Sixty minutes, one sitting. By the end you will have a written delivery plan for your first AI Literacy lesson, and we will both know what you still need before you teach it.
A student hands in a paragraph that is better than anything they have written all year. In class, they cannot explain a single sentence of it. It has happened several times now.
That is not a discipline problem, and it is not going away. It is the problem this curriculum exists to solve, and it is already in your room.
That scenario is ADEK's own — "The Perfect Homework", from the Train-the-Trainer safeguarding lab.
Hook, model, practice, commit. That is the shape of a good AI lesson, and it is the shape of the next fifty-six minutes. The format is part of the message.
One spiral curriculum, KG to Grade 12: four phases, four strands running through every grade, and three proficiency tiers. Read the whole table once, then read your own band properly.
| Phase | Grades | Learner profile | Pedagogical signature |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 / KG | KG1–KG2 Ages 4–5 |
AI Aware Explorer | Play → explore → understand Unplugged; no direct AI tool use |
| 2 / Cycle 1 | Grades 1–5 Ages 6–10 |
AI Literate Thinker | Reason → interact → refine Rules, logic and data; begins interacting with AI tools |
| 3 / Cycle 2 | Grades 6–8 Ages 11–13 |
AI Solution Builder | Build → evaluate → improve Data, models and workflows |
| 4 / Cycle 3 | Grades 9–12 Ages 14–18 |
AI Systems & Solutions Designer | Design → integrate → govern Integrated AI systems |
The most commonly assumed-wrong thing in the framework: KG uses no AI tools at all. Phase 1 is entirely unplugged. Tool use begins in Phase 2, Grade 1 and up.
These run through every grade, gaining complexity as the phases climb.
The shape above is the summary. The Scope & Sequence is the full KG–Grade 12 curriculum map: what every grade covers, what students are expected to reach by the end of each phase, and how each strand builds year on year.
Opens in a new tab. The purple button in the corner of the screen opens the same thing from any point in this module.
KG and Grades 1–5: one period per week. Grades 6–8 and 9–12: two periods per week.
How AISA delivers this in Grades 6–12: one timetabled period per week, with the rest of the entitlement completed asynchronously. Elementary is unchanged — one timetabled period per week.
Not an exam on the architecture — the point is that you can place your own lessons. Pick the strand each outcome belongs to.
1. "Learners classify each claim in an AI summary as supported, misleading or not established, citing evidence." Which strand?
2. "Learners recognise personal information and identify trusted adults." Which strand?
3. "Learners distinguish between human senses and basic machine inputs through unplugged play." Which phase?
This is the one idea that most changes what happens in your room. Everything else in the module is arrangement; this is the substance.
Instructional approach — how the learning experience is designed. ADEK names five: opening, warm-up, inquiry, practice, reflect.
Facilitation move — what you do in the moment. Also five, and they are what this segment is about.
The five moves are a repertoire, not a formula. They mark five moments where a teacher can either protect or take over a learner's thinking.
This case is set in Grade 7. The five moves are identical at every band — read it for the decisions, not the grade. What Ms Hana gets wrong here is exactly what is easiest to get wrong in a Grade 2 classroom.
The case. Grade 7, 32 learners, 45 minutes. Learning outcome: learners evaluate how faithfully an AI summary represents a source, classify its claims, justify decisions with evidence and revise misleading wording.
The problem. Ms Hana's first instinct is to tell them the summary is wrong, underline every error and show a corrected version. The books would look accurate — but she would have performed the evaluation.
During a fictional two-week Grade 7 trial, students kept phones away during lunch. Of 84 students who answered a follow-up survey, 56 said they talked with classmates more, 18 noticed no difference and 10 felt less comfortable. Board-game borrowing rose from 40 in the previous two weeks to 73 during the trial. The school did not measure learning or academic results. The student council recommended a longer trial before any permanent decision and requested a quiet-space option.
"The phone-free lunch was preferred by nearly every Grade 7 student. It doubled social interaction and improved academic learning. No students were negatively affected, so the school should immediately make the phone ban permanent."
1 · Prompt. How should Ms Hana launch the evaluation?
2 · Inquiry. How should learners decide what needs investigating?
3 · Critique & evaluate. What should learners do with the source and summary?
"Two-thirds of surveyed students talked more during the trial, and board-game borrowing increased. These results prove phone-free lunches improve every student's wellbeing, so a permanent ban is the only reasonable option."
4 · Practice. How should Ms Hana test whether learners can apply the skill with less support?
5 · Reflect. How should Ms Hana help learners transfer the checking method?
The takeaway, in one line: the teacher frames and probes; learners select, check, justify and revise.
Everything so far has been preparation for this. Teaching starts the week of 21 September — your first lesson falls somewhere in that week, not necessarily on the Monday. Pick your grade and write the plan you will teach from. You do not need InstrucTwin open to do it — the curriculum focus for your grade is below.
Want the whole picture? The Scope & Sequence lays out every grade from KG to 12 — the progression map, end-of-phase expectations, and how each strand builds year on year.
It opens in a new tab, so you will not lose anything you have typed.
This is the thing that will be on your desk when the lesson starts. Write it against the focus above — it is what your grade's lesson is actually for.
ADEK's full lesson plans and student materials are being bulk-uploaded to InstrucTwin, and that upload is still running — so your grade may well not be there yet. Staff accounts are not reliably showing assigned grades either. Both are mine to chase, not yours. When your lesson does appear, read it against the plan you just wrote: yours says what the lesson is for, theirs says how they would run it.
Can't get in? You have not lost anything — your plan above is the part that matters, and it is already saved. Tick the box below so I know, and finish the module. Access is mine to chase, and I would rather know today than on the 20th.
Every criterion is described at three tiers: Emerging, Proficient, Advanced.
Proficient is the entitlement. It is the baseline every student is owed — not the ceiling, and not a grade to aspire to. Design for it.
A polished AI output is not proof of learning. Assess the thinking behind it.
Both samples below are invented for this module — they are illustrations, not real student work.
"The phone-free lunch trial demonstrates a significant positive correlation between device restriction and peer socialisation. The data indicates a marked increase in collaborative engagement, with board-game circulation rising substantially. These findings suggest that a permanent policy would yield sustained benefits for student wellbeing and community cohesion."
"56 out of 84 said they talked more. That's most but not all — 10 felt worse and the summary didn't say that. I checked the board game number (40 → 73) and that one is in the source. But 'improved academic learning' is not, because it says they didn't measure learning. So I'd call that one not established. I'd want a longer trial too, like the council said."
We are not moderating yet. Agreeing what Proficient means, so it means the same thing in every classroom, needs other people's judgements in the room. That is the anchor session on 21 September.
This is the highest-stakes part of the module. ADEK's responsible-use framework is its own thing — it is not a restatement of AISA's AI Vision and Ethical Framework, and you need both.
| Principle | In practice |
|---|---|
| Human oversight | AI assists; people decide and stay accountable. |
| Data privacy | Never put personal or sensitive data into a prompt. |
| Wellbeing and safeguarding | Protect students from harmful or age-inappropriate content. |
| Honesty and integrity | Cite sources, no invented facts, and no passing AI work off as your own. |
| Fairness | Check outputs for bias and unfair assumptions. |
| Risk | What it looks like |
|---|---|
| Over-reliance | Critical thinking fades. |
| Misinformation | Invented facts and no sources. |
| Bias | Unfair or skewed outputs. |
| Privacy | Personal data exposed in prompts. |
| Wellbeing | Harmful or age-inappropriate content. |
Notice → Record → Report → Act → Review.
ADEK is explicit that this is a memory aid, not an official school reporting route. It helps you hold the shape of a response in your head. It does not tell you who to call. That is what the next box is for.
An AI-related concern is a safeguarding concern. It goes down the same route as any other — to your Safeguarding Lead, not to the IT team and not to the tool's support desk.
Assistant Principal · Safeguarding Lead (DSL)
anejdawi@aisa.sch.ae
Counsellors: Laylin Chong · Sara AlBeainy
MS Assistant Principal · Safeguarding Lead (DSL)
slargatzis@aisa.sch.ae
Counsellors: Naiema Zaki (HS) · Jenn Guss (HS) · Joel Hunter (MS)
The timescale. Report every safeguarding concern to your DSL within 24 hours. If a child may be at immediate risk, contact them straight away — do not wait for the end of the lesson or the end of the day. Never promise a student secrecy, and never investigate it yourself.
During an approved classroom activity, an AI tool unexpectedly generates disturbing or age-inappropriate content. A student is visibly upset and shows you the response.
This sits alongside the ADEK Safeguarding and Student Protection policies and Federal Decree-Law No. 26 of 2025 on Child Digital Safety. The full route, including whistleblowing and the counsellor referral process, is in the AISA Safeguarding module.
This records that you have read it, with a timestamp. It is not a test of understanding — that is confirmed face to face on 21 September, with two live scenarios.
These still need an answer before your completion can be recorded:
This segment is what we work through together in the Secondary Gym on Monday 21 September, 3:10–4:25. Nothing here is required to complete the module, and there is nothing to fill in — it is here so you can read it before, follow along during, and come back to it afterwards.
A Grade 3 class collected some data, then asked an AI to write up what they found. Read both columns. Which of the AI’s claims would you want checked before this went on the wall?
Our Grade 3 class counted birds in the school garden for two weeks. We saw 34 sparrows, 12 mynas and 5 pigeons.
We counted on Monday and Wednesday mornings only. On two mornings it rained and we did not count. We never counted in the afternoon.
“We counted 51 birds in total. Sparrows are the most common bird in Abu Dhabi. The school garden has more birds than any other garden in the city. Because we saw so many birds, the garden is healthy and needs no changes.”
Worth noticing: the arithmetic is right. 34 + 12 + 5 really is 51. Everything that follows it is the problem — which is exactly why “check the maths” is not enough of a habit to teach.
In your pair, take the same task down to your own grade. Open the Scope & Sequence, find your grade, and talk through what you would actually do in the room to keep the students thinking rather than handing them the answer.
Write your pair’s answers below. Optional, unmarked, saved as you type — I read them, and they are what the next session gets built from.
The four strands run through every grade — what changes is how demanding each one gets. Take each in turn and write, in your own words, what it looks like in the grades you actually teach. A sentence each is plenty.
Nothing here is required and none of it is marked. It saves as you type, and I read it — it is how I find out which strand needs more support before the next session.
If one of the four is hard to write, that is the useful finding. It usually means that strand has no obvious home in your grade yet — which is exactly what I want to know, and exactly what the next session should be about.
The question under all of it: who is doing the thinking — the student, or the machine? If your version has students checking the machine, you are already teaching the strand.