Melbourne, Australia Last checked

Monash University

Independent · Open access · Not an official university page

What would you like to check?

Search universities

Explore the current record by topic

Coursework Conditions & Moodle Statements

Regulated by Unit

Under Assessment Regime Procedure V12 §1.7–1.7.2 and Table 2, Chief Examiners must determine where and how generative AI can be used in a unit or assessment task, clearly publish use specifications in the required LMS section before the teaching period or at least 4 weeks before task details are released (with Table 2 noting a 4-week deadline before the due date / timetable release), and provide educational reasoning when AI is disallowed. Every Moodle assessment task displays one of four standard AI statements.

Official source ↗

Examinations & Supervised Assessments

Prohibited Unless Permitted

In all scheduled electronic examinations (eExams), generative AI is strictly prohibited unless explicit permission is granted by the Chief Examiner and displayed on the eExam landing page. Online spell check, grammar, and translation tools are also barred in closed-book and non-open-access exams.

Official source ↗

Disclosure & Acknowledgment Protocols

Mandatory Declaration

When AI use is allowed or required in an assessment, follow its instructions and restrictions, document the type of AI and its contribution, and provide written acknowledgement of use and extent. Cite and reference using the closest appropriate source type when necessary. If AI is permitted but unused, acknowledge non-use. Further tool, version or prompt documentation follows the actual task instructions; no universal prompt-history requirement is established by the cited assessment-use rule.

Official source ↗

Student AI Tools & Data Protection

Enterprise Tools Available

Monash provides student access to Microsoft Copilot (with commercial data protection via Monash login) and Google Gemini / NotebookLM (opt-in for students 18+). Queries on enterprise accounts are not used to train foundational AI models. However, tool access does not confer coursework assessment permission, and users must avoid uploading personal, sensitive, copyrighted, or confidential data.

Official source ↗

Supported Tools Catalog

Officially Supported

Monash provides institutional access to Microsoft Copilot and opt-in Google Gemini/NotebookLM for students aged 18 and over. The tool directory also lists Zoom AI Companion. Other enterprise-service eligibility is not independently established here; institutional access does not grant assessment permission, which follows the Chief Examiner’s task instructions.

Official source ↗

Graduate Research & Thesis Rules

Supervisor Guidance & Examiner Ban

HDR students should discuss intended GenAI use and acknowledgement with supervisors. At progress management reviews they are asked about use and must confirm consistency with Monash policies/guidance and acknowledgement. Thesis submission forms and preliminary pages prompt AI disclosure. Thesis examiners must not use GenAI to support, prepare or write their reports.

Official source ↗
More reviewed record topics

Academic Integrity & Proofreading Boundaries

Strict Proofreading Boundary

Under Student Academic Integrity Procedure, minor, trivial or frivolous breaches due to inappropriate academic practice receive the educative response in §6.1: the Chief Examiner/RO/nominee provides support and a written warning outcome, and awards a mark reflecting the practice without imposing a penalty (§6.1.1). For alleged misconduct, where evidence was not provided with the notice of allegation, students must have a reasonable opportunity of not less than five working days to respond to the allegation and evidence before RO determination (§8.3). Invited students may bring a support person who cannot represent or advocate; at Monash Malaysia a staff member or student may represent them (§8.4). Under §11.1, a finding and penalty, or penalty alone, may be appealed; students who admitted the misconduct may appeal only the penalty. The Hearing and Appeals Panels Procedure governs that process. At Malaysia, §11.2 separately permits a written appeal to the Malaysian Registrar General within 14 days of receiving the decision. Where an academic misconduct allegation occurs WITH a research misconduct allegation, §7.6 instead refers the matter to the research-misconduct RO and this coursework procedure does not investigate or determine it.

Official source ↗

Teaching Practice & Detector Prohibition

AI Detectors Banned

Chief Examiners set unit assessment conditions; AI detectors are barred from breach evidence; markers must use similarity detection (Turnitin) and academic judgement.

Official source ↗

Institutional Governance & High-Risk Decisions

Human Accountability Mandate

Under AI Operations Procedure §1.3, decisions affecting rights/interests require human staff review and accountability; non-procured systems prohibited.

Official source ↗

Before you submit

Do

  • Check the specific Moodle statement (Without Limits, Guided, or Must Not Be Used) before using AI.
    Source guidance
  • Follow task instructions, acknowledge the AI tool and its contribution, cite when necessary, and acknowledge non-use if AI was permitted but unused.
    Source guidance
  • To protect your data, it is recommended you use your Monash login credentials when accessing enterprise tools such as Microsoft Copilot (with the green shield) or Google Gemini/NotebookLM (opt-in for students aged 18+), and as a general rule always avoid giving personal information to AI systems.
    Source guidance

Don’t

  • Do not treat campus Microsoft Copilot or Google Gemini access as coursework assessment permission.
    Source guidance
  • Do not use generative AI or unapproved browser plugins in scheduled eExams unless authorized on landing page.
    Source guidance
  • Unless otherwise stated in the LMS, default proofreading allows identifying errors and suggesting corrections to spelling and grammar; do not use AI to rewrite passages, change words, or reformat text, and do not breach specific assessment conditions set by chief examiners (§4.6, §4.7).
    Source guidance

AI use questioned?

Monash University

Audience and activity scope varies strictly by source: Assessment Regime Procedure V12 §1.7–1.7.2 governs Chief Examiner coursework conditions and 4 standard Moodle banners; eExam rules strictly prohibit GenAI in scheduled supervised electronic exams unless explicit on landing page; Library guidance governs written acknowledgement and citation; Student Academic Integrity Procedure V4.1 governs proofreading boundaries (§4.6) and detector evidence prohibitions; Enterprise Copilot and Gemini access terms govern institutional SSO logins without granting coursework permission.

Investigation & response

Under Student Academic Integrity Procedure, minor, trivial or frivolous breaches due to inappropriate academic practice receive the educative response in §6.1: the Chief Examiner/RO/nominee provides support and a written warning outcome, and awards a mark reflecting the practice without imposing a penalty (§6.1.1). For alleged misconduct, where evidence was not provided with the notice of allegation, students must have a reasonable opportunity of not less than five working days to respond to the allegation and evidence before RO determination (§8.3). Invited students may bring a support person who cannot represent or advocate; at Monash Malaysia a staff member or student may represent them (§8.4). Under §11.1, a finding and penalty, or penalty alone, may be appealed; students who admitted the misconduct may appeal only the penalty. The Hearing and Appeals Panels Procedure governs that process. At Malaysia, §11.2 separately permits a written appeal to the Malaysian Registrar General within 14 days of receiving the decision. Where an academic misconduct allegation occurs WITH a research misconduct allegation, §7.6 instead refers the matter to the research-misconduct RO and this coursework procedure does not investigate or determine it.

Original evidence and scope

Under Student Academic Integrity Procedure, minor, trivial or frivolous breaches due to inappropriate academic practice receive the educative response in §6.1: the Chief Examiner/RO/nominee provides support and a written warning outcome, and awards a mark reflecting the practice without imposing a penalty (§6.1.1). For alleged misconduct, where evidence was not provided with the notice of allegation, students must have a reasonable opportunity of not less than five working days to respond to the allegation and evidence before RO determination (§8.3). Invited students may bring a support person who cannot represent or advocate; at Monash Malaysia a staff member or student may represent them (§8.4). Under §11.1, a finding and penalty, or penalty alone, may be appealed; students who admitted the misconduct may appeal only the penalty. The Hearing and Appeals Panels Procedure governs that process. At Malaysia, §11.2 separately permits a written appeal to the Malaysian Registrar General within 14 days of receiving the decision. Where an academic misconduct allegation occurs WITH a research misconduct allegation, §7.6 instead refers the matter to the research-misconduct RO and this coursework procedure does not investigate or determine it.

proposed:uapt-monash-20261021-cl-020

All coursework assessment academic integrity allegations across all campuses

6.1 If the chief examiner or nominee, or the RO in cases of alleged misconduct, determines that the student’s breach was minor, trivial or frivolous due to inappropriate academic practice, the chief examiner, RO or nominee must: ● help the student identify gaps in their skills or knowledge that led to the academic integrity breach; ● counsel the student in appropriate academic practice; ● recommend that the student undertake relevant academic skills development (e.g. book in with a learning advisor in Student Academic Success, use relevant learning <u>resources</u>); ● issue an Academic Integrity Warning Outcome in writing through the academic integrity portal within seven days of their

Clause: §6.1 (Educative Response); Extracted text SHA256 1f61092a095921b752cd0e6c4abda84fd7b3e7986c27304b4590e2bb70796d2f; original binding lines 469–484; characters 26094–27028; excerpt offset 0–700

Official university source ↗
decision; and ● award a mark that reflects the inappropriate academic practice indicated by the breach (see 6.1.1). 6.1.1 When marking a task as part of an educative response, the chief examiner or nominee must not impose a penalty.

Clause: §6.1 (Educative Response); Extracted text SHA256 1f61092a095921b752cd0e6c4abda84fd7b3e7986c27304b4590e2bb70796d2f; original binding lines 469–484; characters 26094–27028; excerpt offset 700–934

Official university source ↗
The evidence for the alleged misconduct must be provided to the student and will generally be provided with the notice of allegation. However, in exceptional circumstances or where evidence is received by SCC after sending the notice of allegation, evidence may be provided at any time during an investigation, including during a meeting with the student. Where evidence is not provided with a notice of allegation, the student must be given a reasonable opportunity, not less than five working days, to respond to the allegation and evidence before the RO makes a determination.

Clause: §8.3 (Notice of Allegation & Response Timeframe); Extracted text SHA256 1f61092a095921b752cd0e6c4abda84fd7b3e7986c27304b4590e2bb70796d2f; original binding lines 605–609; characters 34636–35215; excerpt offset 0–579

Official university source ↗
### 8.4 If invited to a meeting, a student is entitled to: ● be accompanied and assisted by a support person who is not permitted to represent or advocate for the student, except for a student at Monash University Malaysia who can be represented by a staff member or student; and ● make oral and/or written responses to the allegation and evidence.

Clause: §8.4 (Meeting Accompaniment & Malaysia Exception); Extracted text SHA256 1f61092a095921b752cd0e6c4abda84fd7b3e7986c27304b4590e2bb70796d2f; original binding lines 613–618; characters 35222–35572; excerpt offset 0–350

Official university source ↗
11.1 A student who has been found to have committed an act of academic misconduct by the RO may appeal against the finding and penalty, or the penalty only. If the student admitted the misconduct during the misconduct investigation, they cannot appeal against the finding but may appeal against the penalty only. The <u>Student Academic and General Misconduct: Hearing and Appeals Panels</u> <u>Procedure</u> outlines the appeals process. 11.2 At the Malaysia campus, a student dissatisfied with any disciplinary proceeding may submit an appeal in writing to the Malaysian Registrar General of Private Higher Educational Institutions within 14 days from the date of receipt of the decision, pursuant

Clause: §11.1-11.2 (Misconduct Appeals & Malaysia Campus 14-Day Rule); Extracted text SHA256 1f61092a095921b752cd0e6c4abda84fd7b3e7986c27304b4590e2bb70796d2f; original binding lines 791–798; characters 48335–49173; excerpt offset 0–700

Official university source ↗
to the Private Higher Educational Institutions Act 1996 and any directions issued by the Registrar General, as amended from time to time.

Clause: §11.1-11.2 (Misconduct Appeals & Malaysia Campus 14-Day Rule); Extracted text SHA256 1f61092a095921b752cd0e6c4abda84fd7b3e7986c27304b4590e2bb70796d2f; original binding lines 791–798; characters 48335–49173; excerpt offset 700–838

Official university source ↗
7.6 Where an allegation of academic misconduct occurs with an allegation of research misconduct, the matter is referred to the RO for research misconduct, as <u>specified by the Vice-Chancellor</u>. The matter will not be investigated or determined in accordance with this procedure (see <u>Responsible Conduct of Research: Procedure for Investigating Code Breaches</u>).

Clause: §7.6 (Research Misconduct Procedure Separation); Extracted text SHA256 1f61092a095921b752cd0e6c4abda84fd7b3e7986c27304b4590e2bb70796d2f; original binding lines 524–526; characters 30313–30684; excerpt offset 0–371

Official university source ↗

Possible outcomes

Under Student Academic Integrity Procedure, minor, trivial or frivolous breaches due to inappropriate academic practice receive the educative response in §6.1: the Chief Examiner/RO/nominee provides support and a written warning outcome, and awards a mark reflecting the practice without imposing a penalty (§6.1.1). For alleged misconduct, where evidence was not provided with the notice of allegation, students must have a reasonable opportunity of not less than five working days to respond to the allegation and evidence before RO determination (§8.3). Invited students may bring a support person who cannot represent or advocate; at Monash Malaysia a staff member or student may represent them (§8.4). Under §11.1, a finding and penalty, or penalty alone, may be appealed; students who admitted the misconduct may appeal only the penalty. The Hearing and Appeals Panels Procedure governs that process. At Malaysia, §11.2 separately permits a written appeal to the Malaysian Registrar General within 14 days of receiving the decision. Where an academic misconduct allegation occurs WITH a research misconduct allegation, §7.6 instead refers the matter to the research-misconduct RO and this coursework procedure does not investigate or determine it.

Original evidence and scope

Under Student Academic Integrity Procedure, minor, trivial or frivolous breaches due to inappropriate academic practice receive the educative response in §6.1: the Chief Examiner/RO/nominee provides support and a written warning outcome, and awards a mark reflecting the practice without imposing a penalty (§6.1.1). For alleged misconduct, where evidence was not provided with the notice of allegation, students must have a reasonable opportunity of not less than five working days to respond to the allegation and evidence before RO determination (§8.3). Invited students may bring a support person who cannot represent or advocate; at Monash Malaysia a staff member or student may represent them (§8.4). Under §11.1, a finding and penalty, or penalty alone, may be appealed; students who admitted the misconduct may appeal only the penalty. The Hearing and Appeals Panels Procedure governs that process. At Malaysia, §11.2 separately permits a written appeal to the Malaysian Registrar General within 14 days of receiving the decision. Where an academic misconduct allegation occurs WITH a research misconduct allegation, §7.6 instead refers the matter to the research-misconduct RO and this coursework procedure does not investigate or determine it.

proposed:uapt-monash-20261021-cl-020

All coursework assessment academic integrity allegations across all campuses

6.1 If the chief examiner or nominee, or the RO in cases of alleged misconduct, determines that the student’s breach was minor, trivial or frivolous due to inappropriate academic practice, the chief examiner, RO or nominee must: ● help the student identify gaps in their skills or knowledge that led to the academic integrity breach; ● counsel the student in appropriate academic practice; ● recommend that the student undertake relevant academic skills development (e.g. book in with a learning advisor in Student Academic Success, use relevant learning <u>resources</u>); ● issue an Academic Integrity Warning Outcome in writing through the academic integrity portal within seven days of their

Clause: §6.1 (Educative Response); Extracted text SHA256 1f61092a095921b752cd0e6c4abda84fd7b3e7986c27304b4590e2bb70796d2f; original binding lines 469–484; characters 26094–27028; excerpt offset 0–700

Official university source ↗
decision; and ● award a mark that reflects the inappropriate academic practice indicated by the breach (see 6.1.1). 6.1.1 When marking a task as part of an educative response, the chief examiner or nominee must not impose a penalty.

Clause: §6.1 (Educative Response); Extracted text SHA256 1f61092a095921b752cd0e6c4abda84fd7b3e7986c27304b4590e2bb70796d2f; original binding lines 469–484; characters 26094–27028; excerpt offset 700–934

Official university source ↗
The evidence for the alleged misconduct must be provided to the student and will generally be provided with the notice of allegation. However, in exceptional circumstances or where evidence is received by SCC after sending the notice of allegation, evidence may be provided at any time during an investigation, including during a meeting with the student. Where evidence is not provided with a notice of allegation, the student must be given a reasonable opportunity, not less than five working days, to respond to the allegation and evidence before the RO makes a determination.

Clause: §8.3 (Notice of Allegation & Response Timeframe); Extracted text SHA256 1f61092a095921b752cd0e6c4abda84fd7b3e7986c27304b4590e2bb70796d2f; original binding lines 605–609; characters 34636–35215; excerpt offset 0–579

Official university source ↗
### 8.4 If invited to a meeting, a student is entitled to: ● be accompanied and assisted by a support person who is not permitted to represent or advocate for the student, except for a student at Monash University Malaysia who can be represented by a staff member or student; and ● make oral and/or written responses to the allegation and evidence.

Clause: §8.4 (Meeting Accompaniment & Malaysia Exception); Extracted text SHA256 1f61092a095921b752cd0e6c4abda84fd7b3e7986c27304b4590e2bb70796d2f; original binding lines 613–618; characters 35222–35572; excerpt offset 0–350

Official university source ↗
11.1 A student who has been found to have committed an act of academic misconduct by the RO may appeal against the finding and penalty, or the penalty only. If the student admitted the misconduct during the misconduct investigation, they cannot appeal against the finding but may appeal against the penalty only. The <u>Student Academic and General Misconduct: Hearing and Appeals Panels</u> <u>Procedure</u> outlines the appeals process. 11.2 At the Malaysia campus, a student dissatisfied with any disciplinary proceeding may submit an appeal in writing to the Malaysian Registrar General of Private Higher Educational Institutions within 14 days from the date of receipt of the decision, pursuant

Clause: §11.1-11.2 (Misconduct Appeals & Malaysia Campus 14-Day Rule); Extracted text SHA256 1f61092a095921b752cd0e6c4abda84fd7b3e7986c27304b4590e2bb70796d2f; original binding lines 791–798; characters 48335–49173; excerpt offset 0–700

Official university source ↗
to the Private Higher Educational Institutions Act 1996 and any directions issued by the Registrar General, as amended from time to time.

Clause: §11.1-11.2 (Misconduct Appeals & Malaysia Campus 14-Day Rule); Extracted text SHA256 1f61092a095921b752cd0e6c4abda84fd7b3e7986c27304b4590e2bb70796d2f; original binding lines 791–798; characters 48335–49173; excerpt offset 700–838

Official university source ↗
7.6 Where an allegation of academic misconduct occurs with an allegation of research misconduct, the matter is referred to the RO for research misconduct, as <u>specified by the Vice-Chancellor</u>. The matter will not be investigated or determined in accordance with this procedure (see <u>Responsible Conduct of Research: Procedure for Investigating Code Breaches</u>).

Clause: §7.6 (Research Misconduct Procedure Separation); Extracted text SHA256 1f61092a095921b752cd0e6c4abda84fd7b3e7986c27304b4590e2bb70796d2f; original binding lines 524–526; characters 30313–30684; excerpt offset 0–371

Official university source ↗

Review & appeal

Under Student Academic Integrity Procedure, minor, trivial or frivolous breaches due to inappropriate academic practice receive the educative response in §6.1: the Chief Examiner/RO/nominee provides support and a written warning outcome, and awards a mark reflecting the practice without imposing a penalty (§6.1.1). For alleged misconduct, where evidence was not provided with the notice of allegation, students must have a reasonable opportunity of not less than five working days to respond to the allegation and evidence before RO determination (§8.3). Invited students may bring a support person who cannot represent or advocate; at Monash Malaysia a staff member or student may represent them (§8.4). Under §11.1, a finding and penalty, or penalty alone, may be appealed; students who admitted the misconduct may appeal only the penalty. The Hearing and Appeals Panels Procedure governs that process. At Malaysia, §11.2 separately permits a written appeal to the Malaysian Registrar General within 14 days of receiving the decision. Where an academic misconduct allegation occurs WITH a research misconduct allegation, §7.6 instead refers the matter to the research-misconduct RO and this coursework procedure does not investigate or determine it.

Original evidence and scope

Under Student Academic Integrity Procedure, minor, trivial or frivolous breaches due to inappropriate academic practice receive the educative response in §6.1: the Chief Examiner/RO/nominee provides support and a written warning outcome, and awards a mark reflecting the practice without imposing a penalty (§6.1.1). For alleged misconduct, where evidence was not provided with the notice of allegation, students must have a reasonable opportunity of not less than five working days to respond to the allegation and evidence before RO determination (§8.3). Invited students may bring a support person who cannot represent or advocate; at Monash Malaysia a staff member or student may represent them (§8.4). Under §11.1, a finding and penalty, or penalty alone, may be appealed; students who admitted the misconduct may appeal only the penalty. The Hearing and Appeals Panels Procedure governs that process. At Malaysia, §11.2 separately permits a written appeal to the Malaysian Registrar General within 14 days of receiving the decision. Where an academic misconduct allegation occurs WITH a research misconduct allegation, §7.6 instead refers the matter to the research-misconduct RO and this coursework procedure does not investigate or determine it.

proposed:uapt-monash-20261021-cl-020

All coursework assessment academic integrity allegations across all campuses

6.1 If the chief examiner or nominee, or the RO in cases of alleged misconduct, determines that the student’s breach was minor, trivial or frivolous due to inappropriate academic practice, the chief examiner, RO or nominee must: ● help the student identify gaps in their skills or knowledge that led to the academic integrity breach; ● counsel the student in appropriate academic practice; ● recommend that the student undertake relevant academic skills development (e.g. book in with a learning advisor in Student Academic Success, use relevant learning <u>resources</u>); ● issue an Academic Integrity Warning Outcome in writing through the academic integrity portal within seven days of their

Clause: §6.1 (Educative Response); Extracted text SHA256 1f61092a095921b752cd0e6c4abda84fd7b3e7986c27304b4590e2bb70796d2f; original binding lines 469–484; characters 26094–27028; excerpt offset 0–700

Official university source ↗
decision; and ● award a mark that reflects the inappropriate academic practice indicated by the breach (see 6.1.1). 6.1.1 When marking a task as part of an educative response, the chief examiner or nominee must not impose a penalty.

Clause: §6.1 (Educative Response); Extracted text SHA256 1f61092a095921b752cd0e6c4abda84fd7b3e7986c27304b4590e2bb70796d2f; original binding lines 469–484; characters 26094–27028; excerpt offset 700–934

Official university source ↗
The evidence for the alleged misconduct must be provided to the student and will generally be provided with the notice of allegation. However, in exceptional circumstances or where evidence is received by SCC after sending the notice of allegation, evidence may be provided at any time during an investigation, including during a meeting with the student. Where evidence is not provided with a notice of allegation, the student must be given a reasonable opportunity, not less than five working days, to respond to the allegation and evidence before the RO makes a determination.

Clause: §8.3 (Notice of Allegation & Response Timeframe); Extracted text SHA256 1f61092a095921b752cd0e6c4abda84fd7b3e7986c27304b4590e2bb70796d2f; original binding lines 605–609; characters 34636–35215; excerpt offset 0–579

Official university source ↗
### 8.4 If invited to a meeting, a student is entitled to: ● be accompanied and assisted by a support person who is not permitted to represent or advocate for the student, except for a student at Monash University Malaysia who can be represented by a staff member or student; and ● make oral and/or written responses to the allegation and evidence.

Clause: §8.4 (Meeting Accompaniment & Malaysia Exception); Extracted text SHA256 1f61092a095921b752cd0e6c4abda84fd7b3e7986c27304b4590e2bb70796d2f; original binding lines 613–618; characters 35222–35572; excerpt offset 0–350

Official university source ↗
11.1 A student who has been found to have committed an act of academic misconduct by the RO may appeal against the finding and penalty, or the penalty only. If the student admitted the misconduct during the misconduct investigation, they cannot appeal against the finding but may appeal against the penalty only. The <u>Student Academic and General Misconduct: Hearing and Appeals Panels</u> <u>Procedure</u> outlines the appeals process. 11.2 At the Malaysia campus, a student dissatisfied with any disciplinary proceeding may submit an appeal in writing to the Malaysian Registrar General of Private Higher Educational Institutions within 14 days from the date of receipt of the decision, pursuant

Clause: §11.1-11.2 (Misconduct Appeals & Malaysia Campus 14-Day Rule); Extracted text SHA256 1f61092a095921b752cd0e6c4abda84fd7b3e7986c27304b4590e2bb70796d2f; original binding lines 791–798; characters 48335–49173; excerpt offset 0–700

Official university source ↗
to the Private Higher Educational Institutions Act 1996 and any directions issued by the Registrar General, as amended from time to time.

Clause: §11.1-11.2 (Misconduct Appeals & Malaysia Campus 14-Day Rule); Extracted text SHA256 1f61092a095921b752cd0e6c4abda84fd7b3e7986c27304b4590e2bb70796d2f; original binding lines 791–798; characters 48335–49173; excerpt offset 700–838

Official university source ↗
7.6 Where an allegation of academic misconduct occurs with an allegation of research misconduct, the matter is referred to the RO for research misconduct, as <u>specified by the Vice-Chancellor</u>. The matter will not be investigated or determined in accordance with this procedure (see <u>Responsible Conduct of Research: Procedure for Investigating Code Breaches</u>).

Clause: §7.6 (Research Misconduct Procedure Separation); Extracted text SHA256 1f61092a095921b752cd0e6c4abda84fd7b3e7986c27304b4590e2bb70796d2f; original binding lines 524–526; characters 30313–30684; excerpt offset 0–371

Official university source ↗

Monash internal appeals must meet the grounds in§5.2 (bias subject to the prior-objection limitation, potentially material procedural unfairness, excessive penalty, materially relevant new evidence not reasonably available, or an unreasonable decision on the evidence). Under§5.3, written grounds go to the University Registrar within20workingdays from the notice date, subject to extraordinary circumstances. Admitted misconduct permits appeal of penalty only.

Original evidence and scope

Monash internal appeals must meet the grounds in§5.2 (bias subject to the prior-objection limitation, potentially material procedural unfairness, excessive penalty, materially relevant new evidence not reasonably available, or an unreasonable decision on the evidence). Under§5.3, written grounds go to the University Registrar within20workingdays from the notice date, subject to extraordinary circumstances. Admitted misconduct permits appeal of penalty only.

draft-monash-review2-grounds

Academic/general misconduct under Monash Hearing and Appeals Panels Procedure; campus and route qualifications apply

5.1.​ A student who has been found to have engaged in an act of academic misconduct and/or general misconduct by a Responsible Officer or a SMP may appeal against the finding and the penalty, or the penalty alone. However, if the student admitted the misconduct, they cannot appeal against the finding and may only appeal against the penalty. 5.2.​ A student can make an appeal on one or more of the following grounds: ●​ there was a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the decision maker. However, if the student did not object to a panel member prior to the hearing, an appeal on this ground may only be based on the conduct of the member during

PDF physical pages 7–7; text chars 30752–31452

Official university source ↗
the hearing; ●​ there was a breach of procedural fairness that has the potential to affect the decision; ●​ the penalty imposed was excessive; ●​ there is new evidence that was not reasonably available to the student during the investigation or hearing that has the potential to affect the decision; and/or ●​ the decision was not reasonable based on the evidence that was available and relevant at the time of the original decision. 5.3.​ To submit an appeal, students must follow the instructions provided in the notice of decision. The appeal must: ●​ be in writing and clearly state the ground(s) for appeal, as outlined in c

PDF physical pages 7–7; text chars 31452–32152

Official university source ↗
lause 5.2; and ●​ be submitted to the University Registrar within 20 working days from the date of the notice, unless the student can demonstrate extraordinary circumstances preventing them from lodging the appeal within the prescribed time frame. 5.4.​ The student will receive an acknowledgement of receipt of the appeal in writing to their Monash University email account within five working days of lodging the appeal. The acknowledgement will include information about the appeals process, estimated timelines and support available. 5.5.​ A decision of suspension or exclusion by the Responsible Officer or SMP should not be enforced against a student u

PDF physical pages 7–7; text chars 32152–32852

Official university source ↗
ntil an appeal has been heard and determined or the appeal period has expired, unless there are extenuating circumstances relating to the wellbeing of the student.

PDF physical pages 7–7; text chars 32852–33032

Official university source ↗

Under§5.5, Responsible Officer or SMP suspension/exclusion should not be enforced until the appeal is determined or its filing period expires, unless extenuating circumstances relate to wellbeing or community welfare. This is not a universal stay of all penalties.

Original evidence and scope

Under§5.5, Responsible Officer or SMP suspension/exclusion should not be enforced until the appeal is determined or its filing period expires, unless extenuating circumstances relate to wellbeing or community welfare. This is not a universal stay of all penalties.

draft-monash-review2-suspension

Academic/general misconduct under Monash Hearing and Appeals Panels Procedure; campus and route qualifications apply

5.5.​ A decision of suspension or exclusion by the Responsible Officer or SMP should not be enforced against a student until an appeal has been heard and determined or the appeal period has expired, unless there are extenuating circumstances relating to the wellbeing of the student.

PDF physical pages 7–7; text chars 32730–33032

Official university source ↗

The SAP decision is Monash’s final internal decision; Student Complaints Policy or University Student Ombudsman Policy cannot dispute that discipline outcome. External review avenues include the Victorian or National Student Ombudsman. Under§7.6.2, Malaysia students may appeal in writing to the Malaysian Registrar General of Private Higher Educational Institutions within14days of RECEIPT of the SAP decision. This external deadline is distinct from the internal20workingday notice-date deadline.

Original evidence and scope

The SAP decision is Monash’s final internal decision; Student Complaints Policy or University Student Ombudsman Policy cannot dispute that discipline outcome. External review avenues include the Victorian or National Student Ombudsman. Under§7.6.2, Malaysia students may appeal in writing to the Malaysian Registrar General of Private Higher Educational Institutions within14days of RECEIPT of the SAP decision. This external deadline is distinct from the internal20workingday notice-date deadline.

draft-monash-review2-finality

Academic/general misconduct under Monash Hearing and Appeals Panels Procedure; campus and route qualifications apply

7.6.​ The decision of the SAP is the final decision of Monash. The Student Complaints Policy or the University Student Ombudsman Policy cannot be applied to dispute the outcome of a discipline process. 7.6.1.​ Students who are not satisfied with the decision of the SAP may refer the matter to either the Victorian Ombudsman or the National Student Ombudsman as avenues for external review. Student Academic and General Misconduct: Hearing and Appeals Panels Procedure | 8 7.6.2.​ Monash University Malaysia students who are not satisfied with the decision of the SAP may submit

PDF physical pages 8–9; text chars 39042–39742

Official university source ↗
an appeal in writing to the Malaysian Registrar General of Private Higher Educational Institutions within 14 days from the date of receipt of the decision.

PDF physical pages 8–9; text chars 39742–39933

Official university source ↗

AI tools & access

  • CopilotInstitutional access / licenceRecorded as allowed in the source scope

    Log in with Monash student credentials at copilot.microsoft.com

  • Microsoft CopilotInstitutional access / licenceRecorded as allowed in the source scope

    Use Monash credentials to sign in at copilot.microsoft.com

Record updatesLast 90 days · Recorded updates: 2

Updates to this site's reviewed record, not confirmation that the university changed its policy.

  1. Page update

    Other records · Page update

    View revision

    Loading revision…

  2. Record addition · Site correction

    Academic integrity · Teaching · 4 more topics · Records involved: 26 (12 corrected / adjusted · 14 added)

    View revision

    Loading revision…

Reviewed claims

26

Official sources

17 official URLs; 17 source attributions and their captured versions retained.

Assessment Regime Procedure

publicpolicydms.monash.edu

University official source

Monash University

Hash and captured version

Assessment Regime Procedure · 2026-10-21T15:05:24.597475Z

SHA-256 of the retained capture file bytes.

6d3f53b6db94b94bb6549969036ef5e1c080057012aea530c06bae0552607bfe

Hashes identify a captured version; they do not establish current policy or review approval.

Official source ↗

Artificial Intelligence Operations Procedure

publicpolicydms.monash.edu

University official source

Monash University

Hash and captured version

Artificial Intelligence Operations Procedure · 2026-10-21T15:05:01.769290Z

SHA-256 of the retained capture file bytes.

f3e2fa5afba126149865285955d8854d605781b8b1eb929c540a876777841cb4

Hashes identify a captured version; they do not establish current policy or review approval.

Official source ↗

Student Academic Integrity Procedure

publicpolicydms.monash.edu

University official source

Monash University

Hash and captured version

Student Academic Integrity Procedure · 2026-10-21T15:05:52.941418Z

SHA-256 of the retained capture file bytes.

9de258c526e37e24c5c1487f738194b36f1cfdfc0734ba4faa01aefc4719d583

Hashes identify a captured version; they do not establish current policy or review approval.

Official source ↗

AI and assessments - Student Academic Success

www.monash.edu

University official source

Monash University

Hash and captured version

AI and assessments - Student Academic Success · 2026-10-21T15:06:52.362293Z

SHA-256 of the retained capture file bytes.

bb35ba9ff0ec5630f2f90cf8ba27ba1deee48ac9e6f78843ce06aab5f1032233

Hashes identify a captured version; they do not establish current policy or review approval.

Official source ↗

AI and assessment - Teach HQ

www.monash.edu

University official source

Monash University

Hash and captured version

AI and assessment - Teach HQ · 2026-10-21T15:07:36.115764Z

SHA-256 of the retained capture file bytes.

08251397e4158ada7a1f207cf8055f3e72db948adab07c6629ffc71e81e39a72

Hashes identify a captured version; they do not establish current policy or review approval.

Official source ↗

eExam rules - Current students

www.monash.edu

University official source

Monash University

Hash and captured version

eExam rules - Current students · 2026-10-21T15:08:41.148769Z

SHA-256 of the retained capture file bytes.

8339c2d743ffd68f638b6ed5fff8ec306aaad21f2e7e937ded442f9a2edfb90c

Hashes identify a captured version; they do not establish current policy or review approval.

Official source ↗

Guidance on Generative AI - Graduate Research

www.monash.edu

University official source

Monash University

Hash and captured version

Guidance on Generative AI - Graduate Research · 2026-10-21T15:08:13.809699Z

SHA-256 of the retained capture file bytes.

a49ddb4cb1b91d9b12b5fe5408b49785738747b9356d82df07328d7fca62bc04

Hashes identify a captured version; they do not establish current policy or review approval.

Official source ↗

Google Gemini - eSolutions

www.monash.edu

University official source

Monash University

Hash and captured version

Google Gemini - eSolutions · 2026-10-21T15:09:18.421409Z

SHA-256 of the retained capture file bytes.

6084b7de3cfe411d1c1b44180ecbd9535afe67132210d2235b7991c43ec474d9

Hashes identify a captured version; they do not establish current policy or review approval.

Official source ↗

Microsoft Copilot - Student Academic Success

www.monash.edu

University official source

Monash University

Hash and captured version

Microsoft Copilot - Student Academic Success · 2026-10-21T15:08:24.528945Z

SHA-256 of the retained capture file bytes.

4cfccd2506de527a0a857f1a90975dc29da3d9aebf662221325f6c60db164faf

Hashes identify a captured version; they do not establish current policy or review approval.

Official source ↗

Responsible and ethical use of AI - Student Academic Success

www.monash.edu

University official source

Monash University

Hash and captured version

Responsible and ethical use of AI - Student Academic Success · 2026-10-21T15:08:11.729471Z

SHA-256 of the retained capture file bytes.

233b7f720457e0f7eee403a9b560633a33ab3c4efbe7b8ee45c34075c51b7956

Hashes identify a captured version; they do not establish current policy or review approval.

Official source ↗

Acknowledging the use of AI - Student Academic Success

www.monash.edu

University official source

Monash University

Hash and captured version

Acknowledging the use of AI - Student Academic Success · 2026-10-21T15:08:02.358848Z

SHA-256 of the retained capture file bytes.

31fa0d66ba2978d6cf4ede2c821c96d5a322d1e1bc92196a13e5cc6d621f64b5

Hashes identify a captured version; they do not establish current policy or review approval.

Official source ↗

Responsible use of AI - Teach HQ

www.monash.edu

University official source

Monash University

Hash and captured version

Responsible use of AI - Teach HQ · 2026-10-21T15:08:00.240911Z

SHA-256 of the retained capture file bytes.

244b7304f2971924399b75062cfa41f109e36c44f5a6b9c6010b35b2521ce733

Hashes identify a captured version; they do not establish current policy or review approval.

Official source ↗

AI Policies and Guidelines - Artificial intelligence at Monash

www.monash.edu

University official source

Monash University

Hash and captured version

AI Policies and Guidelines - Artificial intelligence at Monash · 2026-10-21T15:04:37.316113Z

SHA-256 of the retained capture file bytes.

17fdb7f71b6aea405eee55317ff8db3e0eb661eb33b68915d637763bb8ece17d

Hashes identify a captured version; they do not establish current policy or review approval.

Official source ↗

AI for Staff - Artificial intelligence at Monash

www.monash.edu

University official source

Monash University

Hash and captured version

AI for Staff - Artificial intelligence at Monash · 2026-10-21T15:08:26.371564Z

SHA-256 of the retained capture file bytes.

9434bc0e3f165860c9ff37ed6184ea8ad20eec4877e650530efba2965dcd0541

Hashes identify a captured version; they do not establish current policy or review approval.

Official source ↗

AI for Students - Artificial intelligence at Monash

www.monash.edu

University official source

Monash University

Hash and captured version

AI for Students - Artificial intelligence at Monash · 2026-10-21T15:08:37.066552Z

SHA-256 of the retained capture file bytes.

3ac9d1902f310723a03061582f1cdfcaddb58669b66469aeb313f0b1368251d8

Hashes identify a captured version; they do not establish current policy or review approval.

Official source ↗

Responsible and ethical use of AI - Student Academic Success

www.monash.edu

University official source

Monash University

Hash and captured version

Responsible and ethical use of AI - Student Academic Success · 2026-05-10T14:10:30.000Z

Representation unspecified in this historical record; do not assume an original-file hash.

0a59bbda7ec72b9e89082a3807f7ea7a1a242602d55841a7f4f605dc79ff7c34

Hashes identify a captured version; they do not establish current policy or review approval.

Official source ↗

Student Academic and General Misconduct: Hearing and Appeals Panels Procedure

publicpolicydms.monash.edu

University official source

Monash University

Hash and captured version

Student Academic and General Misconduct: Hearing and Appeals Panels Procedure ·

SHA-256 of the retained capture file bytes.

456c6c5c69740a7fdd9360f5e148356e896fec88204d5ce942f2b4b8dafcee40

Hashes identify a captured version; they do not establish current policy or review approval.

Official source ↗
Record information, JSON & citation

Review layers: claim review applies to the claims only. Analysis is a separate machine-generated summary awaiting review. Coverage scores do not establish complete policy knowledge.

Claim review state
agent_reviewed
Analysis review state
machine_candidate
Record revision
qs35-40-v6-r4-meta-20261022
Dataset release
public-release-20260924-002
Correction published
Student snapshot
Not published
Current reviewed JSON · Historical baseline

Published V6 presentation; JSON and MCP retain the existing public record. Supplementary quotations and scope notes remain pending review. Local candidate corrections, tools and student summaries are not approved for publication. Institution-wide audit remains PARTIAL.

  • Assessment notice timing contains an internal drafting discrepancy between Assessment Regime Procedure §1.7.1–1.7.2 (requiring publication before teaching period or 4 weeks before task details are released) and Appendix Table 2 (referencing 4 weeks before due date or timetable release).
  • Specific record retention and disposal schedules for student generative AI prompts and interaction logs are not established in reviewed university-wide procedures.
  • Dedicated assistive technology and disability accommodation carve-outs under generative AI assessment restrictions are not established in reviewed coursework policies.
  • Governance standards and security approval frameworks for MCP (Model Context Protocol) and local AI client tools are not established in reviewed IT procedures.
  • Independent external policy snapshot acceptance is pending; publication approval is false and unapproved for live deployment.
  • The complete private historical held-decision set has not been independently reconciled; captured originals are preserved.
  • External Hearing and Appeals Panels Procedure details are not independently established here; do not infer a general appeal clock from Malaysia §11.2.
        Current reviewed JSON
        Questions students ask

        Questions students ask

        Can I use AI for my coursework?

        Under Assessment Regime Procedure V12 §1.7–1.7.2 and Table 2, Chief Examiners must determine where and how generative AI can be used in a unit or assessment task, clearly publish use specifications in the required LMS section before the teaching period or at least 4 weeks before task details are released (with Table 2 noting a 4-week deadline before the due date / timetable release), and provide educational reasoning when AI is disallowed. Every Moodle assessment task displays one of four standard AI statements.

        View evidence →
        Do I need to disclose AI use?

        When AI use is allowed or required in an assessment, follow its instructions and restrictions, document the type of AI and its contribution, and provide written acknowledgement of use and extent. Cite and reference using the closest appropriate source type when necessary. If AI is permitted but unused, acknowledge non-use. Further tool, version or prompt documentation follows the actual task instructions; no universal prompt-history requirement is established by the cited assessment-use rule.

        View evidence →
        Can I upload sensitive data?

        Monash provides student access to Microsoft Copilot (with commercial data protection via Monash login) and Google Gemini / NotebookLM (opt-in for students 18+). Queries on enterprise accounts are not used to train foundational AI models. However, tool access does not confer coursework assessment permission, and users must avoid uploading personal, sensitive, copyrighted, or confidential data.

        View evidence →
        Which tools can I access?

        Monash provides institutional access to Microsoft Copilot and opt-in Google Gemini/NotebookLM for students aged 18 and over. The tool directory also lists Zoom AI Companion. Other enterprise-service eligibility is not independently established here; institutional access does not grant assessment permission, which follows the Chief Examiner’s task instructions.

        View evidence →
        What are the examination rules?

        In all scheduled electronic examinations (eExams), generative AI is strictly prohibited unless explicit permission is granted by the Chief Examiner and displayed on the eExam landing page. Online spell check, grammar, and translation tools are also barred in closed-book and non-open-access exams.

        View evidence →
        What rules apply to research and publication?

        HDR students should discuss intended GenAI use and acknowledgement with supervisors. At progress management reviews they are asked about use and must confirm consistency with Monash policies/guidance and acknowledgement. Thesis submission forms and preliminary pages prompt AI disclosure. Thesis examiners must not use GenAI to support, prepare or write their reports.

        View evidence →
        What counts as academic misconduct?

        Under Student Academic Integrity Procedure, minor, trivial or frivolous breaches due to inappropriate academic practice receive the educative response in §6.1: the Chief Examiner/RO/nominee provides support and a written warning outcome, and awards a mark reflecting the practice without imposing a penalty (§6.1.1). For alleged misconduct, where evidence was not provided with the notice of allegation, students must have a reasonable opportunity of not less than five working days to respond to the allegation and evidence before RO determination (§8.3). Invited students may bring a support person who cannot represent or advocate; at Monash Malaysia a staff member or student may represent them (§8.4). Under §11.1, a finding and penalty, or penalty alone, may be appealed; students who admitted the misconduct may appeal only the penalty. The Hearing and Appeals Panels Procedure governs that process. At Malaysia, §11.2 separately permits a written appeal to the Malaysian Registrar General within 14 days of receiving the decision. Where an academic misconduct allegation occurs WITH a research misconduct allegation, §7.6 instead refers the matter to the research-misconduct RO and this coursework procedure does not investigate or determine it.

        View evidence →
        What guidance applies to teaching?

        Chief Examiners set unit assessment conditions; AI detectors are barred from breach evidence; markers must use similarity detection (Turnitin) and academic judgement.

        View evidence →
        What security and procurement requirements apply?

        Under AI Operations Procedure §1.3, decisions affecting rights/interests require human staff review and accountability; non-procured systems prohibited.

        View evidence →
        When was this record checked?

        Record checked:

        Record version →
        Which official sources support these rules?Official source →
        Where can I read the full evidence?

        26 · Full policy evidence

        Full policy evidence →
        Monash University AI Policy