SETU AI

Staff Resources

SETU Position Statement on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI)

 At SETU, we recognise the increasing role of GenAI in education, research, and professional practice. As a university committed to innovation, integrity, inclusion, and sustainability, we encourage the responsible, transparent, and ethical use of AI across our academic community.

SETU affirms that the use of GenAI by students does not automatically constitute academic misconduct. Similarly, AI detection tools are unreliable and should not be used as definitive proof of academic misconduct. Like all technologies, AI tools have the potential to enhance learning, creativity, and productivity when used responsibly and ethically.

Students are encouraged to develop GenAI literacy as an integral element of their digital skills, with parameters around permitted use determined by lecturers based their pedagogical approach and module learning outcomes. This should be underpinned by transparency and accurate attribution or declaration of GenAI use to promote a culture of integrity and trust within our learning community.

Our approach is student-centred and rooted in trust, academic integrity, and educational purpose. Staff are encouraged to integrate GenAI into teaching, assessment, and research where appropriate, in ways that are pedagogically sound and aligned with SETU’s guiding principles.

Assessment design practices should evolve to reflect AI awareness, emphasising authenticity, process, critical thinking, and deeper learning. This may require structural changes to assessment. We actively support the responsible, transparent, and critical use of GenAI and encourage open conversations across our community to ensure clarity, equity, and consistency in its application.

SETU is committed to:

  • Providing ongoing training and resources for staff and students to develop GenAI literacy. 
  • Ensuring all GenAI use is aligned with our forthcoming Academic Integrity Policy, GenAI Guidelines for staff and students, Research Conduct Code, and Data Protection protocols. 
  • Continuously reviewing and updating our practices in line with emerging research, national guidance, and technological developments. 

This position statement reflects SETU’s belief that GenAI, when used ethically and thoughtfully, can enrich learning experiences, prepare students for future workplaces, and support staff in delivering high-quality, forward-looking education.

STAFF PERSPECTIVE

Responding to Concerns about Unauthorised Use of AI

This is a graphic summary of the Student Academic Misconduct Policy and Disciplinary Procedure where unauthorised use of AI is suspected.

1

CONCERN IDENTIFIED

  • Concern arises during assessment review
  • Check assessment brief – is AI permitted?
  • Gather available evidence (see right)
  • AI detection scores alone are not sufficient evidence
  • Keep clear records
2

REVIEW THE EVIDENCE

  • Is there a genuine concern?
  • What evidence supports the concern?
  • Is the concern based solely on an AI detector?
3

MEET WITH THE STUDENT

  • Explain the concern and share the evidence
  • Give the student an opportunity to respond
  • Consider drafts, notes, process evidence and explanations
  • Student may bring a support person

EXAMPLES OF EVIDENCE

  • Inconsistencies in content or style
  • Lack of understanding of work
  • Missing/poor process evidence
  • Unusual sudden improvement
  • Unattributed AI-generated content
  • Contradictions in explanations
  • Other assessment requirements
  • Document version history

NOT EVIDENCE ON ITS OWN

  • AI detection scores
  • Writing style or quality
  • Assumptions about ability
  • Student denial of AI use
DECISION POINT

✔ NO MISCONDUCT FOUND

Matter closed. Record outcome for your information.

➔ INFORMAL RESOLUTION

Educational response agreed (proportionate and fair). Document the outcome.

Examples: Advice, Verbal warning, Resubmission, Mark deduction, Fail mark.

⚠ FORMAL INVESTIGATION

Refer the matter to the Complaints Resolution Officer (CRO) as a formal complaint.

4

FORMAL PROCESS – HANDLED BY CRO

  • Evidence reviewed and fact-finding conducted
  • Student invited to respond
  • CRO determines whether academic misconduct occurred

Possible Outcomes (Stage 1)

  • No breach found – matter closed
  • Academic/educational penalties may apply:
• Written warning
• Fail mark
• Resubmission / resit
• Zero mark
• Mark deduction
5

OUTCOME

You will be informed of the outcome in writing.

If serious or complex, the case may proceed to Stage 2 – Disciplinary Committee.

Students have the right to appeal in line with the Policy.

Stage 2 (if required)

Formal hearing by Disciplinary Committee. Possible sanctions may include failure of module, suspension or expulsion.

Right of appeal available.

NEED SUPPORT?

If you are unsure at any stage, seek advice from:

  • Head of Department (HoD)
  • Programme Leader
  • Complaints Resolution Officer (CRO)

REMEMBER

  • Be fair, objective and consistent
  • Base decisions on a holistic review of evidence
  • Document your reasoning and actions

STUDENT SUPPORT – EXAMPLES

Students may bring a support person to meetings. Support may include:

  • Students' Union representative
  • Friend or family