Chapter 3 · Creativity, Work and Safety
Learning, Integrity and Disclosure: Using AI in Study and Assessment
- Page 13 of 22
- 20 min read
School and university work asks two things of you at once: produce something, and learn something. AI tools can help with both, and they can also quietly do the learning for you. Teachers face the matching problem: they want students to benefit from useful tools, and they still need honest evidence of what each student can do. Neither side is the villain here. Most trouble comes from unclear expectations, not bad intentions.
This page is for students, teachers and anyone who learns on the job. It stays practical: how to tell support from substitution, how to find out what is allowed, what to disclose, and how to keep your own learning intact. It uses the decision pattern from Everyday AI Ethics: Who Benefits and Who Could Be Harmed, and the verification habit from Trust, Verification and Automation Bias: When to Rely on AI Output.
What you will learn
- How to tell learning support from submitting work as entirely your own, and why proofreading and ghostwriting are different.
- How to read an assignment's AI rules, what to do when they are missing, and when to disclose AI help.
- How to record AI contributions in a group project, and what changes in exams and timed assessments.
- Why AI can invent academic citations, and how to check them.
- How AI tutoring differs from independent practice, when a teacher must review AI-generated feedback, and how to weigh productivity against learning.
One running scenario
Invented scenario:
Nadia is a second-year student in Dhaka. Her course on public health has three tasks this month:
a 1,500-word essay, a group poster with Samir, Zainab and Farah, and a one-hour timed test.
The lecturer, Dr Mensah, wrote on the first assignment sheet: "Use AI tools as you see fit, but
tell me how." The group-poster sheet says nothing about AI. The test sheet says "closed book".
Nadia is not a confident writer in English, her second language. She has used a chat assistant
to explain ideas, and she is tempted to use it for the whole essay because she is short of time.Learning support and work that is entirely your own
The same tool can sit anywhere on a line from helping you learn to doing the work for you. A useful question is: whose thinking is in the finished work, and what is this task meant to show? An essay usually exists to show your own reasoning and writing. A lab report may exist to show you can run and interpret an experiment. A task to "summarise this article" may exist to practise reading. The purpose changes what counts as fair help.
| Use of AI | Example | Whose thinking is in the work |
|---|---|---|
| Explains ideas you do not understand | "Explain herd immunity with a simple example." | Yours; you then write it in your own words. |
| Quizzes you or checks your understanding | "Ask me five questions on this chapter." | Yours. |
| Gives feedback on your draft | "Where is my argument unclear?" | Yours, if you decide what to change. |
| Suggests structure or ideas | "Give me three possible outlines." | Shared. Your choice and development matter. |
| Writes passages you then edit | A drafted paragraph that you reword. | Largely the tool's; your edits may be small. |
| Writes the whole work you submit | The finished essay, pasted in. | The tool's. The work is not entirely yours. |
The middle rows are where reasonable people disagree, and where the next sections matter. The first two rows are widely seen as learning support, but even they depend on what your course allows.
Read the rules before you use a tool
Rules differ between schools, courses, and even between assignments in the same course. Dr Mensah allows AI "as you see fit" on one task while the group sheet is silent and the test is closed book. Look in order: the assignment sheet, the course outline or syllabus, the school or university policy, then ask the teacher. If the rule is missing or vague, ask in writing and keep the reply. Asking is not an admission of anything; it shows care.
Template:
To: Dr Mensah
Subject: Question on AI use for the group poster (Public Health)
Dear Dr Mensah,
The poster assignment sheet does not mention AI tools. May we use them for (a) explaining
background ideas, (b) improving the language of our text, (c) generating images? If yes, how
should we record it? If any of these is not allowed, please tell us which.
Thank you, Nadia (on behalf of the group). Sent 2026-10-12.If you do not get an answer, a safe default is the more cautious reading: use AI only for understanding and checking your own work, avoid anything that produces text or images you would submit, and say what you did.
Source note (as of 2026-10-12; guidance, not law): UNESCO's guidance on generative AI in education and research was first published on 2023-09-07; its web page was last updated on 2026-01-16. The recommendations include regulating generative AI tools with data-privacy protection, taking a human-centred approach, and building coherent policy frameworks. This is international guidance. It does not set your school's rules, and your school may follow it in different ways. Read the actual policy that applies to you.
When to disclose AI assistance
To disclose means to tell the reader or assessor that AI helped and how. The test is not "did I use a tool?" but "would my teacher, reader or client reasonably want to know, or does a rule require it?" You disclose most clearly when a rule asks, when AI contributed ideas, wording or analysis that you submit, and when the work is meant to show your own ability.
| Situation | Disclose? | Why |
|---|---|---|
| The rules require a statement | Yes. | It is a requirement, and hiding it can be treated as misconduct. |
| AI suggested an outline you followed | Yes, briefly. | It shaped the structure of the submitted work. |
| AI explained a concept you then wrote about alone | Often a short note; follow the rules. | Like a tutor. Many courses do not require it, but a note builds trust. |
| A spell-checker fixed typing mistakes | Usually no, unless the rules say so. | Basic tools have long been accepted. Check your course. |
| You are unsure whether the rules cover your use | Ask; if you cannot, disclose. | A disclosure can be corrected; a hidden use is harder to defend. |
A good disclosure is short and specific. It names the tool, what you asked, and what you did with the result.
Template:
AI use statement
Tool: a chat assistant (name and version: ______), used on 2026-10-08.
What I asked: to explain the difference between incidence and prevalence, and to point out
unclear sentences in my second paragraph.
What I did with it: I rewrote the explanation in my own words using the course notes, and
changed two sentences. I wrote the argument and conclusions myself.
What I checked: the definitions against the course textbook.Source note (as of 2026-10-12; a publisher stance, not law): The recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors say that authors must disclose AI use, that chatbots cannot be authors because they cannot be accountable for accuracy, integrity and originality, that humans must review AI output, and that non-disclosure may require corrective action and can be treated as misconduct. This is one group's recommendations for medical journals. Do not assume that other publishers, schools or countries have the same rules. Read the policy that applies to you.
The idea behind the editors' rule travels well: a person remains accountable for what is submitted.
Proofreading and substantive ghostwriting
Proofreading corrects surface errors in your text: spelling, punctuation, grammar. Ghostwriting means someone else produces the substance, such as arguments, structure or wording, and you present it as yours. In between lies editing for clarity, which changes how things are said. The line matters most in writing assignments.
| Help | Example | Usually seen as |
|---|---|---|
| Fix spelling and punctuation | A tool corrects typing errors. | Proofreading. |
| Suggest clearer wording for your own sentences | You choose among alternatives for each one. | Editing. Allowed in some courses, not in others. |
| Rewrite paragraphs for you | The tool restructures your argument and wording. | Close to ghostwriting. Disclose, and check the rules. |
| Produce arguments and text | You give a title; the tool writes. | Ghostwriting. |
Where reasonable people disagree
Nadia writes in her second language. She asks: may I use AI to polish my English if the ideas are mine?
| View A: language help is fair | View B: language is part of the skill |
|---|---|
| The ideas and the analysis are hers. Many people already get language help from friends or writing centres. Students who write in a second language should not be graded down for grammar when the course is about public health. | In a language or writing course, expression is exactly what is assessed. Even in other courses, heavy rewriting can hide how well a student can communicate, and the grader may be judging the writing without knowing. |
Both views care about fairness. The practical solution is the same: ask what the course assesses, keep your own draft, and disclose language help if the rules allow it. A teacher who allows language polish can say so on the assignment sheet, which removes the guesswork for everyone.
Group projects: record who did what, including the AI
In a group, one member's AI use affects everyone's grade. Agree rules early, and keep a short shared log. This protects honest members when a question arises, and it shows the teacher how the work was made.
Template:
GROUP LOG - Public Health poster Rule agreed with Dr Mensah: ______ (date)
Date Who Task AI used? What for / how checked
2026-10-04 Samir Background section No -
2026-10-05 Zainab Chart of case numbers Yes Suggested chart type; Zainab built it
2026-10-06 Farah Poster text, draft 1 Yes Language polish; Farah compared with
original and kept her wording
2026-10-07 Nadia Final check of sources No Opened each source herself
Disagreements and decisions: Group agreed not to use AI for the conclusions section.Notice that the log does not accuse anyone. It records what happened. If one member used AI against the group's agreement, the group should talk first, then involve the teacher according to the course's process, rather than guess.
Exams and timed assessments
An exam or timed test normally measures what you can do by yourself in that moment. "Closed book" means no notes, and it also means no assistant. If an exam sheet says nothing about AI, ask before the day; do not assume it is allowed because the test is online or open-book. In some courses, AI is allowed in part of an assessment, for example to analyse data, and the sheet says so explicitly. Follow what is written.
| For students | For teachers |
|---|---|
| Ask before the test if the rule is unclear. Do not use a phone or second device unless stated. If you notice another student using a tool, speak to the teacher after the test rather than accusing anyone. | State the rule in writing, in the language students use. Design tasks where the process is visible, such as short oral questions or work shown step by step. Do not treat a detector score as proof; use process evidence and a conversation. |
Reasonable disagreement exists about how strict to be. Some teachers argue that exams should reflect the tools students will use at work. Others argue that a few supervised tasks without tools are the only way to know what a student can do alone. Both can be true in one course: tools in coursework, none in a short supervised test.
Fabricated academic citations
A language model predicts plausible text. It can produce a reference that looks perfect, with realistic authors, a journal name, a year and a page range, for a paper that does not exist. A real paper may also be cited for a claim it does not make. A fake citation in your essay is a false statement under your name. For the general habit, see Prompt Engineering for AI: Beginner on verifying outputs.
Invented scenario:
Nadia asks a chat assistant for three sources on vaccine uptake in rural areas. It returns:
1. Rahman, A. and Osei, K. (2021). "Rural vaccine uptake patterns." Journal of Community Health
Studies, 14(2), 55-71.
She searches the journal's website and a library catalogue. She finds no such article, and the
journal's volume 14 has no paper with that title or authors.Citation check:
For every source you cite:
[ ] I found it myself in a library catalogue, publisher site or database (not only in the tool).
[ ] The authors, year, title and publication match what I wrote.
[ ] I opened it and read the part I rely on.
[ ] It really says what my sentence says it says.
[ ] If I cannot find it, I remove it, and I do not "fix" it by guessing details.The same rule applies to quotations. If you cannot trace a quotation to its source, do not use it. The editors' recommendations mentioned above also say AI is not an acceptable primary source, for the same reason: someone must be able to trace a claim to its origin.
AI tutoring and independent practice
A chat assistant can act like a patient tutor: explaining again, giving examples, quizzing you at any hour. Independent practice is attempting problems yourself, struggling a little, and checking afterwards. Both help, in different ways. Struggling with a problem is often where learning happens, so a tutor that removes the struggle too early can remove the benefit.
| AI tutoring | Independent practice | |
|---|---|---|
| Strengths | Available any time; explains in different ways; useful for questions you are too shy to ask. | Builds recall and problem-solving; shows what you really know; no dependence on a tool. |
| Risks | Can be wrong or confident; may give answers too soon; you may feel you understand when you do not. | Slower; you may repeat a misunderstanding without noticing. |
| A balanced use | Try first. Then ask for a hint, not the answer. Ask it to quiz you. Check its explanations against your course notes. | Test yourself without the tool before an exam, and compare your answer with the tutor's. |
A simple self-test: close the tool and explain the idea aloud to a friend. If you cannot, the tool has been doing the understanding.
When a teacher must review AI-generated feedback
Teachers also use AI, for example to draft comments on essays. Marking is a judgement about a student, so the teacher remains accountable, and review is not optional when the feedback affects a grade, progression or a student's confidence. Think about stakes, as in Everyday AI Ethics.
| Use | Stakes | Review needed |
|---|---|---|
| Draft general class comments on common mistakes | Low | Read before sharing; check accuracy. |
| Draft individual comments to students | Medium | Read each one against the student's work; edit tone; remove errors. |
| Suggest a mark or grade | High | The teacher marks. Any tool output is a second opinion, never the decision; the student can ask for a human review. |
| Flag suspected misconduct | High | Not on a tool's output alone; use evidence, a conversation and the school's process. |
Check also what student data goes into a tool; see Privacy, Consent and Data Use: What You Share with an AI Tool. One research paper (Hofmann and colleagues, 2024) found that the language models it tested treated some dialects less favourably, even when only the dialect differed, so a teacher should watch for feedback that treats some writing styles unfairly. Telling students when feedback was AI-assisted also builds trust.
Productivity gains and reduced learning
AI can save real time, which a student with a job or caring duties, or a teacher with a large class, may badly need. It can also reduce the practice that builds skill. The question is not "does it save time?" but "what did the time saving cost, and is that cost acceptable here?"
| Viewpoint | Strongest argument for using AI | Strongest concern |
|---|---|---|
| A student (working part-time) | Time saved on routine steps can go to deeper study; tools are part of work life, so learning them is useful. | If the tool does the hard part, I pass the course and cannot do the job. |
| A teacher (large class) | Drafting comments or materials frees time for individual attention. | Over-reliance can weaken my own judgement, and students may receive generic feedback. |
| A parent or employer | Graduates who can use AI well may be better prepared. | A qualification must still mean the holder can do the work. |
Ask three questions. Is this task the learning itself, or a step towards it? Could I do it without the tool if I had to? Would I be comfortable explaining exactly how I used it? Time saved on a step that is not the learning is usually fine; time saved on the learning itself is a loan you repay later.
Here is the pattern applied to Nadia's essay.
Worksheet, filled in:
1. SITUATION 1,500-word essay; AI allowed "as you see fit, but tell me how". Short of time.
2. WHO IS AFFECTED Nadia; Dr Mensah, who grades; classmates graded on the same scale.
3. BENEFITS/HARMS Benefit: help with English and ideas. Harm: submitting work that is not her
own thinking; learning less; a sentence that sounds unlike her.
4. OPTIONS A. Tool writes the essay. B. Nadia writes; tool explains and checks language.
C. No AI. D. Ask Dr Mensah what "see fit" includes.
5. EVIDENCE Known: the sheet allows AI with a statement. Unknown: whether language polish
is within the spirit; how much help is too much.
6. DECISION B and D. Conditions: draft alone first; keep her draft; write a statement;
check every source herself. Stop if the tool's text replaces her argument.
7. ACCOUNTABLE Nadia, for everything she submits.
8. REVIEW DATE After feedback on this essay (2026-11-10): adjust the next essay.Where this shows up at work
The same habits carry over. At work you will be asked whether you used AI in a report, whether a source is real, who made which part of a team deliverable, and whether you can explain what you submitted. A student who has practised reading rules, disclosing briefly and checking citations is practising professional integrity. Teachers who write clear rules and review AI feedback model the same habits. The next page continues with employers and clients.
Common mistakes
- Assuming silence means permission, or silence means a ban. Fix: ask in writing, and keep the reply.
- Disclosing in vague words ("AI helped"). Fix: name the tool, what you asked and what you changed.
- Trusting a citation because it looks real. Fix: find the source yourself and read the part you rely on.
- Using a detector score as proof. For teachers: it is not evidence by itself. Fix: use the work's history, drafts, a conversation and the school's process.
- Treating group AI use as private. It affects everyone's grade. Fix: agree rules and keep a log.
- Letting a tool take the practice you need. Fix: try first, and test yourself without the tool.
Try it yourself
- Easy. Label each use LS (learning support), E (editing: check the rules) or G (ghostwriting): (a) asking a tool to explain a chemistry concept; (b) asking it to rewrite your paragraphs more formally; (c) asking it to write your discussion section from the title. Then write one question you would ask your teacher about (b).
- Medium. Yuki, a student in Osaka, is told her teacher allows AI for "brainstorming" only. She asked a tool for an outline and then asked it to write the introduction. List which use is within the rule and which is not. Write a three-line AI-use statement that Yuki could add to her work, and one line she could send her teacher.
- Hard. A teacher, Mr Tanaka in Osaka, wants a tool to draft comments on 60 student essays and to suggest a mark. He plans to paste the essays, with student names, into the tool. Use the eight-step pattern (steps 2 to 8). Include a fair account of one point where two reasonable teachers could disagree.
Answers
Easy. (a) LS. (b) E: it depends on whether the course allows language help; the question could be "Is language polishing of my own writing allowed, and should I note it?" (c) G. Pass: you place (b) in the middle, give a reason for each, and ask a clear question. Weak: you label all three the same, or call everything "cheating" or "fine" with no reason.
Medium. Within the rule: the outline (brainstorming, if used as idea-gathering). Outside: the introduction written by the tool. A statement: "I used a chat assistant on 2026-10-08 to brainstorm an outline. I wrote the introduction and the rest myself. I checked all facts against my course notes." A line to the teacher: "I asked a tool for an outline and later asked it to write my introduction before I realised that was outside the rule; I will rewrite it myself, and may I tell you what I did?" Pass: the line is drawn with a reason, the statement is specific, and the honest correction is calm. Weak: hiding the second use, or a statement that says only "I used AI."
Hard. A strong answer. (2) Affected: the 60 students (no say), Mr Tanaka, their families, later readers of their records. (3) Benefit: time for teaching and quicker feedback. Harms: student names and essays leaving the school's control; generic or unfair comments; marks driven by a tool. (4) Options: A. Paste everything and use the suggested marks. B. Remove names, draft comment starters only, and mark himself. C. Use a comment bank he wrote himself, no AI. D. Ask the school for its rule first. (5) Known: the essays are student data; the school's rule is unknown. Test: try on 3 anonymised essays and compare with his own comments. (6) Decision: D first, then B. Conditions: anonymise; he reads every comment against the essay; he marks himself; he tells students feedback was AI-assisted; stop if two comments are wrong or unfair. (7) Accountable: Mr Tanaka for each mark and comment; the head teacher for the school rule. (8) Review: after the first batch is returned, compare time saved and student reactions. A point of disagreement: one teacher may say any AI draft weakens the personal tone students need; another may say a checked draft is still the teacher's judgement and frees time for students. Pass: names removed or a rule check, the mark kept human, an explicit review of each comment, a named owner and date, and both views stated fairly. Weak: "AI marking is fine" or "AI feedback is always wrong" with no options or review.
Notice how the worksheet is the one used for Omar's shop earlier: only the people and stakes changed.
Summary
- Ask whose thinking is in the work and what the task is meant to show. Support for understanding differs from producing what you submit.
- Read the actual rule first. If it is silent, ask in writing, and disclose specifically when in doubt. International guidance and publisher recommendations exist, but your own policy decides.
- Proofreading, editing and ghostwriting are different. In a group, keep a shared log. In exams, follow what is written.
- Check every citation yourself, because tools can invent plausible ones.
- Teachers remain accountable for feedback and marks. Weigh productivity against learning from every viewpoint, and keep practising without the tool.
Next: Work, Clients and Jobs: Using AI Responsibly Where You Are Paid to Decide moves from study to the workplace: employer policies, client disclosure, accountability, and how AI is changing jobs.