Australian universities have begun introducing AI into the grading process, yet they hold vastly differing viewpoints.
Adelaide University, Newcastle, Deakin, and RMIT permit AI to assist with grading on the condition that instructors retain ultimate responsibility.
RMIT allows AI to draft initial feedback and detect anomalies, but total reliance on it is prohibited.
Newcastle requires instructors to review results, notify students, and allow them to opt out of AI usage.
Adelaide University only allows AI as an assistance tool; instructors must personally read, evaluate, and verify all coursework.
Deakin permits AI to improve feedback quality, but it must not be used for grading.
Monash, Wollongong, and James Cook are currently researching the potential application of AI within the evaluation process.
UNSW, the University of Melbourne, and the University of Sydney prohibit instructors from using AI to grade or score exams.
Many other institutions, such as Macquarie, Canberra, Charles Sturt, Central Queensland, New England, and Southern Queensland, also refrain from using AI for grading.
Out of 24 universities responding to the survey, all indicated that instructors are permitted or encouraged to use AI in their work.
Newcastle is piloting AI in teaching, including short explanatory videos and AI avatars in classrooms.
The University of Sydney witnessed a partial strike by lecturers partly due to concerns that AI impacts employment and educational quality.
All institutions emphasize that academic assessments, feedback, and final decisions must still be executed by humans.
📌 Australian higher education is transitioning from debate to implementation of AI in teaching and assessment, while maintaining a clear boundary between human assistance and replacement. Many universities accept AI for drafting feedback or supporting workflows, yet grading and making academic judgments remain the responsibility of instructors to ensure training quality and fairness in student evaluation.
