Teacher Guide · Unit 2 · Package A
Differentiation by Cognitive Level
Every activity in this unit can be adjusted to meet students at three levels — not a rigid prescription.
5.1 · Grade-Band Adaptation Matrix
Grades 7–8
Remember & Understand
Follow → Apply → Describe
Grades 9–10
Apply & Analyze
Construct → Compare → Refine
Grades 11–12
Evaluate & Create
Design → Critique → Transfer
| Activity |
🟦 Grades 7–8 |
🟪 Grades 9–10 |
🟩 Grades 11–12 |
| A1 · The Shortcut Trap |
Name what Nour did in one verb — do not open the debate yet. |
Name the step Nour skipped; predict her result and give the reason. |
Is the problem Nour, or the way we assess learning? |
| A2 · Prompt Anatomy Workshop |
Label which prompt is weak/medium/strong; underline what makes the strong one strong. |
Write the strong version themselves, then compare with the model. |
Write a deliberately weak prompt that still looks plausible — explain why plausibility is the real danger. |
| A3 · The 3-Part Formula |
Copy the Role/Task/Context structure using their own subject, from a worked example. |
List three specific differences the live demo produced — not "better," but what changed. |
Critique the formula: propose and defend a fourth part it is missing. |
| A4 · Upgrade My Prompt |
Use the sentence stem; one prompt, one revision. |
Write their own 3-part prompt, run it, revise once, log the change. |
Write a multi-turn sequence — opening prompt plus two follow-ups that build on each response. |
| A6 · AI Learning Stations |
Two stations, teacher-modelled; verify one fact against the textbook. |
All four stations; apply the Verify–Reflect Cycle at each. |
Choose a topic where AI is likely to err; document the error and the prompt fix. |
| A8 · Learning Summary |
Parts 1–2 only; a drawing may replace writing. |
All three parts, with one specific example of AI changing their thinking. |
Add Part 4 — the next question to ask — and name a subject where this method would fail. |
No-Device / Low-Tech Fallback — All Grade BandsThe teacher models every AI interaction on the projector; students write their prompts on paper and predict the response before it is revealed. Prediction-first raises metacognitive demand rather than lowering it.
Grades 11–12 without devicesRun A6 as a whole-class adversarial exercise — the class writes a prompt designed to make the projected model fail, then analyses the result together.
5.2 · Within-Band Support Levels
Every activity in this unit can be adjusted to meet students at three levels. Use this as a reference during planning, not as a rigid prescription.
| Level |
Profile |
Prompt Writing |
AI Interaction |
Learning Summary |
| 🟡 Foundational |
Limited prior tech experience; may feel uncertain about using AI |
Use the sentence stem: 'You are a [subject] teacher. Explain [topic] in simple steps. I am a Grade [X] student.' |
Work with teacher-modeled prompts; verify one fact using a textbook |
Complete Parts 1–2 only; draw or diagram instead of writing if needed |
| 🔵 On-Level |
Comfortable using digital tools; familiar with AI from Unit 1 |
Write their own 3-Part prompt independently; revise once based on response quality |
Complete all four Learning Stations; apply Verify-Reflect at each one |
Complete all three parts; include one specific example of changed thinking |
| 🟢 Advanced |
Confident with AI; has used it independently before this curriculum |
Write a multi-turn sequence: initial prompt + two follow-ups that build on each response |
Choose a topic where AI is likely to err; document the error and correction |
Add a Part 4: 'What question would I ask next?' and write that next prompt |
5.3 · No-Device / Low-Tech Fallback
Prediction-first strategyTeacher models all AI interactions via projector; students write their prompts on paper and predict the AI response before seeing it. Students who predict what AI will say must think about the topic first — this constraint increases metacognitive engagement rather than reducing learning quality.