academic_integrity
For Common Awards summative assessments, Durham guidance says students must not use generative AI to create substantive content that they present as their own creation.
Review: Agent reviewed
Change log
Durham University
Source-backed change history with no release-to-release policy diff rows recorded yet; current claims, official sources, review state, and freshness remain visible across 0 public release records.
Change summary
Current public record freshness and review state.
Durham University currently has 11 source-backed claim records and 4 official source attributions. Latest tracked changed date: May 14, 2026. No tracker diff rows are recorded in the latest public release.
This page combines all public release diffs for Durham University. Individual release snapshots remain available from their release-specific URLs.
No release-to-release policy diff rows are recorded for this university yet. The page still tracks current source-backed claims, official source attributions, review state, source freshness, and public JSON for discovery and citation.
This tracker is not legal advice, not academic integrity advice, and not an official university statement unless a linked source is the university's own official page.
Newly extracted claims are tracker additions and are not necessarily newly published by the university. Source snapshot changes show hash changes for the same source URL and are not by themselves policy changes.
Diff categories
Semantic classification for this release diff.
Combined release diff
Unified tracker diff generated from all public release snapshots for this university.
Durham University combined release diff
Initial tracked release. Lines represent public claim/evidence records entering the release snapshot.
+20-0
11 # Durham University AI policy record
2+academic_integrity: For Common Awards summative assessments, Durham guidance says students must not use generative AI to create substantive content that they present as their own creation.
3+Evidence (en-GB, 6bd549214781): You must not use generative AI to create substantive content for your assessed work that you then present as if it were your own creation.
4+source_status: Durham Common Awards AI academic-misconduct policy is scoped to students' use of generative AI in summative assessments on Common Awards modules.
5+Evidence (en-GB, 6bd549214781): It applies to students' use of generative AI in summative assessments on Common Awards modules. Its only purpose is to define which uses of generative AI count as academic misconduct in that context.
6+academic_integrity: For Common Awards students, Durham guidance says students must not provide generative AI with others' material unless it is public-domain material, permitted material, or protected from training use.
7+Evidence (en-GB, 6bd549214781): You must not provide a generative AI with any text or other material produced by others, unless that material is in the public domain, or you have explicit permission to do so, or you have confirmation that the content will not be used to train the AI in question.
8+academic_integrity: The Durham Common Awards page says its AI policy requires students to paste a completed AI declaration into summative assignments before submission.
9+Evidence (en-GB, 6bd549214781): The policy requires students to copy and paste a completed AI declaration into summative assignments before submitting them.
10+ai_tool_treatment: Durham Global Opportunities guidance says using generative AI in Global Opportunities applications is unadvisable and may negatively affect an application.
11+Evidence (en-GB, ba5fed62f973): It is unadvisable to use generative AI and it may negatively affect your application.
12+ai_tool_treatment: Durham Common Awards guidance says some limited uses of generative AI do not count as academic misconduct if work remains the student's own, AI use is acknowledged where required, and caution is demonstrated.
13+Evidence (en-GB, 6bd549214781): In general, however, other limited uses of generative AI to facilitate your work do not count as academic misconduct, provided that the resulting work still reflects your own engagement with your sources, your own understanding, and your own reasoning and judgments; you clearly acknowledge any use of AI that has substantially informed the content or presentation of your work; and you demonstrate appropriate caution about the limitations of the tools you use.
14+ai_tool_treatment: Durham Global Opportunities guidance says asking an AI tool to proofread in British English would be appropriate where the original text was generated by the human applicant.
15+Evidence (en-GB, ba5fed62f973): Asking an AI tool to 'proof read in British English' would be appropriate use (just as asking a friend or relative to proof read would be) as the original 'generation' of the text was by the human applicant.
16+source_status: Durham's public DCAD generative-AI resources page lists an internal Institutional Policy on Generative Artificial Intelligence for Learning, Teaching and Assessment dated June 2025.
17+Evidence (en-GB, 221e2a570ee0): Institutional Policy on Generative Artificial Intelligence for Learning, Teaching and Assessment, June 2025
18+teaching: DCAD assessment guidance says marking criteria should be reviewed alongside assessment redesign in light of generative AI.
19+Evidence (en-GB, 1389b6697486): It is also evident that, whether learning outcomes change significantly or not, marking criteria should be reviewed alongside the assessment redesign process.
20+teaching: DCAD assessment guidance says actively addressing generative AI in assessment briefs can promote open dialogue with students and help assessments reflect programme learning outcomes and disciplinary practices.
21+Evidence (en-GB, 1389b6697486): Actively addressing genAI, whether implicitly (by designing assessments that focus on human abilities and development) or explicitly (by including genAI in assessment briefs), helps to promote open dialogue about these tools with students and to ensure that assessments reflect programme learning outcomes and disciplinary practices.
Release history
0 public release diffs
Claim changes
11 claim records
source_status
Durham Common Awards AI academic-misconduct policy is scoped to students' use of generative AI in summative assessments on Common Awards modules.
Review: Agent reviewed
academic_integrity
For Common Awards students, Durham guidance says students must not provide generative AI with others' material unless it is public-domain material, permitted material, or protected from training use.
Review: Agent reviewed
academic_integrity
The Durham Common Awards page says its AI policy requires students to paste a completed AI declaration into summative assignments before submission.
Review: Agent reviewed
ai_tool_treatment
Durham Global Opportunities guidance says using generative AI in Global Opportunities applications is unadvisable and may negatively affect an application.
Review: Agent reviewed
ai_tool_treatment
Durham Common Awards guidance says some limited uses of generative AI do not count as academic misconduct if work remains the student's own, AI use is acknowledged where required, and caution is demonstrated.
Review: Agent reviewed
ai_tool_treatment
Durham Global Opportunities guidance says asking an AI tool to proofread in British English would be appropriate where the original text was generated by the human applicant.
Review: Agent reviewed
source_status
Durham's public DCAD generative-AI resources page lists an internal Institutional Policy on Generative Artificial Intelligence for Learning, Teaching and Assessment dated June 2025.
Review: Agent reviewed
teaching
DCAD assessment guidance says marking criteria should be reviewed alongside assessment redesign in light of generative AI.
Review: Agent reviewed
teaching
DCAD assessment guidance says actively addressing generative AI in assessment briefs can promote open dialogue with students and help assessments reflect programme learning outcomes and disciplinary practices.
Review: Agent reviewed
teaching
DCAD assessment guidance says starting an iterative programme-level discussion about learning outcomes and generative AI is highly recommended rather than ignoring already occurring shifts.
Review: Agent reviewed
Source snapshots
4 source attributions
Academic Misconduct: AI Policy and Guidance
official_guidance Tracker checked at May 14, 2026, 2:12 AM
AI Guidance
official_guidance Tracker checked at May 14, 2026, 2:12 AM
Assessment and marking in light of generative AI
official_guidance Tracker checked at May 14, 2026, 2:12 AM
Generative AI in Learning, Teaching & Assessment
official_guidance Tracker checked at May 14, 2026, 2:12 AM