Traffic Light

Evidence Required

This assessment

(✓)

Level 1

Prohibited:

No GenerativeAI allowed

This assessment showcases your individual knowledge, skills and/or personal experiences in the absence of Generative AI support.

The use of generative AI is prohibited for this assessment and may potentially result in penalties for academic misconduct, including but notlimited to a mark of zero for the assessment.

Level 2

Optional:

You may use GenerativeAI for research and content generation that is appropriately referenced.

See assessment instructions for details

This assessment allows you to engage with Generative AI as a means of expanding your understanding, creativity, and idea generation in theresearch phase of your assessment and to produce content that enhances your assessment. I.e., images. You do not have to use it.

The use of GenAI is optional for this assessment.

Your collaboration with Generative AI must be clearly referenced just as you would reference any other resource type used. Click on the link below to learn how to reference GenAI. https://library.kaplan.edu.au/referencing-other- sources/referencing-other-sources-generative- ai

In addition, you must include an appendix that documents your GenerativeAI collaboration including allprompts and responses used for the assessment.

Unapproved use of generative AI as per assessment details during the content generation parts of yourassessment may potentially result in penalties for academic misconduct, including but not limited to a mark of zero for the assessment. Ensure you follow the specific assessment instructions in the section above.

Level 3

Compulsory:

You must use GenerativeAI to complete your assessment

See assessment instruction for details

This assessment fully integrates Generative AI, allowing you to harness the technology's full potential in collaboration with your own expertise.

Always check your assessment instructions carefully as there may still be limitations on what constitutes acceptable use, and these may be specific to each assessment.

You will be taught how to use generative AI and assessed on its use.

Your collaboration with GenerativeAI must be clearly referenced just as you would reference any other resource type used. Click on the link below to learn how to reference GenAI. https://library.kaplan.edu.au/referencing-other- sources/referencing-other-sources-generative- ai

In addition, you must include an appendix that documents your GenerativeAI collaboration including all prompts and responses usedfor the assessment.

Unapproved use of generative AI as per assessment details duringthe content generation parts of your assessment may potentially resultin penalties for academic misconduct, including but not limited to a mark of zero for the assessment. Ensure you follow the specific assessment instructions in the section above.

Articulates valueswith clarity, addressing potential rationalisations.

Proposes alternative actions. Navigates barriers to speaking up effectively.

Minimally satisfactory reflection on personal implications and insights gained. Considers the impact on stakeholders and the organisation, but in a superficial way.

Shows limited understanding of the broader implications of ethical decision-making.

Demonstrates a basic reflection on personal implications and insights gained, with some gaps in considering the impact on stakeholders and the organisation.

Shows a basic appreciation of the broader implications of ethical decision- making.

Reflects deeply on personal implications. Thoughtfully considers the impact on stakeholders and the organisation.

Showcases deep understanding of the broader implications of ethical decision-making.

Fails to present ideas effectively, lacking clarity and coherence. Writing is uneven in quality and is not professional in tone. Poor grammar and limited vocabulary hinder comprehension.

Fails to use a coherent referencing style with substantial inaccuracies and inconsistencies.

Presents ideas with limitations in clarity and coherence. Writing fails to maintain a consistent professional tone.

Occasional lapsesin grammar and word choice may obscure sentence meaning.

Adheres to Harvard referencing style, but with substantial inaccuracies and inconsistencies.

Presents ideas adequately, with some lapses in clarity. Tone of writing is generally professional. Only very minor lapses in grammar and word choice.

Adheres to Harvard referencing style, with some inaccuracies and inconsistencies.

Presents ideas in a clear coherent way. Writing is professional in tone. Generally good grammar and language usage. Writing overall engages the reader.

Adheres to Harvard referencing style,with mostly accurate and consistent citations.

Presents ideas with high levels of clarity, good grammar and a wide vocabulary. Writing is highly professional in tone and highly engaging for the reader.

Adheres to Harvard referencing stylewith no exceptions.