Academic Integrity Policy

Academic integrity is what makes your qualification real. It means every piece of work you submit is your own, every source you draw on is acknowledged, and every assessment decision reflects your actual competence.

This policy explains what we expect from you, what academic misconduct looks like, how we investigate suspected breaches, and the consequences. It applies to every TalentMed student and every piece of assessable work you submit.

TalentMed qualifications are recognised because employers and regulators trust them. That trust depends on the people we issue them to actually having the skills the qualification certifies. Submitting work that is not your own breaks that trust, devalues your own credential, and puts future employers and patients at risk.

Our assessment rules of evidence require that evidence is authentic, meaning it is your own original work. Academic integrity is how we deliver on that rule.

• Original work. Submit only work you have produced yourself for this unit, unless the task explicitly allows collaboration.
• Proper attribution. Acknowledge sources, including quotes, data, and ideas. Use a clear referencing style and be consistent.
• Accurate representation. Represent your experience, qualifications, and effort truthfully in everything you submit.
• Seek help the right way. Ask your assessor if you are stuck, use our support team, and discuss concepts with peers. Do not ask anyone else to do the assessment for you.
• Use AI tools carefully. AI can help you learn, plan, and proofread. It cannot produce your assessment. See the AI section below.

Academic misconduct is any behaviour that gives you (or someone else) an unearned advantage. The most common forms:

• Plagiarism. Using another person’s words, ideas, or structure without acknowledging the source. Copying from a website, textbook, or another student without attribution is plagiarism.
• Collusion. Working together on an assessment that the task specifies should be done individually.
• Contract cheating. Paying or asking someone else to produce the work you submit, including essay mills, online “study help” services, or friends and family who complete work on your behalf.
• AI-generated submissions. Submitting content produced by a generative AI tool as if it were your own. This is a form of contract cheating.
• Fabrication. Making up data, quotes, scenarios, or evidence.
• Cheating. Using unauthorised resources, unauthorised communication, or unauthorised assistance during an assessment.
• Recycling work. Submitting the same work for more than one assessment without permission.
• Impersonation. Having someone else complete an assessment or log in to your learning platform as you.

Generative AI tools (such as ChatGPT, Claude, or Copilot) are increasingly part of how people work. They are allowed in some situations and not in others. The rule is simple: the submission must be your work, and your assessor must be able to judge your competence from it.

Usually acceptable:

• Asking an AI to explain a concept while you study
• Using AI to rephrase your draft for clarity (your ideas, your words as the starting point)
• Using AI to check grammar or spelling
• Using AI to generate example scenarios to practise with (not to copy into submissions)

Not acceptable:

• Submitting AI-generated content as your own response
• Using AI to produce the technical content of a clinical coding case, an audit report, or a practice management plan, where the unit assesses your ability to produce that content yourself
• Using AI to answer knowledge questions without understanding the answer

Where a specific assessment permits or requires AI use, the assessment task will say so. If you are unsure, ask your assessor before you submit.

We use a combination of automated tools and assessor judgement:

• Plagiarism detection software scans submissions for matches against published sources, web content, and other student submissions.
• AI-content detection flags submissions that show markers of machine-generated text.
• Assessor review draws on knowledge of your previous work, writing style, and the level expected in the unit.
• Verification conversations may be requested where we need to confirm that the work reflects your actual understanding.

Detection tools are not perfect. They inform our review but they do not decide the outcome. A human assessor always makes the final judgement.

1. We tell you. You receive written notice of the specific concern and the evidence we have.
2. You respond. You have the opportunity to explain, provide context, or produce further evidence. We generally allow 10 business days.
3. We review. An assessor not involved in the original marking considers your response along with the evidence.
4. Decision. You receive the outcome in writing with reasons.

During investigation, your enrolment and access to the course continue normally unless a specific risk requires otherwise.

Consequences are proportionate to the breach. Factors include how much of the work is affected, whether it is a first or repeat breach, and whether it was inadvertent or deliberate.

Typical responses:

• Educational response. Feedback and guidance, particularly for first-time or minor breaches. The piece of work is redone and re-submitted.
• Resubmission under supervised conditions. You complete the assessment again, sometimes with different tasks or under verification.
• Not Yet Competent outcome. The original submission is set aside and the unit outcome is recorded as Not Yet Competent pending acceptable evidence.
• Disciplinary action. Formal warnings, conditions on future submissions, or in serious cases suspension from the course.
• Exclusion. For severe, repeated, or deliberate breaches, cancellation of enrolment. Any qualification issued on the basis of fraudulent submissions may be revoked.

Financial consequences: normal enrolment fees apply to reassessments where a breach is substantiated. No refund is available for a unit where a breach has been confirmed. See the Fees and Charges Policy.

You can appeal an academic misconduct finding through our complaints and appeals process. Appeals must be lodged within 20 business days of the decision, include the grounds, and any new evidence. An independent assessor reviews the matter.

Most breaches we see are accidental. Students often underestimate what counts as plagiarism, or rely on AI without realising it breaks the rule. We help you avoid these pitfalls by:

• Explaining academic integrity in the Student Handbook and at the start of each unit
• Providing clear guidance on referencing and attribution
• Flagging suspected issues early, so you can address them as part of learning
• Encouraging you to ask questions when you are unsure, without fear of penalty

We review academic integrity findings each year, look for patterns, and adjust our assessment design, detection tools, and student guidance accordingly.

• Assessment Policy
• Student Code of Conduct
• Intellectual Property Policy
• Student Rights and Responsibilities Policy
• Complaints and Appeals Policy
• Fees and Charges Policy
• Student Handbook

View the complete list of policies that apply to your enrolment.

Questions about academic integrity: support@talentmed.edu.au or 1300 737 781

Appeals: appeals@talentmed.edu.au

This policy is reviewed annually and sooner whenever AI tools, detection technology, or the regulatory framework require it.

TalentMed Pty Ltd · RTO 22151 · ABN 29 125 458 808

The specific policies referenced throughout are the authoritative source.

Version history