Can you use AI for that assignment? Check the task, not just the university policy

One lecturer allows AI-assisted brainstorming. Another assessment asks students to complete the work without generative AI. A third permits a specified tool but requires an acknowledgement. A student can encounter different expectations without changing universities.

The safest starting point is therefore the particular task. A broad institutional policy is useful, but it may not settle what is allowed in the assignment due next week.

Australia's higher-education regulator, TEQSA, has continued updating its academic-integrity resources during 2026. Its revised toolkit announcement in March and further resources in May reflect work on AI and assessment integrity. They should not be read as a single new permission rule for every student or every course.

Read the assessment instructions first

TEQSA's advice for students says expectations can differ between institutions and assessments. Students should understand the relevant rules and acknowledge permitted use as required. Its advice also encourages clarification rather than guessing.

Open the assessment brief, marking criteria and any specific AI statement together. Look for the permitted activities, excluded activities, required tools and acknowledgement instructions. If a term is unclear, turn it into a question about the task.

For example, “Can I use AI?” is broad. “May I use this tool to suggest an outline, then write the response myself, and how should I acknowledge that?” gives teaching staff a more precise question to answer.

That example is a suggested way to ask, not a rule granting permission. The answer may differ for a reflective journal, a coding task, a language exercise or a take-home examination.

Permission has a scope

Using a tool for one purpose does not automatically establish permission for another. If an assessment permits help with planning, do not assume it also permits generated paragraphs in the submitted work.

The same care applies to a feature built into software a student already uses. Describe the actual function when asking for clarification. A spelling suggestion, a translation, a rewritten paragraph and a generated argument are different activities, even if they appear in one application.

Keep a copy of the relevant instruction or written clarification with the assignment records. This is a practical organisational suggestion. It is not a claim that every provider requires an identical evidence file.

Where instructions change, ask which version applies to the current task. A classmate's recollection of last semester's rule may be helpful context, but it cannot reliably settle this semester's assessment conditions.

Check the references yourself

A polished bibliography can still contain a source that does not exist, or a real source that does not support the sentence beside it.

TEQSA's assessment-integrity guidance discusses fabricated references as a problem that can matter independently of establishing whether text came from AI. The practical lesson is to verify the evidence, not merely the formatting.

Open each cited source. Check the author, title and publication details, then locate the passage supporting the claim. If you cannot find it, do not preserve the citation simply because it looks credible.

A useful reading note records the source and what it actually says, separately from the student's interpretation. That makes it easier to see whether the final paragraph is reporting a finding, drawing an inference or making an argument.

The student remains responsible for understanding the submitted work. An answer that cannot be explained or connected to its sources creates problems even where a tool was permitted.

Use the support your institution provides

Universities may offer library guidance, learning advisers and local examples of appropriate acknowledgement. Those services can help students work through uncertainty before a deadline.

For example, Flinders University's library guidance, updated in July, points students towards its AI information and study-support options. It is an institutional example, not a policy that applies to students enrolled elsewhere.

Ask your own library or learning-support team where to find the current guidance. Students with accessibility needs should also discuss appropriate support through their institution's established channels. Do not assume that a general restriction answers every question about an individual support arrangement.

International students are navigating the same need for clear instructions as their peers. Being new to an Australian institution may make its terminology unfamiliar; it does not justify an assumption about a student's honesty or ability.

Keep a clear record of permitted use

Where use is allowed, follow the required acknowledgement format. Avoid a vague statement that hides which part of the process involved a tool. Equally, do not invent a declaration format and assume it satisfies the assessment.

Before submitting, check three things against the actual instructions: whether the activity was permitted, whether the acknowledgement is complete and whether the claims and references have been checked.

If a mistake or uncertainty remains, contact the teaching team early and explain it plainly. Do not create false records or remove evidence to make the process appear different from what happened.

Leave time for that check before the submission deadline. Read the final work alongside the brief, open the references once more and confirm that the acknowledgement describes the process accurately. Keep the assignment records in the place your institution recommends, so any later question can be answered from what actually happened.