type and circumstance of the breach. In deciding this, an Academic Integrity Officer, or Faculty Integrity Committee or The College Integrity Committee must take into account: the nature, severity and impact of the breach, the effect that the outcome or outcomes will have, any previous breaches the student has engaged in, and the student’s personal circumstances and level of experience.

Zebrano: 2026-10-07 · Wiersze: 133–154

Hash archiwum: beae79e18c23fed1a33c7593a106328956bfeeaeb1ce6ed58d9c2bf8408b8e27

(31) The Academic Integrity Breach Outcomes Matrix provides advice to those responsible for determining breaches to assist in achieving a greater level of consistency in outcomes resulting from academic integrity breaches.

Zebrano: 2026-10-07 · Wiersze: 155–155

Hash archiwum: beae79e18c23fed1a33c7593a106328956bfeeaeb1ce6ed58d9c2bf8408b8e27

(17) An appellant wishing to lodge an appeal against an academic or administrative decision of the University must do so via the Service Connect portal setting out the details of the grounds for appeal. (18) In their application, an appellant must: identify the original decision being appealed and attach a copy of any relevant correspondence; specify the ground or grounds for appeal and explain how each ground applies to the current appeal; and include any available evidence to support their appeal. (19) An appellant must lodge an application no later than ten (10) Working Days after the original decision has been communicated for: a breach or a sanction decision (that is not suspension or exclusion from the University) under the Academic Integrity Policy and Academic Integrity Breach Procedure;

Zebrano: 2026-10-07 · Wiersze: 101–107

Hash archiwum: c8a8afbc3de357134608a4471267a3775f464f33a469611eefee2c8995d0dd85

(20) An appellant must lodge an appeal application no later than twenty (20) Working Days after the original decision has been communicated for: academic pause and exclusion under the Academic Progression Policy; exclusion under the General Coursework Rule; fitness to practice requirements under the Fitness to Practice Procedure; a sanction decision to suspend or exclude the student from the University under the Academic Integrity Policy and Academic Integrity Breach Procedure; termination of Graduate Research candidature under the Graduate Research Rule; a decision relating to the award of PhD, MPhil or MRes degrees under the Graduate Research Thesis Preparation, Submission and Examination Policy; and research degree enrolment, leave of absence and withdrawal decisions under the Graduate Research Variations to Candidature Policy. (21) Late appeal applications will be rejected unless: the appellant has requested an extension before the due date of the appeal application (by emailing [email protected]) and the Registrar approves the extended date; or the appellant can show that circumstances beyond their control have prevented them from submitting an appeal application within the applicable timeframe. In such circumstances, the Registrar will approve or deny the appeal application from being considered.

Zebrano: 2026-10-07 · Wiersze: 113–123

Hash archiwum: c8a8afbc3de357134608a4471267a3775f464f33a469611eefee2c8995d0dd85

(9) With the exception of academic pause or exclusion appeals, a permissible appeal against an applicable decision may only be made on the grounds that: the procedure for dealing with the matter was unfair in the circumstances because one or more of the following things occurred: the required procedure for making the decision was not followed; the decision was not based on the merits of the information available; the decision was not procedurally fair (i.e. the decision maker had a bias, and/or the appellant was not given an opportunity to respond to an allegation, and/or the reasons for the decision were not provided); and/or new and relevant information has become available that was not able to be obtained at the time of the decision and which should be taken into consideration.

Zebrano: 2026-10-07 · Wiersze: 78–83

Hash archiwum: c8a8afbc3de357134608a4471267a3775f464f33a469611eefee2c8995d0dd85

(36) A student may appeal against a decision of the Student Conduct Committee or a decision of the Registrar under clause 26(b) on the following grounds: the student in relation to an investigation was not given a reasonable opportunity to provide a response to a Misconduct Allegation; an investigator in carrying out an investigation, or the decision maker in making the decision, was biased or there was a reasonable apprehension of bias against the student; an investigator in making a finding or recommendation, or the decision maker in making the decision, took an irrelevant consideration into account; an investigator in making a finding or recommendation, or the decision maker in making the decision, failed to take a relevant consideration into account; there was no evidence to justify a finding or recommendation made by an investigator or the making of the decision by the decision maker; a finding or recommendation of an investigator, or the decision maker, was made without regard to the merits of the particular case; an investigator in making a finding or recommendation, or the decision maker in making the decision, did not follow the required procedure for doing so. (37) Appeals must: be made within twenty (20) business days of the decision as to the final outcome being sent to the student; be made in writing to the Registrar; contain details of the basis for the appeal, identifying the relevant ground or grounds of appeal and providing any supporting information; contain the student’s name, email address and student identification number; and be made only after the student is sent the decision on the final outcome.

Zebrano: 2026-10-07 · Wiersze: 162–175

Hash archiwum: f6c5d7aa86bfdf9c63fe5218a86bfe26748ff58cac44a9b1b81383d30f2b442d