Assessment and authentic work: the rules, and what to do when you suspect misuse

The written material

The rule: the work must be the student's own

The Joint Council for Qualifications publishes AI Use in Assessments: Your role in protecting the integrity of qualifications, most recently on 30 April 2025. It applies to coursework and other non-examined assessment for the qualifications its member awarding bodies offer.

The starting point is the general regulation that students must submit work for assessment which is their own. AI misuse is where a student uses an AI tool and submits work that is not their own, or fails to acknowledge its use. The guidance gives examples: copying or paraphrasing AI generated content so that the work is no longer the student's own, and failing to acknowledge AI tools used as a source of information. That is malpractice.

What a student must acknowledge

Using AI is not automatically misuse. Where a student has used an AI tool legitimately, the guidance sets out what they must do. They must show the name of the AI source used and the date the content was generated. They must keep a copy of the questions they asked and the content generated, in a form that cannot be edited, such as a screenshot, and give a brief explanation of how it was used. This is submitted with the work.

A student who does this has shown their working. The teacher can then judge what is the student's own and mark that. Content the student did not produce cannot earn marks.

Authenticating work

The teacher signs to confirm the work is the candidate's own. The guidance says teachers must be sufficiently familiar with the candidate's general standard to judge whether a piece of work is within their capabilities, and must not accept work they cannot authenticate.

That is easier where some of the work was done under supervision, where drafts and notes were seen along the way, and where you have talked to the student about it. Signs worth a second look include a sudden change in style or vocabulary, references that cannot be found, content that does not match what was taught, and a student who cannot explain their own work.

• See drafts and notes as the work develops
• Have some of it done under supervision
• Ask the student to talk you through it
• Check any reference you do not recognise

Detection tools are evidence, not proof

The guidance is careful about AI detection tools. Their accuracy varies with the AI tool and version used, how much of the text is AI generated, and other factors. They can produce false positives, and research has repeatedly found that they are more likely to flag writing by people working in a second language.

So a detector's score can be part of the evidence and never the whole of it. The guidance says teachers know their students best and are best placed to assess authenticity. An accusation built on a percentage alone is unfair to the student and will not survive a challenge.

When you suspect misuse

If you have doubts, you must investigate and take appropriate action. Gather what you have: earlier work, drafts, the acknowledgement the student gave. Talk to the student and ask them to explain the work. Keep a record of what you found and did.

Timing decides the route. If misuse is suspected before the student has signed the declaration of authentication, the centre deals with it under its own malpractice policy. If it comes to light after the declaration is signed, the head of centre must report it to the awarding organisation. Tell your exams officer either way.