Case 02: Fully Disclosed Grammar Improvement
Student wrote the full assignment independently and used AI only to improve grammar and expression, with full disclosure in the required declaration.
Evidence considered
- The submission, the student’s declaration describing grammar-level AI assistance, and a pre-editing draft supplied by the student.
- Comparison of the draft and final versions, showing sentence-level polish with no change to structure, argument or evidence.
Reasoning
Every question in the decision framework resolves in the student’s favour: the use was permitted, it was disclosed exactly as required, AI assisted rather than replaced the work (the analysis and argument pre-existed the AI step), the student reviewed the edited text before submitting, authorship is fully preserved, and there is no deception — the declaration accurately describes what happened.
Decision
Acceptable. This is the policy working as intended: transparent, bounded assistance that improves communication without displacing the student’s intellectual contribution.
Alternative interpretation
One could ask whether heavy language editing disadvantages assessment of writing skill where written expression is itself a learning outcome. If the rubric explicitly assesses independent language proficiency, the marker may need to weigh that criterion differently — but that is an assessment-design question, not an integrity breach by the student, who followed the rules as written.
Confidence
High. Facts, rule and outcome align; the case is a model of compliant use.
Procedural fairness considerations
- Students who disclose honestly must not be treated with more suspicion than students who stay silent; penalising disclosure teaches concealment.
- Any concern about language-proficiency outcomes should be addressed through assessment design and communicated in advance, not applied retrospectively.