Many universities now require a declaration of GenAI use, but the typical form is a single yes/no question. When a declaration cannot distinguish brainstorming from ghost-writing, it fails three times over: as an integrity safeguard, as a reflective prompt for the student, and as a usable signal for the educator adapting their teaching.
The evidence is blunt. In one business-school study, 0% of students left a mandatory declaration blank interviews attributed this to fear of academic consequences and to perceiving the form as an admission of plagiarism rather than a neutral act of transparency. A coarse instrument can undermine the very honesty it was meant to develop.
Binary declaration
Did you use GenAI? ☐ Yes ☐ No
// one signal, no granularity
// brainstorming and ghost-writing look identical
// reads as a confession, not a description
Task-specific declaration [click a row]
{{ c.label }} extent + prompt
// activity-level disclosure
// names where integrity concerns live
// describes process, not guilt
{{ compareDetailName }}{{ compareDetailBody }}
The framework builds on an established taxonomy of GenAI use in computing education, which characterises AI-mediated work in terms of nine aspects. That taxonomy was designed as an analytic instrument a way to compare interventions across subject areas. This work translates those abstract aspects into concrete, assessment-facing categories that students and instructors can use directly when declaring GenAI use in specific coursework.
{{ ch.name }}
{{ chipDetailName }}{{ chipDetailBody }}
The contribution sits deliberately between two existing levels. Policy-level instruments such as the AI Assessment Scale operate at the educator's design decision what level of assistance is permitted. The taxonomy operates at the analytic level what kinds of activity occur. This framework operates at the student's declaration level how GenAI was actually used within a task whose permitted scope has already been set.
Five principles shift the declaration from a compliance artefact into a reflective instrument. [click a principle]
{{ p.n }}
{{ p.name }}
{{ p.desc }}
// declaration_schema — principle {{ activePrincipleN }}
{ "granularity": {{ schemaGranularity }}, "form": {{ schemaForm }}, "fields": {{ schemaFields }}, "frame": {{ schemaFrame }} }
Six activity categories for writing-focused work a short literature review, a professional report. For each, the student states whether GenAI was used, the extent of use, and a short explanation with example prompts. The extent column below shows the scale a student fills in; the lit segments are illustrative entries. [click minor / moderate / extensive to set the entry]
Activity category
Extent of use
{{ row.name }}
{{ row.desc }}
A parallel structure of five categories mirrors the phases of software development. The same extent scale and example-prompt pattern apply. The structure lets both sides distinguish GenAI as a learning aid understanding an error message from GenAI as an authoring tool generating core solution code.
Activity category
Extent of use
{{ row.name }}
{{ row.desc }}
The goal is not a precise measurement instrument but a structured way to describe use and open more nuanced conversations about acceptable assistance. One three-point scale is shared across both forms.
Right now, across the two illustrative ledgers above, {{ tierCount }} of 11 declared categories are set to {{ activeTierName }}.
The same two structures support very different institutional stances, because the declaration describes practice rather than prescribing it. It sits below policy instruments, supplying the granular disclosure layer those instruments do not specify. [click a row to expand]
{{ r.who }}+
{{ r.what }}
$ query: what is wrong with a binary declaration
// it cannot tell brainstorming from ghost-writing.
// it reads as a confession, so students leave it blank.
// it gives educators nothing to act on.
$ query: what does task-specific disclosure add
// activity categories six for writing, five for code.
// an extent scale: Minor, Moderate, Extensive.
// example prompts that make the workflow visible.
$ query: what is the actual reframe
// declaration as description of process, not admission of guilt.
// from policing to professional practice.
A
CHECKBOX
CANNOT
DESCRIBE
A
WORKFLOW.