The curated records of Task 2.2. The account view reads them grouped by level and domain; the database view opens the same records for filtering, sorting and downloading.
Teachers report a transition from occasional assistance with summaries and ideas towards regular use in preparing materials and designing learning activities. The account is given as a description of current routine rather than as a statement of intention, and it situates a design decision, and not merely a decision about use, within a single course.
A teacher reports assigning a voice to the model, creating several agents specialised in different areas of expertise, and selecting models that reflect a personal teaching style. The tool is not adopted as delivered but configured, and the configuration expresses a pedagogical preference rather than a technical one.
Teachers describe subjecting every AI output to a check for academic precision, pedagogical alignment and ethical standards before use, and describe the tool as a partner for refining ideas rather than an author. The framing that dominates the third round is augmentation rather than replacement, and it recurs regardless of the purpose of use.
Students describe using the tool to obtain direction, to get help with parts they do not understand and to identify the strengths and weaknesses of work they have already done, rather than to have the work done for them. The practice is located within the learning situation and depends on nothing other than the student's own decision as to what to ask.
Students and teachers report declining to trust generated text, avoiding direct copying, and verifying academic material in particular, with citations identified as the element verified most frequently. The practice addresses the failure mode that respondents in every group identify as the principal challenge.
Respondents in every group attribute improved results to their own learning: prompts have become more specific and goal-directed, extended exchanges are sustained more deliberately, and use has moved from a single tool to a set of tools selected for particular purposes. Explaining a task to the model is described as constituting a learning experience in itself.
Where formal training is absent or limited, competence is acquired through colleagues, peer networks, self-paced material and practical use. The channels differ by role: staff describe internal knowledge sharing and consultation with colleagues, while for students public video and social media are the most common route. The report finds that informal learning acts as a complement to formal provision rather than as a substitute for it.
Respondents across all groups report stating where and for what purpose generative tools were used, citing them where the work is academic, and reviewing generated content thoroughly before it reaches anyone else. Disclosure is expressed as a description of purpose rather than as an acknowledgement of a tool.
Respondents in every stakeholder group report withholding personal, sensitive and confidential material from prompts, preferring platforms the institution has licensed to publicly available ones, and using temporary chat modes so that no record is retained. The report characterises the pattern as a habit rather than as compliance with a rule.