紀錄修訂
此為本網站已審查紀錄的更新，並不代表大學已變更其政策。
追蹤器的發布時間並非大學政策的生效日期。
涉及記錄：16 (10 已更正／已調整 · 已新增 6 項)
課程作業 · 披露 · 另有 6 個主題
King's College London does not ban the use of generative AI tools by students.
King's College London does not ban the use of generative AI by students. Whether and how AI may be used in a given assessment is set by the assessment guidance: students should be given clear guidance on the level of AI that is appropriate and should ask if uncertain.
At King's College London, submitting AI-generated text as one's own without written departmental permission is considered misconduct under third-party involvement or text manipulation offences.
King's Academic Misconduct Policy states that using generative AI tools to produce output that is then copied as part of a submission is not appropriate, that any work submitted must genuinely demonstrate the student's own work, skills and knowledge and follow the assessment guidelines, and that generative AI writing programmes are third-party technologies to be used only in accordance with College guidance. The King's guidance adds that submitting AI-generated text as one's own without written departmental permission is considered misconduct (third-party involvement or text manipulation) where it gives undue advantage or interferes with assessment of the student's own understanding. A written permission or acknowledgement does not by itself make substantive AI content creation acceptable.
King's College London defines four broad levels of acceptable AI use in assessments: minimal, limited/selective, open, and embedded, with programme and module leaders adjusting to assessment specifics.
King's College London suggests four broad levels of generative AI use in assessment that programme and module leaders may adjust to each assessment: Minimal (routine tools such as auto transcription, spell and grammar checkers), Limited/selective (clearly delineated tasks as allowed), Open (no specific restrictions but key stages and tools must be tracked) and Embedded (AI use is a focal part of the assessment). The levels are a framework for the actual assessment brief, not an automatic university-wide permission, and verbatim use of generated content without acknowledgement is never appropriate.
King's College London does not require students to reference generative AI as an authoritative source in the reference list, but does require explicit acknowledgement of AI tool use in coursework.
King's College London does not require students to cite generative AI as an authoritative source in the reference list, but it requires students to acknowledge any use of generative AI tools in coursework by including a declaration statement with their references. Unless the assessment brief gives other wording, students append either a declaration that no part of the submission was generated by AI software (English grammar and spell checking is consistent with this statement) or a declaration that parts of the submission have AI contributions within the acceptable use specified in the brief, naming the tools and how they were used.
When King's postgraduate research students submit a thesis, they must also submit the Thesis Submission Declaration Form (RD2), signed by the student and supervisors, and select one of two AI declarations: that no part of the thesis was generated by AI software (grammar and spell checking is consistent with this), or that AI software was used to rewrite, rephrase or paraphrase parts of the thesis to ensure the quality of the English, naming the tools used. Both declarations describe permitted approaches.
Microsoft Copilot is available to all King's College London students via their KCL Microsoft account and comes with commercial data protection under the university's enterprise license.
King's College London states that its Enterprise licence means Copilot use comes with commercial data protection, making it a more secure alternative to other generative AI tools. Commercial data protection does not mean any data may be entered: King's student guidance says not to input personal data, sensitive information or content created by others into any AI platform.
King's guidance for AI-assisted marking and feedback (July 2025) says staff should never upload student work to any AI system without explicit consent and forethought, should not include student details or upload work into any GenAI tool without explicit permission, should use approved or supported university GenAI tools, and should keep reading and assessing student work primarily human with human oversight. Staff should not use GenAI tools to detect students' use of GenAI. This guidance governs staff marking and data handling; it is not a rule about students' own AI use.
Before uploading any part of their research project into a generative AI tool, King's postgraduate research students must discuss confidentiality, copyright, data protection and ethical considerations with their supervisory team and receive approval to proceed. The terms of any supervisory approval should be documented in writing, either in the agreed minutes of a supervisory meeting or in an email between the supervisory team and the student.
Microsoft Copilot is the primary institutional generative AI tool available to all King's College London students and staff via KCL Microsoft login credentials.
King's College London's student guidance states that Microsoft Copilot is available to all King's students with their KCL Microsoft login credentials. The guidance does not describe Copilot as the only, primary or required AI tool, and availability does not grant permission to use it in a specific assessment.
Microsoft Copilot is listed for King's College London in an official university AI tools source. Derived availability: allowed. Derived endorsement type: institutionally licensed or procured.
King's College London states that all staff and students have access to text and image generation through Microsoft Copilot when logged into their KCL Microsoft account, and that its Enterprise licence provides commercial data protection. This is tool access only: it does not authorise AI use in a particular assessment, and the student guidance separately tells students not to input personal data, sensitive information or content created by others into any AI platform.
King's College London permits doctoral students to use generative AI tools in their thesis writing processes for assistive purposes such as clarifying writing, provided use is declared and consistent with guidance.
King's College London permits doctoral students to use generative AI tools in an assistive role in thesis writing, to clarify their own writing and avoid misrepresenting their meaning; this can include rewriting, rephrasing or paraphrasing parts of the thesis. Use beyond the circumstances permitted by the doctoral guidance risks breaching the Academic Misconduct Policy, and AI used in the research process itself (for example to analyse data) is largely outside this guidance and falls under research design, ethical review and research-integrity norms.
King's College London has disabled the AI detection feature in Turnitin due to concerns about reliability and false positives.
King's College London states it took the decision not to enable the AI-writing detection percentage in Turnitin because of concerns about reliability and false positives. This is not the same as switching off similarity checking: the Academic Misconduct Policy still allows staff to use TurnitinUK or other means to help detect academic misconduct. The current back-end Turnitin configuration was not independently tested.
Under King's Academic Misconduct Policy, a suspected case normally goes first to a Stage One Academic Integrity Meeting (AIM) with two staff members. The AIM is not a hearing and should be informal, supportive and exploratory; where authorship or third-party involvement is in doubt the student may be asked to explain their answers, ideas or references, but must not be pressured or obliged to give specific responses and may respond in writing instead. Staff share their notes, and the student may add information, normally within 5 working days. Possible Stage One outcomes are no concern, poor academic practice, a local educative or restorative outcome, or referral to a Stage Two Misconduct Committee.
King's Academic Misconduct Policy provides two different review routes with different start points. Where a Stage One AIM finds misconduct and applies a local penalty (Outcome 3), the student may send a contestation in writing to Student Conduct & Appeals within 10 working days from the date of written notification of the Stage One outcome. A Stage Two Misconduct Committee decision may be appealed, on the grounds of new evidence or significant procedural error, by submitting a Misconduct Appeal Form within 10 working days of the date of the Misconduct Committee outcome. Possible outcomes range from educative measures such as a formal warning or capped resubmission to punitive outcomes up to suspension or expulsion; AI use does not carry an automatic penalty.
King's Academic Misconduct Policy distinguishes poor academic practice from academic misconduct: an ASB Chair may decide a concern is an unintentional misunderstanding of scholarly practice (for example incomplete citation), which is not misconduct; the student receives feedback and the work is marked against the criteria. Blatant, extensive or careless failures are excluded from this category.
King's College London subscribes to the Russell Group's five principles on generative AI in education, including supporting AI literacy, adapting teaching and assessment, and ensuring academic integrity.
King's College London states that it contributed to and subscribes to the Russell Group's five principles on the use of generative AI tools in education, which frame its governance and AI-literacy work. These are principles, not a course-level permission.
