Supporting students and educators in using generative artificial intelligence
Open accessAbstract
The use of generative artificial intelligence (genAI) in university settings is a current topic of debate, with a range of viewpoints regarding the extent to which these tools should be used by students (Ahmad et al., 2023) and the potential applications of genAI tools in higher education (Yu & Guo, 2023). Concerns have also been raised regarding the potential student misuse of genAI tools, and the ability of these tools to score a passing grade in some university subjects (Nikolic et al., 2023). RMIT University’s position is that we must build the capability in our students to engage with AI as part of the current and future requirements of work. The RMIT units responsible for academic quality and for education innovation have created a set of statements that educators can choose from when designing assessment tasks. These statements include there being no restrictions on the use of genAI tools in the assessment task, that genAI tools can be used with limitations, or that genAI tools cannot be used. If students are permitted to use genAI tools in assessment tasks, they must appropriately acknowledge and reference the use of these tools and their outputs. In the library, we were tasked with creating citing and referencing guidelines for AI-generated content for each of the styles used at our institution, including APA 7th, IEEE, Chicago 17th and AGLC4. A challenge of this project was that there was either no specific genAI referencing advice provided by the style manual editors, or the advice was limited to a specific tool, e.g. ChatGPT in the case of APA 7th (McAdoo, 2023) and Chicago 17th (The Chicago Manual of Style Online, n.d.). We adapted the existing style advice for referencing software for the APA 7th, Harvard, Chicago 17th, and IEEE styles, the advice for referencing internet sources for Vancouver, and the advice for referencing personal correspondence for AGLC 4. We created referencing guidelines for both AI-generated text and images, as well as when genAI was used for background research. We also incorporated current Australian copyright advice into these guidelines, in which authorship can only be granted to human creators, and so the creator of the tool was used as the author rather than the tool itself. These guidelines are housed in a subject guide (RMIT, 2023) which has received more than 17,000 views between February and July 2023. We also updated our Academic Integrity Awareness (AIA) microcredential to include educative information about genAI tools. We included guidance relating to the inaccurate information and ethical concerns in some of the current tools, as well as placing these tools within the overall context of academic integrity. This microcredential is used as a component of assessment tasks in many disciplines across our institution. These resources assist students in maintaining academic integrity when using genAI tools in their learning, and when using genAI in their future careers, as they reinforce the central requirement that the work of others (including work that is AI-generated) is appropriately acknowledged. These resources will continue to be updated as genAI tools evolve and become more widely used within learning.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
RMIT University created referencing guidelines for AI-generated content, ensuring academic integrity and promoting the use of these tools in assessment tasks.
“The Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) University created referencing guidelines for AI-generated content, ensuring academic integrity and promoting the use of these tools in assessment tasks [67].”
From Generative AI in Higher Education: Balancing Innovation and Integrity (2025) · cites this paper as [67]
Taylor (p. 1) says RMIT University Library created referencing guidelines for AI-generated content and that these resources help students maintain academic integrity. The paper says AI use in assessment tasks may be permitted, limited, or prohibited; it does not say the referencing guidelines promote its use in those tasks. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Yu, H., & Guo, Y. (2023) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2023.1183162 · Cited by 357 · see citing works
Nikolic, S., Daniel, S., Haque, R., Belkina, M., Hassan, G. M., Grundy, S., Lyden, S., Neal, P., & Sandison, C. (2023) · European Journal of Engineering Education · doi:10.1080/03043797.2023.2213169 · Cited by 336 · see citing works
Generative Artificial Intelligence and the Education Sector
Ahmad, N., Murugesan, S., & Kshetri, N. (2023) · Computer · doi:10.1109/mc.2023.3263576 · Cited by 120 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Taylor, K. (2023, December 3-6). Supporting students and educators in using generative artificial intelligence [Pecha Kucha Presentation]. Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education Conference, Christchurch, New Zealand. https://doi.org/10.14742/apubs.2023.538
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Generative AI in Higher Education: Balancing Innovation and Integrity
Francis, N. J., Jones, S., & Smith, D. P. (2025) · British Journal of Biomedical Science · doi:10.3389/bjbs.2024.14048 · Cited by 295 · see citing works
“The Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) University created referencing guidelines for AI-generated content, ensuring academic integrity and promoting the use of these tools in assessment tasks [67].”
Alshamy, A., Al-Harthi, A. S. A., & Abdullah, S. (2025) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci15040501 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
- Authors
- Taylor, K.
- Affiliations
- RMIT University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Taylor, Kim
- Venue
- ASCILITE Publications
- Publisher
- Open Access Publishing Association
- Published
- 2023-11-28
- ISSN
- 2653-665X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4389097085
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 1.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- ASCILITE Publications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information Literacy
- Keywords
- generative AI, artificial intelligence in higher education, academic integrity, AI authorship, copyright, assessment design, ChatGPT, academic writing skills, RMIT University, academic quality assurance
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review