Read the rule that applies to this assignment—not the rule you remember from somewhere else
Academic integrity policies organise authorship, evidence, collaboration, data, examinations and tool use. Their meaning lives in scope and conditions: what applies institution-wide, what a faculty adds, what an instructor permits for one assessment, and what must be acknowledged. English helps students turn layered policy into responsible action.
Choose the route closest to your task, or read straight through for the complete system.
Searches for academic integrity policy, plagiarism rules, can I use ChatGPT for assignments and how to cite AI often look for one universal answer. Universities rarely work that way. A general code, faculty rule, module announcement and assessment instructions can all matter, and the most specific current rule may control the task.
Academic integrity is broader than avoiding copied sentences. It can include attribution, independent work, authorised collaboration, data and source accuracy, examination conduct, reuse of previous work, conflicts, disclosure and the handling of tools or confidential material.
Clear reading protects both learning and fairness. It helps a student ask before submission, keep appropriate records and distinguish an honest mistake needing correction from a prohibited shortcut. It also prevents the opposite error: refusing every useful tool because the student has not read the permitted conditions.
This article is educational, not legal, disciplinary or institutional advice. The applicable university, faculty, programme, module, assessment and jurisdiction control. If rules conflict or remain unclear, ask the authorised instructor or office before acting.
Did You Know? NTU Library’s responsible-AI guide, updated in 2026 and grounded in NTU guidance, tells students to consult faculty and module policies, cite or acknowledge AI contributions, verify outputs and document their process. NUS Law’s published ethical-conduct policy likewise states that plagiarism can be intentional or unintentional and that permitted AI output should be acknowledged. The practical lesson is that “AI allowed” is never a complete rule by itself.
Find the section you need
Identify authority · 2 chapters
Map prohibited conduct · 2 chapters
Handle sources and people · 2 chapters
Use tools responsibly · 2 chapters
A rule cannot be interpreted safely without knowing who issued it and whom it covers.
Record institution, faculty or school, programme, module, assessment, effective date, update date, version and official location.
A research AI policy may not be the same document that governs an undergraduate essay.
What to check
- Name issuer
- Define covered students
- Record date and version
- Use official URL
Make a four-column evidence card for chapter 1, “Build a policy identity card”. Put the exact wording in column one, the signal or instruction in column two, the conclusion it supports in column three and the limit that prevents overclaiming in column four. This keeps an answer tied to language rather than impression.
Read the source aloud once, then paraphrase it without decorative words. Compare the paraphrase with the original nouns, verbs, qualifiers, dates and conditions. Restore anything your shorter version accidentally removed, because accuracy often lives in the small connecting words.
Boundary: A summary page may point to a controlling handbook or code.
Learning transfer: Students practise source authority and version control.
Write one sentence that states the evidence, one that states its limit, and one that states the next responsible action. Then test each noun, number, condition and source against the controlled document. Replace vague confidence with a traceable reason.
Integrity obligations can be layered rather than contained in one page.
Place institution-wide code, faculty additions, module policy, assessment instructions and instructor clarifications in order. Preserve written clarification.
A module may allow grammar checking but prohibit generated analysis for one task.
What to check
- List all layers
- Find specific assessment rule
- Record clarification
- Check for conflict
Make a four-column evidence card for chapter 2, “Map the hierarchy of instructions”. Put the exact wording in column one, the signal or instruction in column two, the conclusion it supports in column three and the limit that prevents overclaiming in column four. This keeps an answer tied to language rather than impression.
Read the source aloud once, then paraphrase it without decorative words. Compare the paraphrase with the original nouns, verbs, qualifiers, dates and conditions. Restore anything your shorter version accidentally removed, because accuracy often lives in the small connecting words.
Boundary: Do not assume a lower-level message can waive a higher-level rule without authority.
Learning transfer: Learners navigate real policy systems.
Write one sentence that states the evidence, one that states its limit, and one that states the next responsible action. Then test each noun, number, condition and source against the controlled document. Replace vague confidence with a traceable reason.
Terms such as plagiarism, collusion, cheating, fabrication and unauthorised assistance may have formal meanings.
Copy the defined term and identify its elements. Use examples to understand application, not to assume unlisted conduct is automatically permitted.
A policy can treat unacknowledged ideas as plagiarism even when no sentence is copied verbatim.
What to check
- Find defined terms
- Separate elements
- Read included examples
- Check cross-references
Make a four-column evidence card for chapter 3, “Read definitions before examples”. Put the exact wording in column one, the signal or instruction in column two, the conclusion it supports in column three and the limit that prevents overclaiming in column four. This keeps an answer tied to language rather than impression.
Read the source aloud once, then paraphrase it without decorative words. Compare the paraphrase with the original nouns, verbs, qualifiers, dates and conditions. Restore anything your shorter version accidentally removed, because accuracy often lives in the small connecting words.
Boundary: This article cannot determine whether a specific case meets an institution’s definition.
Learning transfer: Students learn disciplined classification.
Write one sentence that states the evidence, one that states its limit, and one that states the next responsible action. Then test each noun, number, condition and source against the controlled document. Replace vague confidence with a traceable reason.
4. Separate independent work from authorised collaboration
Back to contentsWorking together can be valuable, but the permitted boundary depends on the assessment.
Identify what may be discussed, created, shared or reviewed; when collaboration must stop; and whether contributions need declaration.
Students may discuss a concept yet be required to produce code, calculations or prose independently.
What to check
- Check individual or group status
- Define allowed discussion
- Track contributions
- Avoid shared final answers
Make a four-column evidence card for chapter 4, “Separate independent work from authorised collaboration”. Put the exact wording in column one, the signal or instruction in column two, the conclusion it supports in column three and the limit that prevents overclaiming in column four. This keeps an answer tied to language rather than impression.
Read the source aloud once, then paraphrase it without decorative words. Compare the paraphrase with the original nouns, verbs, qualifiers, dates and conditions. Restore anything your shorter version accidentally removed, because accuracy often lives in the small connecting words.
Boundary: Friendship and good intention do not create permission.
Learning transfer: Learners build fair collaboration habits.
Write one sentence that states the evidence, one that states its limit, and one that states the next responsible action. Then test each noun, number, condition and source against the controlled document. Replace vague confidence with a traceable reason.
5. Understand plagiarism as authorship and attribution
Back to contentsPlagiarism concerns presenting another person’s words, ideas, structure, data or work as one’s own.
Distinguish quotation, paraphrase, summary and common knowledge. Record sources during research, not after the draft is finished.
Changing a few words while preserving another author’s sentence structure may still fail to show independent paraphrase.
What to check
- Track source immediately
- Use quotation marks
- Paraphrase from understanding
- Cite the idea
Make a four-column evidence card for chapter 5, “Understand plagiarism as authorship and attribution”. Put the exact wording in column one, the signal or instruction in column two, the conclusion it supports in column three and the limit that prevents overclaiming in column four. This keeps an answer tied to language rather than impression.
Read the source aloud once, then paraphrase it without decorative words. Compare the paraphrase with the original nouns, verbs, qualifiers, dates and conditions. Restore anything your shorter version accidentally removed, because accuracy often lives in the small connecting words.
Boundary: Citation style alone does not cure misuse if the text misrepresents authorship.
Learning transfer: Students strengthen research and honest writing.
Write one sentence that states the evidence, one that states its limit, and one that states the next responsible action. Then test each noun, number, condition and source against the controlled document. Replace vague confidence with a traceable reason.
Previous work is yours, but an assessment may require new work or disclosure of reuse.
Look for policies on self-plagiarism, duplicate submission, recycling data or text and building on earlier projects. Ask before resubmitting material.
A literature review from a previous module may not be reusable unchanged in a new assessed paper.
What to check
- Identify prior submission
- Check permission
- Disclose reuse
- Cite or attach as required
Make a four-column evidence card for chapter 6, “Check rules for reusing your own work”. Put the exact wording in column one, the signal or instruction in column two, the conclusion it supports in column three and the limit that prevents overclaiming in column four. This keeps an answer tied to language rather than impression.
Read the source aloud once, then paraphrase it without decorative words. Compare the paraphrase with the original nouns, verbs, qualifiers, dates and conditions. Restore anything your shorter version accidentally removed, because accuracy often lives in the small connecting words.
Boundary: Ownership does not equal assessment permission.
Learning transfer: Learners distinguish intellectual continuity from duplicate credit.
Write one sentence that states the evidence, one that states its limit, and one that states the next responsible action. Then test each noun, number, condition and source against the controlled document. Replace vague confidence with a traceable reason.
Integrity includes more than prose. Fabricated, falsified or misrepresented data and sources can undermine the whole work.
Keep raw data, calculations, source files, lab notes or analysis records as required. Never cite a source you have not checked.
An AI-generated reference that looks plausible must be verified before use; if it does not exist, it cannot support a claim.
What to check
- Verify every source
- Keep required records
- Preserve raw evidence
- Report corrections
Make a four-column evidence card for chapter 7, “Protect data, sources and evidence”. Put the exact wording in column one, the signal or instruction in column two, the conclusion it supports in column three and the limit that prevents overclaiming in column four. This keeps an answer tied to language rather than impression.
Read the source aloud once, then paraphrase it without decorative words. Compare the paraphrase with the original nouns, verbs, qualifiers, dates and conditions. Restore anything your shorter version accidentally removed, because accuracy often lives in the small connecting words.
Boundary: Record-retention and research rules vary by institution and project.
Learning transfer: Students transfer integrity into Science, Mathematics and project work.
Write one sentence that states the evidence, one that states its limit, and one that states the next responsible action. Then test each noun, number, condition and source against the controlled document. Replace vague confidence with a traceable reason.
“AI” covers different tools and actions: brainstorming, search, translation, grammar, coding, summarising, drafting, images and analysis.
Create a matrix of tool, task, permitted level, disclosure, citation, verification and data restrictions. Ask about ambiguous cases before submission.
A module may permit grammar checking but not generated argument or code, while another requires disclosure for all use.
What to check
- Name the tool
- Name the exact task
- Check permission level
- Check disclosure and data rules
Make a four-column evidence card for chapter 8, “Read AI permission as a matrix”. Put the exact wording in column one, the signal or instruction in column two, the conclusion it supports in column three and the limit that prevents overclaiming in column four. This keeps an answer tied to language rather than impression.
Read the source aloud once, then paraphrase it without decorative words. Compare the paraphrase with the original nouns, verbs, qualifiers, dates and conditions. Restore anything your shorter version accidentally removed, because accuracy often lives in the small connecting words.
Boundary: Permission in one module or semester does not transfer automatically.
Learning transfer: Learners use tools with visible boundaries.
Write one sentence that states the evidence, one that states its limit, and one that states the next responsible action. Then test each noun, number, condition and source against the controlled document. Replace vague confidence with a traceable reason.
9. Treat disclosure and citation as different jobs
Back to contentsDisclosure explains how a tool or person contributed; citation identifies a source used as evidence. Some situations require both.
Follow the institution’s format and include the tool, purpose, extent and verification process when required. Keep prompts or outputs if the policy asks for them.
“Used AI” is too vague if the reader needs to know whether it suggested headings, generated text or analysed data.
What to check
- Check required format
- State purpose and extent
- Cite source material
- Keep process record
Make a four-column evidence card for chapter 9, “Treat disclosure and citation as different jobs”. Put the exact wording in column one, the signal or instruction in column two, the conclusion it supports in column three and the limit that prevents overclaiming in column four. This keeps an answer tied to language rather than impression.
Read the source aloud once, then paraphrase it without decorative words. Compare the paraphrase with the original nouns, verbs, qualifiers, dates and conditions. Restore anything your shorter version accidentally removed, because accuracy often lives in the small connecting words.
Boundary: Disclosure does not make prohibited use acceptable.
Learning transfer: Students learn transparency without using it as permission.
Write one sentence that states the evidence, one that states its limit, and one that states the next responsible action. Then test each noun, number, condition and source against the controlled document. Replace vague confidence with a traceable reason.
10. Protect confidential and personal information
Back to contentsCloud tools, shared documents and peer feedback can expose data beyond the authorised group.
Check whether names, unpublished research, assessment content, client information or personal data may be uploaded or shared. Use approved systems and minimise data.
A student should not paste interview transcripts with identifiers into an unapproved public tool.
What to check
- Classify information
- Use approved system
- Remove unnecessary identifiers
- Check sharing permissions
Make a four-column evidence card for chapter 10, “Protect confidential and personal information”. Put the exact wording in column one, the signal or instruction in column two, the conclusion it supports in column three and the limit that prevents overclaiming in column four. This keeps an answer tied to language rather than impression.
Read the source aloud once, then paraphrase it without decorative words. Compare the paraphrase with the original nouns, verbs, qualifiers, dates and conditions. Restore anything your shorter version accidentally removed, because accuracy often lives in the small connecting words.
Boundary: Technical convenience does not override confidentiality obligations.
Learning transfer: Learners connect digital literacy with duty of care.
Write one sentence that states the evidence, one that states its limit, and one that states the next responsible action. Then test each noun, number, condition and source against the controlled document. Replace vague confidence with a traceable reason.
Good policy reading ends with an authorised question, not a private guess.
Ask the instructor or named office before submission, state the tool or action precisely and retain the response. Read how concerns, evidence, hearings and appeals are handled without assuming an outcome.
“May I use a grammar checker?” becomes more useful when the student names the tool, functions and planned disclosure.
What to check
- Ask before acting
- Use precise scenario
- Keep written response
- Read process calmly
Make a four-column evidence card for chapter 11, “Know the clarification and review pathway”. Put the exact wording in column one, the signal or instruction in column two, the conclusion it supports in column three and the limit that prevents overclaiming in column four. This keeps an answer tied to language rather than impression.
Read the source aloud once, then paraphrase it without decorative words. Compare the paraphrase with the original nouns, verbs, qualifiers, dates and conditions. Restore anything your shorter version accidentally removed, because accuracy often lives in the small connecting words.
Boundary: Only the institution can decide a particular case or consequence.
Learning transfer: Students practise procedural fairness and responsible escalation.
Write one sentence that states the evidence, one that states its limit, and one that states the next responsible action. Then test each noun, number, condition and source against the controlled document. Replace vague confidence with a traceable reason.
How to build this kind of English before the job title arrives
Back to contentsStudents do not need professional authority to practise the underlying language. They can learn to define scope, annotate conditions, compare versions, rebuild a timeline, match a number to its unit and explain uncertainty without embarrassment. Parents can ask calm questions: What decision is this document supporting? Which sentence carries the strongest claim? What would make that claim false? Which source would you open next?
Use a three-pass routine. First, map the document: title, owner, audience, date, sections and decision. Second, trace one claim from source to conclusion. Third, explain the limit and next action. This routine strengthens comprehension, science, mathematics, humanities and workplace readiness because it turns English into an evidence tool.
A student should never imitate professional authority. The useful goal is to recognise when a text needs a qualified reviewer, current rule or official decision. Knowing when to pause is part of literacy.
Assessment instruction
“Generative AI may be used for brainstorming. Generated prose must not appear in the submitted report. Use must be declared in the appendix.”
Action map
Permitted: idea generation. Prohibited: generated submission prose. Required: appendix disclosure. Still necessary: verify ideas, protect data and produce the report independently.
Clarifying question
“May I use the tool to suggest possible section headings if I then develop all analysis and prose independently, and should I include the prompts in the appendix?”
Authority
Which current rule governs this assessment?
Action
What exactly will the person or tool do?
Authorship
Who produces the submitted reasoning, words, code or analysis?
Transparency
What must be cited, disclosed or retained?
Data
What information may not be shared or uploaded?
For each situation, name the instruction or evidence, the tempting shortcut, the boundary and the smallest responsible next action. Then write one sentence beginning “The language supports …” and one beginning “It does not yet support …”.
The general permission
A university guide discusses responsible AI, but the assignment forbids generated prose. The more specific current instruction controls the task.
Practice extension: create a 70-word response for the reader who owns the next decision. Keep the relevant noun, action, condition and evidence visible. Remove assumptions that come only from familiarity, confidence or urgency.
The cited prohibition
A student discloses prohibited use and assumes disclosure fixes it. The policy is reread: transparency does not create permission.
Practice extension: create a 70-word response for the reader who owns the next decision. Keep the relevant noun, action, condition and evidence visible. Remove assumptions that come only from familiarity, confidence or urgency.
The group chat
Friends discuss an individual task until their outlines become identical. The student returns to the permitted collaboration boundary.
Practice extension: create a 70-word response for the reader who owns the next decision. Keep the relevant noun, action, condition and evidence visible. Remove assumptions that come only from familiarity, confidence or urgency.
The plausible reference
An AI tool supplies a convincing citation that cannot be verified. The student removes it, checks the claim and records the correction.
Practice extension: create a 70-word response for the reader who owns the next decision. Keep the relevant noun, action, condition and evidence visible. Remove assumptions that come only from familiarity, confidence or urgency.
Parent and student checkpoint. Support the method, not the answer. Ask where the instruction is, which phrase carries the limit and what evidence would change the conclusion. The learner should still do the final reading and own the submitted words.
Use a real passage, question, prompt or policy. Date the source, preserve its exact wording and mark every unresolved point. The goal is not to sound formal; it is to make the reasoning inspectable.
Build the rule stack
Place institution, faculty, programme, module and assessment rules in order with dates and official links.
Create a collaboration boundary
List what may be discussed, shared, reviewed and submitted for one assessment. Add the point where independent work begins.
Audit one paragraph
Trace every borrowed idea, quotation, paraphrase, figure and dataset to its source and acknowledgement.
Make an AI-use matrix
For each tool action, record permitted status, disclosure, citation, verification, data restrictions and evidence to retain.
Draft a clarification
Write a concise question that names the assessment, tool, exact action and planned disclosure so an authorised person can answer it.
Finish with a three-line record: what the source requires, what your evidence supports and what you will verify before acting or submitting.
A durable reading or writing method should survive a change of role. Test what each reader needs to know, which evidence they may rely on, what authority they have and which uncertainty must remain visible.
Student lens
The learner identifies the rule before using a source, person or tool.
Transfer prompt: restate the next action for this reader in no more than forty words. Preserve the same facts and boundary even when the tone or detail changes.
Instructor lens
Clear assessment instructions reduce guesswork and support fair learning.
Transfer prompt: restate the next action for this reader in no more than forty words. Preserve the same facts and boundary even when the tone or detail changes.
Peer lens
Collaboration stays helpful when authorship and boundaries remain visible.
Transfer prompt: restate the next action for this reader in no more than forty words. Preserve the same facts and boundary even when the tone or detail changes.
Institution lens
Definitions, process and review routes support consistent handling.
Transfer prompt: restate the next action for this reader in no more than forty words. Preserve the same facts and boundary even when the tone or detail changes.
Future-self lens
Integrity habits transfer to research, employment and professional trust.
Transfer prompt: restate the next action for this reader in no more than forty words. Preserve the same facts and boundary even when the tone or detail changes.
The wording can adapt without changing the truth. Every version should let the reader distinguish evidence, interpretation, condition and decision owner.
Answer each question in a complete sentence and attach it to wording, evidence, a date or an authorised clarification. Write “unknown” where necessary; uncertainty is safer when it is visible.
- Who issued the rule? Record the evidence and what it permits you to do.
- Which students and work are covered? Record the evidence and what it permits you to do.
- What version applies? Record the evidence and what it permits you to do.
- Which assessment instruction is most specific? Record the evidence and what it permits you to do.
- How are key terms defined? Record the evidence and what it permits you to do.
- What collaboration is allowed? Record the evidence and what it permits you to do.
- How must sources be attributed? Record the evidence and what it permits you to do.
- Can previous work be reused? Record the evidence and what it permits you to do.
- Which AI action is permitted? Record the evidence and what it permits you to do.
- What must be disclosed or retained? Record the evidence and what it permits you to do.
- What data may not be uploaded? Record the evidence and what it permits you to do.
- Who can clarify before submission? Record the evidence and what it permits you to do.
Conclude with three sentences: what is confirmed, what remains conditional and what the next responsible action is. Ask an unfamiliar reader to test whether the reasoning can be reconstructed.
Keep the source and final response together. If instructions or facts change, update the record rather than silently applying an old conclusion.
Is plagiarism only copying exact words?
No. Policies may cover unacknowledged ideas, structure, data or other work as well as verbatim text.
If I cite AI, is any use allowed?
No. Disclosure does not override a prohibition; check the assessment-specific rule.
Can friends discuss an individual assignment?
Only within the collaboration boundary permitted for that assessment.
Can I reuse my previous essay?
Check rules on duplicate submission and self-reuse, and obtain permission when required.
What if the policy is unclear?
Ask the authorised instructor or office with a precise description before submitting.
What is the hopeful outcome?
A student who can use sources, people and tools confidently because the boundaries are understood and documented.
- NTU Using AI Discovery Tools Responsibly
- NUS Law Ethical Conduct Guidelines
- Why English? | Fact-Checking AI-Generated Answers
- Why English? | Reading a University Module Description
Cycle-sensitive facts were checked against current official pages on 10 October 2026. Always reopen the authority’s live page before a real decision.