Guidelines for Institutes of Higher Learning on Use of AI-writing Detection Tools

Name and Constituency of Member of Parliament

Ms Lee Hui Ying, Nee Soon GRC

Question

To ask the Minister for Education whether the Ministry will issue updated guidelines to all Institutes of Higher Learning to (i) review their use of AI-detection tools and AI-related academic policies and (ii) establish a transparent, independent and timely appeals process for students who are flagged for suspected AI use.

Name and Constituency of Member of Parliament

Ms Cassandra Lee, West Coast-Jurong West GRC

Question

To ask the Minister for Education given recent announcements by two autonomous universities on discontinuing the use of AI-detection tools due to concerns over their reliability, whether the Ministry will provide further guidance to institutes of higher learning on how assessments should evolve where AI use is permitted, so as to balance the development of AI literacy with assessment rigour and academic integrity.

Name and Constituency of Member of Parliament

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye, Radin Mas

Question

To ask the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry intends to establish common guidelines for Institutes of Higher Learning on the use of AI writing detection tools; and (b) whether such guidelines will include safeguards to ensure that students are informed of how these tools are used and are not penalised solely on the basis of AI detection scores.

Response

1. This response also addresses questions 2029 and 2072 filed by Members on this topic. All Institutions of Higher Learning (IHLs) have policies governing the use of AI in assessment and academic work. These are aligned with MOE’s guidance that AI use should support learning, and that guardrails are in place to uphold academic integrity so that assessment outcomes reflect the effort and intended mastery by students.
2. IHLs clearly inform students whether and how AI may be used, as requirements may vary across assessments and assignments. They also have established processes for students to appeal assessment and disciplinary outcomes, including in cases of suspected unauthorised AI use. Students are given an opportunity to respond to any allegation or concern before disciplinary action is taken.
3. IHLs assess whether AI detection tools add value to their broader assessment and academic integrity frameworks. Where such tools are used, detection scores alone do not determine academic misconduct. In cases of suspected misconduct, educators exercise professional judgement by reviewing the student’s work and establishing the facts through appropriate follow-up. This includes engaging the student and, where necessary, requesting evidence of the learning process, such as drafts or earlier work. Educators remain responsible for the final grading decision.