University of Bath

Warunki i wyjątki

Open lane does not imply significant GenAI use is educationally appropriate.

The two-lane framework Every summative assessment sits in one of two lanes. The Two-Lane framework replaces the ABC classification used at Bath until 2025/26. All references to ABC should be removed from unit and assessment materials for 2026/27. Two-lane approaches to GenAI and assessment originated with colleagues in the Pacific Rim and have since been adopted widely across the higher education sector. Open Lane Students have access to GenAI tools, and their use is permitted. Students retain academic responsibility for all their submitted work. Teaching and assessment guidance support effective and responsible use, or avoidance, as appropriate. Closed Lane GenAI tools are not permitted. Assessment conditions are designed to prevent any use of GenAI. The Test An assessment is closed lane only where the assessment conditions reliably prevent students from using generative AI tools. Where they do not, the assessment is open lane. Classification as open lane does not in itself imply that GenAI use should be significant within the task. Academic integrity in each lane Open lane Use of GenAI in the open lane is not in itself academic misconduct (QA53 5.10). Guidance as to the effective and responsible use of GenAI in a particular assessment should be communicated in the unit teaching, materials and/or assessment brief. Students remain responsible for the work they submit. GenAI may be the means through which a student commits one or more of the offences defined in QA53; most commonly plagiarism (presenting unacknowledged paraphrasing of sources, including by a GenAI tool, as their own) and fabrication (invented references, data or evidence). Staff should not attempt to identify whether GenAI was used, only whether the work shows evidence of one of the defined offences, and student work should not be uploaded to AI detection tools. Closed lane Any use of a GenAI tool in a closed-lane assessment is a breach of the assessment conditions and is investigated as academic misconduct under Regulation 19 — as a breach of examination regulations. This is consistent with existing rules on, for example, use of a mobile phone during an examination.

Zebrano: 2026-10-08 · 26–40
SHA-256: f522f69a53baff5b23d146bb70397459e3c3e5b3a30954a030a36ac1ea7b9231

2. When do we transition from the ABC framework to the two-lane framework? EQSC has approved that the two-lane framework will replace the ABC categorisations from September 2026. 3. What’s the rationale for replacing the ABC framework with the two-lane framework? The two-lane framework provides a simpler, more robust and sustainable model for categorising assessments in a GenAI-rich context. This change reduces complexity, improves clarity for students, and gives courses more flexibility. Assessment strategies built on policing AI tool use become less reliable over time. Instead of designing assessments around what we want students not to do, we should focus on what we want them to demonstrate, regardless of the tools they use. Our aim should be to build an assessment model that remains robust even as these technologies evolve. 4. Are the two lanes essentially whether an assessment is exam or coursework? No, the key part about a closed lane assessment is that, not only are students not permitted to use AI tools, but that the assessment is designed in such a way as to prevent usage of AI tools. This means that invigilated exams or tests, whether practical, written or oral, where students do not have access to AI tools are closed lane assessments, but exams or tests where students could feasibly access AI tools will be classed as open lane. Written or otherwise recorded coursework is classified as open lane assessment. 5. What will I need to do in light of the two-lane framework being rolled out in AY26-27? a) You should ensure your assessment briefs and other assessment information for AY26/27 tells students which lane their assessment is in. As a general rule, Type A becomes closed lane and B and C become open lane. If you had any Type A coursework this should now be regarded as open lane.

Zebrano: 2026-10-08 · 72–79
SHA-256: ee1b1c1172c9761057f71adfa5186a607b1b4ffa110515f75b7957ec0193888f

Academic integrity in each lane Open lane Use of GenAI in the open lane is not in itself academic misconduct (QA53 5.10). Guidance as to the effective and responsible use of GenAI in a particular assessment should be communicated in the unit teaching, materials and/or assessment brief. Students remain responsible for the work they submit. GenAI may be the means through which a student commits one or more of the offences defined in QA53; most commonly plagiarism (presenting unacknowledged paraphrasing of sources, including by a GenAI tool, as their own) and fabrication (invented references, data or evidence). Staff should not attempt to identify whether GenAI was used, only whether the work shows evidence of one of the defined offences, and student work should not be uploaded to AI detection tools. Closed lane Any use of a GenAI tool in a closed-lane assessment is a breach of the assessment conditions and is investigated as academic misconduct under Regulation 19 — as a breach of examination regulations. This is consistent with existing rules on, for example, use of a mobile phone during an examination. What unit convenors need to do Before students undertake their first summative assessment in your unit: Action Resource Confirm the lane of each assessment in the unit, and state this clearly in the assessment brief (open lane) and directly to students (closed lane). Assessment brief template For closed-lane assessments, explain the conditions, confirm that use of a GenAI tool would constitute academic misconduct, and be prepared to explain why the learning outcomes should be demonstrated without recourse to these tools. Student-facing overview slides For open-lane assessments, make clear that use of GenAI is not in itself misconduct, that students remain responsible for the work they submit, and that GenAI may be the means through which plagiarism, fabrication or collusion occurs. Student-facing overview slides Academic integrity Provide unit-specific guidance on effective and responsible use of GenAI. Where non-use is educationally desirable, for example in developing autonomous mastery of core concepts or practices, explain and justify it. Assessment brief template Two lane teaching guidance Direct students to the Skills Centre and Library resources on academic integrity, AI literacy, and the acknowledgement and referencing of GenAI use. Communicate to students that declaring GenAI use is expected good practice and create opportunities within the unit for them to do so in a meaningful way.

Zebrano: 2026-10-08 · 35–55
SHA-256: f522f69a53baff5b23d146bb70397459e3c3e5b3a30954a030a36ac1ea7b9231

19.3.3 To collate evidence of any academic misconduct, Directors of Studies: • review the work submitted for assessment • review and where necessary produce reports using the University- licensed similarity-checking software • review other evidence supplied by the Unit Convenor • consult with relevant members of staff to confirm facts and details of the case • review any record of previous academic misconduct by the student. 19.3.4 Directors of Studies do not upload work submitted for assessment to any similarity-checking software for which the University does not have an institutional license. Directors of Studies do not upload work submitted for assessment to any AI detection programme.

Zebrano: 2026-10-08 · 381–392
SHA-256: 56bf28cae301b75a1655383d426a2252f7fea1f221261df5e3077484aee8509d

Warunki i wyjątki

Bath University login; legal/privacy/copyright conditions and actual assessment lane.

No assumption of Office-integrated Premium licence; third-party content and University-owned distance-learning materials not covered by staff personal permission.

Can I give permission for students to upload teaching materials into GenAI tools such as NotebookLM? Staff retain intellectual property rights over teaching materials they create for their day-to-day teaching. For materials of this type they can therefore give their students permission to upload these to GenAI tools, for example in order to produce summaries of them, or transpose the material into different formats to enhance accessibility for students. However, if those teaching materials contain elements that belong to a third party, such as an excerpt from a book, then staff do not have full intellectual property rights and therefore cannot give permission for these materials to be uploaded. This is also usually the case even where the published work is the tutor’s own, as the publisher usually acquires the copyright when they accept a manuscript for publication, although they may allow limited sharing. Materials produced as part of a distance learning course belong to the University rather than the staff member who created them and therefore that staff member should not upload them to GenAI tools or third party websites, nor give permission for others to do so. Why should I direct students to use Microsoft Copilot as their default AI tool rather than something else? If staff and students use Microsoft Copilot when logged into their university account this will safeguard their user data, thus providing more privacy than using other AI tools. It is also the only supported tool at the university meaning that staff can seek support in using it, which in turn will help them to support their students. Thirdly, as this tool is freely available to all staff and students at the university it ensures equal access for all students. Where students pay to gain access to premium models of AI, and then use these when completing assessments, this can give them an unfair advantage over other students, something we would seek to discourage. On some courses there may be another AI tool which is licensed for use by that cohort, which does not pose a problem provided all students have equal access to the tool and do not object to its use. There are other freely accessible tools which students (and staff) may find useful, which can be used for teaching and learning under their own discretion, provided the legal and ethical considerations outlined on this page are observed.

Zebrano: 2026-10-08 · 87–91
SHA-256: 768d1a49b19ffe4b656ec2e18014983e30df12093e6f86308a909fa4081f6e54

Published on: 13/06/2024 · Last updated on: 28/09/2026 What is Copilot? As at the “last updated” date shown at the top of this article, Copilot is the only Generative AI tool available to all University staff when logged into a device with a Bath login. This article refers to Microsoft Copilot when accessed using a web browser at m365.cloud.microsoft. It does not refer to the app versions of Copilot, or Copilot inside MS Office. With Copilot, you can: Use text prompts to help with ideation / initial research Generate images Analyse, summarise and rewrite the contents of an uploaded file ‘Describe’ the contents of an uploaded image Create simple ‘agents’ to perform a specific purpose (E.g. A ‘Study Buddy’ for a specific topic) How do I access Copilot? Ensure you are logged into your University account then go to https://copilot.microsoft.com or copilot.cloud.microsoft in your browser. Most browsers support it.

Zebrano: 2026-10-08 · 29–40
SHA-256: d8b23de9484de3bb1bf47fdbdec1fcad5783789c3ec23c9403bf164d81a84b9c

The Team Team runs short sessions introducing Copilot. Please go to the Events page and search for ‘Copilot’ for upcoming dates. Additional information For Microsoft’s latest Copilot updates see the Copilot Blog. More details about the ‘Copilot Chat’ interface. Note the version available with your Bath login may not include all the features shown in the Microsoft blog, as there are numerous types of license available.

Zebrano: 2026-10-08 · 78–80
SHA-256: d8b23de9484de3bb1bf47fdbdec1fcad5783789c3ec23c9403bf164d81a84b9c

‘Do I own the copyright to this material?’ Copyright belongs to the author or creator of original work, whether in writing or an audio-visual medium, unless or until those intellectual property rights are assigned to someone else. Accordingly, in most cases, students own the copyright to their notes and assessments and it would be an infringement of their copyright to copy, share, broadcast or adapt their work without their explicit permission* – all of which arguably occur when inputting students’ work into a GenAI tool. *Explicit permission in this context means that students must actively ‘opt in’ rather than ‘opt out’. Actively opting in could be achieved by transparently informing students of your intentions as regards their work and then asking students to tick a box indicating they provide their permission. A form you could use is supplied within the FAQs below. How does data protection legislation (E.g. GDPR) intersect with GenAI? It is always important to be aware of the provisions of GDPR. Even where a student has given permission for their work to be inputted into an AI tool, they are still entitled to certain legal protections: For their work not to be personally identifiable. This involves more than simply redacting a student’s name. For example, details within the assignment itself may give clues to the student’s identity. You should also be aware that the metadata of files often indicates the author. It may be possible to remove this. For their data not to be held indefinitely. When their data is no longer required it should be securely deleted. Please note: if you are privy to any confidential or commercially sensitive data this should never be shared with AI.

Zebrano: 2026-10-08 · 45–52
SHA-256: 768d1a49b19ffe4b656ec2e18014983e30df12093e6f86308a909fa4081f6e54

Notifying students of an investigation 19.3.5 Directors of Studies write to students to notify them of the formal investigation with a clear statement describing the suspected academic misconduct. They use the template provided by Academic Registry – see Academic Misconduct (https://www.bath.ac.uk/guides/academic- misconduct/). 19.3.6 Directors of Studies provide students with any relevant evidence, including any report produced by University-licensed similarity-checking software. 19.3.7 Where a group of students are investigated for academic misconduct, Directors of Studies write to each student individually. 19.3.8 Students have 14 calendar days to respond to the statement describing the suspected academic misconduct. 19.3.9 The student’s written response forms part of the evidence for the investigation. 19.3.10 Students may consult an advisor before responding. Appropriate

Zebrano: 2026-10-08 · 395–410
SHA-256: 56bf28cae301b75a1655383d426a2252f7fea1f221261df5e3077484aee8509d

Scope This regulation applies to academic misconduct in work submitted for summative assessment by students registered on courses leading to undergraduate and postgraduate awards of the University. It further applies to students taking units as part of a Study Abroad programme. This regulation applies to academic misconduct in work submitted for summative assessment by students enrolled on doctoral programmes in respect of any taught elements of those programmes. This regulation does not apply to students enrolled on doctoral programmes in respect of research submitted for examination. Allegations of misconduct in research by doctoral students are investigated according to the Procedure for Inquiring into Allegations of Misconduct in Research and Scholarship (https://www.bath.ac.uk/publications/allegations-of-misconduct-in-research/).

Zebrano: 2026-10-08 · 49–63
SHA-256: 56bf28cae301b75a1655383d426a2252f7fea1f221261df5e3077484aee8509d

Warunki i wyjątki

Chair cannot decide a more severe penalty; filing grounds are restricted.

19.6 Review of the decision of the Head of Department 19.6.1 If a student is dissatisfied with the decision of the Head of Department, they may request a review by the Chair of the Board of Studies of: • a finding by the Head of Department that they have engaged in moderate academic misconduct; and/or • any penalties applied by the Head of Department for moderate academic misconduct. 19.6.2 A student must make a request for review within 14 calendar days of receipt of the written notification of the decision of the Head of Department. 19.6.3 A student must request a review using the Academic Misconduct Review Request Form (https://www.bath.ac.uk/publications/academic-misconduct- review-request-form/) published by Academic Registry. 19.6.4 A student may only request a review on one or more of the following grounds: 19.6.4.1 there were material procedural irregularities in the conduct of the investigation into academic misconduct; 19.6.4.2 there is material new evidence which the student could not reasonably have been expected to make available for the investigation into academic misconduct; 19.6.4.3 that the determination of the Head of Department was unreasonable in light of the evidence presented. 19.6.4.4 that there is positive evidence of prejudice or bias on the part of the Head of Department. 19.6.5 The Chair of the Boards of Studies completes the review within 14 days of receipt of the request. 19.6.6 The Chair of the Board of Studies determines one of the following: 19.6.6.1 that no action be taken 19.6.6.2 to make a new decision in place of the Head of Department. 19.6.7 The Chair of the Board of Studies does not decide a more severe penalty that that which was decided by the Head of Department. 19.6.8 The Chair of the Board of Studies issues a completion of procedures letter to the student. They use the template provided by Academic Registry – see Academic Misconduct (https://www.bath.ac.uk/guides/academic-

Zebrano: 2026-10-08 · 721–756
SHA-256: 56bf28cae301b75a1655383d426a2252f7fea1f221261df5e3077484aee8509d

Warunki i wyjątki

Prescribed form and restrictedReg19.7 grounds.

19.7 Review of the decision of a Board of Inquiry into Academic Misconduct 19.7.1 If a student is dissatisfied with the decision of a Board of Inquiry into Academic Misconduct, they may request a review by the Director of Academic Registry of: 19.7.1.1 a finding by the Board that they have engaged in Moderate or Severe Academic Misconduct; and/or 19.7.1.2 any penalties applied by the Board 19.7.2 A student must make a request for review within 14 calendar days of receipt of the written notification of the decision of the Board of Inquiry. 19.7.3 A student must request a review using the Academic Misconduct Review Request Form (https://www.bath.ac.uk/publications/academic-misconduct- review-request-form/) published by Academic Registry. 19.7.4 A student may only request a review on one or more of the following grounds: 19.7.4.1 there were material procedural irregularities in the conduct of the investigation into academic misconduct; 19.7.4.2 there is material new evidence which the student could not reasonably have been expected to make available for the investigation into academic misconduct; 19.7.4.3 that the determination of the Board of Inquiry into Academic Misconduct was unreasonable in light of the evidence presented; 19.7.4.4 that there is positive evidence of prejudice or bias on the part of the Head of Department. 19.7.5 The Director of Academic Registry completes the review within 14 days of receipt of the request. 19.7.6 The Director of Academic registry determines one of the following: 19.7.6.1 that no action be taken 19.7.6.2 that the Board of Inquiry into Academic Misconduct should reconsider the matter. 19.7.7 Where the Director of Academic Registry decides that no action should be taken, they issue a completion of procedures letter to the student. They use the template provided by Academic Registry – see Academic Misconduct (https://www.bath.ac.uk/guides/academic-misconduct/).

Zebrano: 2026-10-08 · 764–797
SHA-256: 56bf28cae301b75a1655383d426a2252f7fea1f221261df5e3077484aee8509d

Warunki i wyjątki

Provisional results and academic-judgement dissatisfaction alone are excluded; RAD students use separate first-stage process.

The Academic Appeals process provides a mechanism to challenge or to request for reconsideration a decision on academic progress, assessment, and awards. Our academic appeals process is guided by the principles of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator's Good Practice Framework, and we are committed to ensuring that you will not be unfairly disadvantaged because you have challenged an academic decision made by us. Before considering an appeal, you should refer to Regulation 17, which sets out the process and related responsibilities for students and the University. Key points You can only appeal against decisions taken by a Board of Studies within your current year of study. You will only be eligible to appeal once that decision has been formally communicated to you. You cannot appeal against provisional results. Dissatisfaction with a mark or set of marks, or any other aspect of the properly exercised academic judgement of the examiners, will not of itself be acceptable as a valid ground for an Academic Appeal. Any action or actions which might be taken following consideration of an academic appeal are subject to the assessment and/or regulations that apply to your course and your overall academic performance to date. Therefore, some desired actions or outcomes might not be possible. Students are expected to act reasonably and fairly towards the University and its staff when making an Academic Appeal. The University reserves the right to refuse repeat appeals made on issues already considered and appeals which it deems to be without serious purpose or value. If you have concerns about assessment outcomes that have not yet been approved by a Board of Studies, you should seek advice in the first instance from your Director of Studies. You may, for example, suspect errors in the totalling or transcription of marks or grades, or you might want to seek clarification about the marking process. If you submit an Academic Appeal, and the issues you have raised in it could be dealt with more appropriately under another procedure (for example, the student complaints procedure), the University will advise you how it will consider your case. To request a review of a decision relating to a breach of academic integrity, follow the steps in our information on Academic Misconduct. Timescales Appeals will only be accepted if submitted, in writing, no more than 14 calendar days after notification of the academic decision against which you are appealing (this will have been sent to you by email to your University email address). Appeals received after this deadline will not normally be considered. You will normally be notified of the outcome of the Stage 1 appeals process within 35 calendar days of receipt of your appeal - or within 28 calendar days, if the outcome is that an Appeal Hearing will be held.

Zebrano: 2026-10-08 · 43–56
SHA-256: d5c2f9cbce309af2d102fa7b7fdea8011a3ce5359281bfead49d34030da0bb04

You must submit your Stage 1 Academic Appeal no more than 14 calendar days after notification of the academic decision against which you are appealing. You must submit: the Stage 1 Academic Appeal form completed in full all of the evidence that you have available to you to support your case Your submission must contain all the details and evidence that you wish to be considered as part of the appeal process. A group appeal can be submitted by several students on the same issue. Appeal evidence requirements You must provide evidence to support your academic appeal case. The information on what you can submit as evidence, in our guidance on requesting a coursework extension or IMCs, may be helpful to you, when considering the evidence you will provide. Your evidence should confirm what happened, and when. You must provide evidence that is available to you to make as clear a case as you can when you submit your academic appeal. Your submission must contain all the details and evidence that you wish to be considered as part of this appeal process. You will not normally have any further opportunity to present your case or provide further detail beyond the information you provide in the appeal form and the evidence you submit. If you are making your appeal under ground 17.12c) i) - that there were mitigating circumstances around the time of your assessment which you did not tell the University about, and which you are raising now - your evidence should also clearly show why you were not able to disclose these circumstances at the time (for example, through the University’s Individual Mitigating Circumstances (IMCs) procedures or by raising them with your Director of Studies). Any evidence you provide does not need to be formal documentation if this is not available to you. For example, if you do not have access to formal medical documents such as a letter from a doctor, you can supply alternative evidence such as copies of relevant (dated) correspondence or evidence of medication. If your ability to provide specific evidence has been affected by events outside of your control, you should explain clearly what you intended to provide and why it is unavailable to you. If there are circumstances where evidence you are hoping to provide to support your appeal will only be available later than the 14 calendar day deadline, you should make this clear when submitting your appeal, giving the reason you have not been able to provide the evidence sooner and a date by which the late evidence will be provided.

Zebrano: 2026-10-08 · 69–81
SHA-256: d5c2f9cbce309af2d102fa7b7fdea8011a3ce5359281bfead49d34030da0bb04

Where to submit your appeal Stage 1 Academic Appeal forms must be sent to the appropriate contact. If you are an undergraduate or postgraduate taught student, you should complete the Stage 1 Academic Appeal form and submit this to the Chair of the Board of Studies for your Faculty/School as follows: Faculty of Engineering & Design (engdesign-academicappeals@bath.ac.uk) Faculty of Humanities & Social Sciences (including IMML students) (hss-chair-of-bos@bath.ac.uk) School of Management (acadreviews@management.bath.ac.uk) Faculty of Science (scienceappeals@bath.ac.uk) If you are a doctoral student, complete and submit the Stage 1 Academic Appeal (Doctoral) form to: the Head of PhD Student Administration (doctoralcollege@bath.ac.uk), on behalf of the Chair of Board of Studies (Doctoral) Royal Academy of Dance students should use the Royal Academy of Dance Stage 1 appeals process. If you are not satisfied with the outcome of your appeal, you can request a review of a Stage 1 appeal decision by the University of Bath.

Zebrano: 2026-10-08 · 82–91
SHA-256: d5c2f9cbce309af2d102fa7b7fdea8011a3ce5359281bfead49d34030da0bb04