Claims

Typology tools are ordered by educator-reported frequency of use within each category

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r1 · 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? Within each of the nine categories, tools are listed from most frequently used to least frequently used based on the number of educators reporting use. → Matt Bower 2026

Evidence

Matt Bower 2026

Matt Bower, Jodie Torrington, Jennifer W. M. Lai. (2026). 2026 Typology of Generative AI Tools for Education. https://bit.ly/2026GenAITypologyData doi:10.35542/osf.io/4eqrk_v1

q2 · i? · associational · r1

Methodological description of the typology's organization from the Introduction: ranking derives from educator-reported usage counts in the 211-response survey, and categorization reflects "the primary or most common use case for each tool rather than exclusive capabilities". Descriptive only; no effect sizes.

"Within each category, tools are listed from most frequently used to least frequently used based on the number of educators who reported using them."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id typology-tools-ordered-by-reported-frequency
title Typology tools are ordered by educator-reported frequency of use within each category
description Typology tools are ordered by educator-reported frequency of use within each category
status review
evidence_strength weak
newest_evidence 2026
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-12
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 1 — matt-bower-2026

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.