University of Waikato

Conditions & exceptions

Generation: task specifically requires tool; rewriting: instructions explicitly permit; approved Studiosity excluded from both clauses.

Generative AI and Education: University of Waikato’s position Most people are aware of the ongoing discussions around the use of Generative AI in education (GenAI). This page outlines the University of Waikato’s current stance and provides links to guidance we’ve developed to support students and staff. In the Paper Outline Tool, accessible via Moodle and available to all learners, the following guidance explains what is permitted. However, if you're unsure, always check with your paper convener or lecturer. Cheating at the University includes, but is not limited to: Using an AI tool (e.g., ChatGPT) to generate your assignment or test answers and submitting them as your own, unless the assignment specifically requires the use of such a tool (does not apply to Studiosity, which is an approved AI tool). Using an AI tool (e.g., ChatGPT) to rewrite your assignment or test answers and submitting them as your own, unless explicitly permitted in the assignment instructions (does not apply to Studiosity, which is an approved AI tool). If you're interested in learning more about how AI can be used responsibly in your studies, refer to the library guide: How To Use GenAI/ChatGPT Responsibly: A Guide to Generative AI and Best Practices (opens in a new tab). If you are unsure what constitutes academic misconduct, or plagiarism, enrol yourself into the new Academic Integrity Course in Moodle (opens in a new tab) and work through the tasks in your own time. This module will highlight common types of academic misconduct including the risks associated with GenAI and guide you on how to avoid getting into trouble.

Collected: 2026-10-08 · 320–328
SHA-256: bcc39740ef908d42b74aa1cce74c01fc3a6768ec2818e8250204f5a6e1df3c95

Provision for appeal to the Chairperson of the Academic Integrity Panel Any party to a complaint of student misconduct (the complainant or the student who was the subject of the complaint) may appeal to the Chairperson of the Academic Integrity Panel against any decision taken by an Academic Integrity Representative or Associate Academic Integrity Representative under section 16 of these regulations An appeal must be addressed and submitted in writing to the Chairperson of the Academic Integrity Panel, together with the prescribed fee. An appeal must be received by the Chairperson of the Academic Integrity Panel not more than 14 days after the date on which the relevant decision was formally notified, and must include details of the grounds for the appeal. An appeal may be made only on one or more of the following grounds: that the process used for addressing the alleged misconduct was unfair that the decision reached was manifestly at odds with the evidence that the remedy imposed was manifestly at odds with the misconduct that significant new evidence has become available that could not reasonably have been obtained and presented during the initial process and that could have a material effect on the outcome. The Chairperson of the Academic Integrity Panel must hear the appeal as expeditiously as possible. The appellant and the authority that made the original discipline decision must be given the opportunity to appear and give evidence at the appeal hearing may be accompanied by another person to act as an adviser or support person, subject to any conditions that the Chairperson of the Academic Integrity Panel may impose. Having heard an appeal, the Chairperson of the Academic Integrity Panel may dismiss the appeal and uphold the original decision vary the decision with respect to the original complaint require any appropriate and available remedy to settle the appeal. The Chairperson of the Academic Integrity Panel may not impose a penalty that could not otherwise be imposed under these regulations by the authority that made the decision appealed against. The outcome must be communicated to the appellant and the authority that made the original discipline decision as expeditiously as possible. Failure to comply with a resolution negotiated or determined under this section is misconduct. The decision of the Chairperson of the Academic Integrity Panel on an appeal is final. At the discretion of the Chairperson of the Academic Integrity Panel, the fee for an appeal may be refunded, either in full or in part, if the appeal is decided in the appellant's favour.

Collected: 2026-10-08 · 739–760
SHA-256: b000d22054ce4f8c6bf39fb404d35993a029d20809413d5b1907beb0709936aa

Conditions & exceptions

Excludes AIP review of a representative decision under section31.

Provision for appeal to the Student Discipline Appeals Committee Any party to a complaint of student misconduct (the complainant or the student who was the subject of the complaint) may appeal to the Student Discipline Appeals Committee, a committee of Council, against any decision made under these regulations by the Vice-Chancellor under section 21 of these regulations by the Chairperson of the Student Discipline Committee under section 24 of these regulations by the Chairperson of the Academic Integrity Panel under section 25 of these regulations, unless the decision of the Panel was in response to the appeal of a decision by an Academic Integrity Representative or Associate Academic Integrity Representative under section 31 of these regulations. by the Student Discipline Committee under section 27 of these regulations by the Academic Integrity Panel under section 28 of these regulations. An appeal must be addressed and submitted in writing to the Secretary to the Student Discipline Appeals Committee, together with the prescribed fee; it must include an email address and must be signed. An appeal must be received by the Secretary to the Student Discipline Appeals Committee not more than 14 days after the date on which the relevant decision was formally notified, and must include details of the grounds for the appeal. An appeal may be made only on one or more of the following grounds: that the process used for addressing the alleged misconduct was unfair that the decision reached was manifestly at odds with the evidence that the remedy imposed was manifestly at odds with the misconduct that significant new evidence has become available that could not reasonably have been obtained and presented during the initial process and that could have a material effect on the outcome.

Collected: 2026-10-08 · 761–774
SHA-256: b000d22054ce4f8c6bf39fb404d35993a029d20809413d5b1907beb0709936aa

From 2025, the University of Waikato will be using Turnitin functionality to identify work that have been a result of GenAI use. Uploading work to non-institutional generative AI platforms poses significant privacy and ethical risks. Such work may contain personally identifiable information, and external tools often lack safeguards aligned with privacy laws like the NZ Privacy Act (opens in a new tab).

Collected: 2026-10-08 · 330–331
SHA-256: bcc39740ef908d42b74aa1cce74c01fc3a6768ec2818e8250204f5a6e1df3c95