Before a PFP student uses AI on an assignment, check whether that particular use is permitted—not merely whether the output can be cited. Permission, attribution and the student’s own understanding are separate questions. Singapore Polytechnic’s April 2026 AI policy requires responsible use, verification and appropriate disclosure under module assessment requirements. Temasek Polytechnic’s plagiarism policy also distinguishes permitted, acknowledged assistance from presenting generated or other people’s work as one’s own.
For parents preparing a child for PFP after SEC, the aim is neither to ban every learning aid nor to outsource the child’s thinking. Help the student read the brief, ask the lecturer when instructions are unclear, retain genuine working records and explain every submitted claim. The advice below applies to reports, presentations, designs and code. Institutional examples were checked on 14 November 2026; the student’s actual 2028 module rules and approved systems will determine what is allowed.
- Permission first: identify which tasks and tools the assessment allows.
- Own the reasoning: the student should understand the method, evidence and conclusion.
- Acknowledge accurately: disclose assistance and cite sources in the required format.
- Verify: open the original sources and check calculations, quotations and code behaviour.
- Protect material: do not upload private records or restricted resources into an unapproved system.
- Keep honest records: preserve drafts and permitted tool-use records without inventing a history afterwards.
Three questions that should precede the tool
First: what is the assessment trying to measure? A task designed to assess independent writing may place different restrictions on assistance from a task explicitly asking students to critique generated text. Second: which actions are permitted? Brainstorming, translating, rewriting, producing code and generating a final answer are different uses. Third: what must be declared?
Do not fill gaps in the instructions with a convenient assumption. Suggested question to a lecturer: “For this assignment, may I use an AI tool to [specific action]? Which parts must be completed without that assistance, and what declaration or references should accompany the submission?” Save the reply with the assignment brief.
What the published policies actually say
SP’s policy places responsibility for the quality and integrity of submitted work on the learner. It requires students to evaluate generated information, acknowledge use and follow assessment-specific declaration requirements. Students may need to demonstrate understanding of the output. Unclear instructions should be checked with the lecturer. This is not blanket permission to generate every assessed answer.
TP’s policy covers text, images, code and other work. Its examples say externally sourced or AI-generated code should not be used unless the assignment explicitly permits it; permitted material still needs appropriate acknowledgement. It also warns against knowingly allowing another student to submit one’s work as their own. Possible sanctions are serious, but the institution—not a parent guide—determines the outcome of a particular case.
Citation does not override an assessment restriction
Imagine a coding task that requires students to construct an algorithm independently. A student generates the complete solution and adds a reference to the tool. The reference describes the origin, but it does not establish that the assessment permitted that method. Conversely, a task might explicitly permit a generated starting point while requiring the student to test, improve and explain it. Read the actual instruction rather than applying one rule to every module.
This distinction also applies to paid assistance, family help and a friend’s previous submission. The useful parent question is: “Does this assistance support the assessed learning, or replace the performance the student is meant to demonstrate?” If the answer is unclear, ask before submitting.
A practical permission-check table
| Proposed use | Question to ask before proceeding | What to retain if permitted |
|---|---|---|
| Explaining a concept | May tools be used for preparation, and is this separate from restricted assessed work? | Notes showing the student’s own explanation and a check against the course material |
| Language feedback | Does the brief allow grammar advice, rewriting, translation or none of these? | The original draft and an accurate account of changes |
| Research suggestions | Which sources and tools are allowed? | Original sources actually opened and checked |
| Code assistance | Are generated code, libraries or debugging suggestions allowed for this task? | Permitted assistance record, tests and the student’s explanation |
| Images or design assets | What permissions, originality and attribution requirements apply? | Asset origin, applicable permission information and required declaration |
This is a question sheet, not a list of universally approved uses. A tool that is acceptable for personal practice may still be prohibited during a particular assessment.
Protecting course materials and personal information
RP Library’s published guidelines on licensed or copyrighted materials prohibit students from submitting such materials into public or consumer generative-AI tools. That is an institution-specific resource-use rule, not something a student can bypass by writing a citation afterwards. Use approved systems and ask staff when access or licensing conditions are unclear.
As a cautious working practice, keep classmates’ details, medical records, credentials, private messages and confidential project information out of unapproved tools. Do not upload an entire assessment brief, restricted dataset or paid resource merely because a chatbot offers to summarise it. Permission to access material for learning is not the same question as permission to send it elsewhere.
A source-checking routine for reports
Suppose a draft contains a claim that a particular recycling method reduces waste by 40%. Before retaining the sentence, the student should locate the original source, identify what was measured and check whether the result applies to the proposed situation. If the reference cannot be found, remove or replace the claim rather than invent a publication to support it.
Keep a simple research note with the source title, link, relevant finding, limitation and place where it is used in the report. Distinguish the source’s conclusion from the student’s own inference. A statistic about a controlled trial should not quietly become a guaranteed prediction for a different campus or population.
SP’s academic-work guidance explains that unattributed material can include images, diagrams and graphs, not only sentences. Review visual assets and slide captions as carefully as the written report.
The learner should be able to explain the submitted work
Try a small learning check before submission. Ask the student to explain the main argument without reading the finished report. Then ask how one calculation was produced or why one code test was chosen. Finally, change an assumption and ask what would happen. This is a preparation exercise, not an institutional plagiarism test.
A weak explanation does not by itself prove misconduct; it may reveal a learning gap. The response should be to revisit the concept and clarify what assistance was used, not to manufacture a convincing story. A child who cannot explain a result should not be encouraged to submit it merely because it looks sophisticated.
An honest declaration is specific
Where the lecturer permits AI assistance and requests a declaration, a useful starting point is: “I used [tool] on [date] for [permitted purpose]. The assistance affected [specific section or task]. I checked [sources, calculations or tests] and completed [student’s own contribution].” Add any required citations, prompts or output records in the institution’s format.
This is a suggested structure, not an approved form. Do not say a tool was used only for spelling when it also produced the argument or code. Equally, do not claim that a declaration guarantees compliance: the original use must have been permitted.
Group projects need a shared integrity check
Before combining sections, ask each member to identify their sources and any permitted external assistance. Agree how citations and declarations will be presented consistently. The person who performs the final upload should not be expected to guess the origins of every chart or paragraph at the last moment.
If a member supplies material they cannot explain or attribute, raise the problem rather than disguising it through a rewrite. Ask the lecturer how to handle a concern that affects the deadline. Preserve the actual drafts and discussions; do not invent a clean history after discovering a problem.
What parents should not do
Do not purchase a model answer for submission, rewrite the child’s assessed work in a parent’s professional voice, or help conceal assistance. Avoid treating a detector score or similarity percentage as a permission certificate. The questions that matter are the applicable rules, the origin of the material, accurate acknowledgement and the student’s real contribution.
A more useful parent role is to ask the student to read the instructions aloud, explain a difficult idea and identify the next task they need to complete independently. Support can be strong without replacing authorship.
If an integrity concern is raised
Read the actual notice and distinguish a request for clarification from a final finding. Preserve genuine drafts, sources, assignment instructions and relevant tool records. Prepare a truthful account of what was used and when. Ask which institutional process applies, what response is required and the deadline.
Do not delete evidence, fabricate earlier drafts, coordinate false explanations with teammates or assume that admitting a misunderstanding guarantees a particular outcome. The student can acknowledge an error honestly while still asking for the facts and process to be explained. Where support is needed, involve the appropriate programme adviser or student-support service.
A final five-question check
- Can I point to the instruction permitting each form of assistance I used?
- Can I explain and verify the important claims, calculations and code?
- Have I acknowledged sources and assistance in the required format?
- Have I respected the rules for private, licensed and restricted material?
- Does the final submission accurately represent my work and my group’s contributions?
Frequently asked questions
Does adding an AI citation make any use acceptable?
No. Check permission for the specific assessment first. Attribution does not cancel a restriction.
Can a student use AI to explain a concept during practice?
Check the learning context, institutional rules and any restrictions on the material. Where permitted, use the explanation as something to examine and verify, then solve a fresh problem independently.
Should parents focus on making the writing sound less like AI?
No. Focus on truthful authorship, permission, understanding and attribution—not disguising how work was produced.
Related learning guides
For practice that develops the student’s own output, see PFP English Language and Communication and cluster modules and projects. Read the official policies linked above alongside the actual assignment brief.
Source check: 14 November 2026. This guide draws on current public SP, TP and RP policies without treating them as identical. The 2028 institution and module instructions may change. Templates and examples are independent preparation advice, not official permission, a citation standard or a guarantee about disciplinary decisions.