Can You Use Google Scholar and AI Sources in COM4024?
Yes, you can use Google Scholar in COM4024, and you should. Arden’s own reading list for the module names it as a research tool. What you cannot do is treat a chatbot as a source. Use Gemini or Copilot to generate keywords, then find, open and cite real papers yourself.
You have a prompt-engineering task, a brief that tells you to verify what the AI gives you, and a nagging question: is a result from Google Scholar acceptable, and what about a source the chatbot suggested? That is the exact point where COM4024 students lose Task 1 marks. This guide, written for Arden’s Level 4 computing students working on the COM4024 Academic Skills and Professional Development brief, gives the rules in plain terms.
What COM4024 expects you to do with AI sources
COM4024, Introduction to Academic Skills and Professional Development, is assessed in one piece: a 3,000-word report or a 15-minute narrated presentation, plus an Excel file for the SFIA task. Task 1 (worth 35 marks) asks you to refine prompts in Gemini or Copilot, check the sources the AI offers, and reflect on what you learned.
So the brief wants AI used, but visibly and critically. The marker is looking for your judgement, not the chatbot’s fluency. We have paraphrased the brief here; always work from the version in your module area and the marking matrix in the submission portal.
Google Scholar: allowed, with conditions
Google Scholar is a search engine for scholarly material. Google describes it as covering journal articles, theses, books and abstracts from publishers, societies, repositories and universities (Google Scholar, n.d.). Arden’s COM4024 reading list includes it among the Lesson 3 academic skills resources (Arden University, n.d.a).
Three conditions apply. Open the full text through your library link rather than citing from the snippet. Check that the item is peer-reviewed or from a recognised body. And reference the original paper, never “Google Scholar” as the author.
AI tools: a keyword helper, not a source
Arden’s library is direct on this. It says generative AI platforms are not considered credible academic sources and recommends its databases and journals instead (Arden University, n.d.b). It also says AI can suggest sources and summarise concepts, but you must find each source yourself and confirm it is real; AI-suggested references cannot be copied into your list (Arden University, n.d.c).
If you do include AI output because the task requires it, treat the platform like any other source: paraphrase, cite in text, include the prompt and list it in your references (Arden University, n.d.b). Skipping that can count as misconduct.
Not sure your Task 1 write-up passes that test? Our report writing help team can review structure and referencing before you submit.
Quick comparison: what you can cite
| Source type | Cite it? | How to use it in COM4024 |
|---|---|---|
| Journal article found via Google Scholar | Yes | Open the full text, cite the article in Harvard |
| Article from the Arden library databases | Yes | Preferred route; cite as normal |
| Official or industry report (for example IEA, SFIA Foundation) | Yes | Cite the organisation and report title |
| Source suggested by Gemini or Copilot, verified by you | Yes, the real source | Cite the original, never the chatbot’s summary |
| Source suggested by AI that you cannot find | No | Record it in your verification table as unverified |
| Chatbot answer used in your discussion | Only if the brief requires it | Paraphrase, cite, add the prompt, list the platform |
A verification routine that markers can see
Your verification is where Task 1 marks are won or lost. Show the process, not just the result.
- Copy each AI-suggested source into a table: author, year, title.
- Search the exact title in Google Scholar or the Arden library.
- Open the full text and find the claim the AI attributed to it.
- Record one of three outcomes: confirmed, partly confirmed, or not found.
- Cite only the confirmed ones, in Arden’s Harvard style.
Be honest about failures. A row reading “not found, discarded” shows more judgement than ten clean ticks. Meechan (2024) is a useful book-length companion on using generative AI for university study, but your verification table still has to come from the sources themselves.
Checklist before you submit
- Every prompt and reply you rely on is in the appendix, with dates.
- Every in-text citation matches an entry in the reference list.
- No reference exists only because a chatbot produced it.
- AI use is declared as the brief and the Arden statement require.
- Your reflection names specific skills: prompt specificity, source checking, referencing.
- Word count sits near the guide (about 1,050 for Task 1, excluding appendices).
Run the checklist the day before the deadline, not the hour before. Verification takes longer than prompting, and a missing DOI or a source that will not open is far easier to fix with a full day in hand. Keep screenshots of each prompt window in case you need to show your working later.
Common mistakes we see
Most students do not fail on AI itself; they fail on the paperwork around it. A few patterns repeat. Pasting a reference list from a chatbot without opening one paper. Citing “Gemini” for a statistic that actually comes from a report. Writing a reflection that says “AI was helpful” and nothing else.
Another trap is mixing tasks. Task 2 salary data and Task 3 SFIA skill names need the same discipline: use Prospects, ONS or the SFIA site, not a chatbot’s memory. For a worked example across all three tasks, see our COM4024 green computing model answer, which is for reference only. If you need general source-hunting habits first, our guide to finding good sources for a research paper helps.
Where Arden’s own materials help
The module reading list is more useful than most students realise. Lesson 3 groups Google Scholar with Arden’s Harvard referencing guides, a paraphrasing guide and the Turnitin Draft Coach quick guide. Lesson 4 holds the AI material, including Arden’s guidance on prompts and Microsoft’s Copilot introduction (Arden University, n.d.a).
Read those before you start prompting. Your tutor and Arden’s Academic Skills team remain the final authority on anything the brief leaves unclear. If you are comparing this with the older version of the module, our page for the earlier COM4006 academic skills brief shows how the assessment has changed.
About the expert
Technical points in this guide were reviewed by David Lee, a computer science and programming expert with a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science from the University of Glasgow and about 4 years’ experience as a software engineer. Our service provides model answers and guidance; you remain responsible for your own submission and Arden’s rules, as set out in our plagiarism policy.
Stuck on the prompt log, the verification table or the Excel task? Share your COM4024 brief and we will tell you what we can do and by when. Browse more Arden University assessment briefs, or read how artificial intelligence assignment help works.
FAQs
Can I use Google Scholar sources in COM4024?
Yes. Google Scholar is on Arden’s COM4024 reading list, and it indexes real journal articles and theses. Open the full text, check it is credible, and cite the original paper in Harvard style rather than the search engine.
Can I cite ChatGPT, Gemini or Copilot as a source?
Arden’s library says AI platforms are not credible academic sources. If the task requires AI output, paraphrase it, cite the platform in text, include your prompt, and list it in the references. Otherwise find a real source.
What if the AI gives me a reference I cannot find?
Treat it as unverified. Search the exact title in Google Scholar and the library. If it does not exist, record “not found” in your verification table and leave it out of your reference list.
Do I need to include my prompts in the submission?
Task 1 centres on your prompts, so include the iterations and replies you discuss, usually in an appendix. Check the brief and portal for where they sit and whether appendices count towards words.
Can I use AI to write the report text?
Arden’s guidance says assessed work should reflect your own writing and ideas, and not to copy and paste ideas from AI. Use AI where the brief tells you to, declare it, and write the analysis yourself.
Where do I get salary and SFIA facts for Tasks 2 and 3?
Use Prospects job profiles or ONS earnings data for salaries, and the SFIA website for skill names, codes and levels. Never rely on a chatbot’s recall for numbers.
References
Arden University (n.d.a) COM4024 Introduction to Academic Skills and Professional Development reading list. Learning Success Hub. Available at: https://learningsuccess.arden.ac.uk/readinglist/module/1163/2031/957/introduction-to-academic-skills-and-professional-development/module-code-COM4024/ (Accessed: 21 October 2026).
Arden University (n.d.b) Can I use generative AI as a source in my assignment? Available at: https://answers.arden.ac.uk/faq/282989 (Accessed: 21 October 2026).
Arden University (n.d.c) What are some ways I can use generative AI for academic work? Available at: https://answers.arden.ac.uk/faq/282954 (Accessed: 21 October 2026).
Google Scholar (n.d.) About Google Scholar. Available at: https://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/about.html (Accessed: 21 October 2026).
Meechan, D. (2024) Generative AI for students: the essential guide to using artificial intelligence for study at university. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
