In joint analysis, Practice codes correlate most strongly with AI pedagogical orientation, while Epistemic codes show a weaker positive association¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr1·q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? Consolidated qualitative Practice codes showed a substantial positive correlation with the factor score (0.467 in recoded data), Epistemic codes a weaker positive association (0.222), and Affective and Structural codes little systematic relationship. → T. J. Atherton 2026
Evidence¶
T. J. Atherton 2026¶
T. J. Atherton, I. Descamps, M. Webel, T. R. Holmes, C. L. Vizcarra, N. Sui, J. J. Foley IV. (2026). Faculty Orientations Shape Adoption of AI in Research and Teaching. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.18140 doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.18140
q2 · i? · associational · r1
Joint analysis correlating consolidated qualitative codes with the factor score (Table V), using both recoded data and original emergent codes. The article reports Practice codes showed "a substantial positive correlation with the factor score across both methods" (0.467 recoded) and Epistemic codes "a weaker but consistently positive associa- tion" (0.222).
"The strongest relationship was observed for Practice codes, which showed a substantial positive correlation with the factor score across both methods. Epistemic codes showed a weaker but consistently positive associa- tion, while Affective and Structural codes exhibited little systematic relationship with the factor."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- AI pedagogical orientation strongly predicts self-reported AI use across research, teaching, and other professional domains — related
- Institutional initiatives, demographics, teaching practices, and information sources show weak or null associations with AI pedagogical orientation and use — related
- Faculty with negative versus positive AI pedagogical orientation differ in how they interpret AI's role in thinking: cautious peripheral use versus integrated use with managed concerns — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
practice-codes-correlate-strongest-with-orientation-factor |
title |
In joint analysis, Practice codes correlate most strongly with AI pedagogical orientation, while Epistemic codes show a weaker positive association |
description |
In joint analysis, Practice codes correlate most strongly with AI pedagogical orientation, while Epistemic codes show a weaker positive association |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2026 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-10 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — t-j-atherton-2026 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.