Preparing teaching materials and designing learning activities with the tool

This record addresses a gap left open by the earlier rounds. Curriculum work was documented at the institutional and national levels, where it leaves behind a programme specification or a national guide, and it was absent at the level of the single course because nothing at that level is filed. The third round altered this position by asking respondents how their use had changed, which is the question that elicits an account of design rather than of compliance.

The responses describe a sequence. Use begins with tasks requiring no pedagogical judgement, such as summarising a text or generating a list of ideas. It subsequently extends to tasks that do require such judgement: assembling the material on which a course will run, drafting the assessments that will measure it, and shaping the activities through which students will work. Respondents attribute part of this shift to the increasing capability of the tools and part to their own developing sense of where the tool may be relied upon.

The practice remains at the micro level because the decision rests with the teacher and extends no further than the course. No committee approves the resulting activity and no register records it, which is the reason the practice becomes visible only where a question elicits an account of it.

Volunteered accounts of changed practice from teachers in more than one country, given under the question on change over the preceding year and quoted verbatim in the report.