Practice Matrix
Rows are practice domains, columns are the level at which the practice is enacted: micro for classroom and learning design, meso for institutional governance, macro for national policy. Each cell reports how many documented practices were found and opens the underlying entries.
Table 1. The number in a cell is the count of practices documented at that domain and level. Colour intensity is scaled to the highest value in the matrix rather than to an absolute count, so the tones show relative weight across domains. An empty cell is a finding rather than an omission: no documented practice was found at that intersection.
The three levels: who decides, what the instrument looks like, what counts as evidence
- Who decides
- The teacher and the student, inside a single learning encounter
- What the instrument looks like
- A habit, a task instruction, a criterion written for one assignment
- What evidence looks like
- An account given by the person who did it; nothing is filed anywhere
- Who decides
- A rectorate, a vice-rectorate, a committee, a faculty office
- What the instrument looks like
- A policy, a guideline, a form, a licence, a training programme
- What evidence looks like
- A document that can be opened, dated and compared between years
- Who decides
- A ministry, a higher education authority, a quality agency, a legislature
- What the instrument looks like
- A strategy, an ethical guide, a regulation, a funding rule, an action plan
- What evidence looks like
- A published instrument, with its force stated or left unstated
Figure 1. The diagram sets out the rule by which every record in this report was assigned to a level. A level is determined by where the decision constituting the practice is taken and not by who is affected by it. Accordingly, a national guide addressed to researchers remains at the macro level, while a centrally provided tool configured course by course is assigned to the micro level. Reading the three bands from the bottom upwards also accounts for the density of the matrix, in that the two lower bands operate through instruments that can be inspected and counted, whereas the upper band operates through practices that exist only where a respondent reports them.
Force of instruments, from advisory to binding
Figure 2. Position on the axis is derived from what the source states about the instrument rather than from an assessment of its apparent importance. Where a partner records that guidance is advisory, or that a regulation is mandatory, the wording determines the position; where binding force is left unstated the instrument is placed conservatively. Read from left to right, the axis represents the central asymmetry identified in this report: the numerous instruments are located on the advisory side, while the few that bind are institutional and narrow in scope, with one national exception that binds evaluators rather than those being evaluated.
Practice Domains
The rows of the matrix. Opening a domain shows its reading across the three levels, together with its practices and figures.
Where generative AI enters programme outcomes, course structure, learning activities and materials.
Classroom and online delivery: how teaching staff use generative AI while teaching and how students use it while learning.
Assessment redesign, disclosure requirements, detection practices and integrity regulation.
Advising, tutoring, accessibility support and student-facing AI services beyond the course itself.
Training, certification and capacity building for students, teaching staff and administrators.
Institutional strategy, formal policy instruments, committees, decision rights and national regulation.
Codes of conduct, ethical principles, human oversight requirements and responsible use guidance.
GDPR compliance, data processing agreements, consent, retention and information security.
Unequal access to tools, language and disability accommodation, and the distributive effects of AI adoption.
Licensing, institutional deployments, integration with the virtual learning environment and vendor arrangements.
Evidence collection, pilot evaluation, indicators, accreditation expectations and accountability mechanisms.
Cross-institutional collaboration, sector networks, and the conditions under which a practice transfers to another context.