Disrupted History

A possible classroom standard of performance

In this week’s post, I shared some ideas on what a classroom AI Standard of Performance might sound like. I landed on this ‘pledge’.

In this classroom, we think first.
We use Human Intelligence before Artificial Intelligence.
We make our thinking visible. We work transparently.
We use AI as support for thinking, not as substitute for it.
We ask for help when struggle becomes wasted, not simply because learning feels hard.
We remain responsible for our thoughts and words.
We show gratitude and acknowledge assistance freely and honestly.
We can explain what changed in our thinking.
We value ‘the climb’ – not just the ‘summit’.

It was intended as a statement of classroom culture: a base camp that gave students somewhere to stand when the journey of learning with AI convenient to hand gets hard.

I argued we should be clearly setting expectations around AI use because we believe students are capable of becoming more thoughtful, more discerning, more independent, and more fully human learners.

I argued clear expectations matter. That they give students safe, predictable, and structured places to return to in a volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous world of schools when the pressures rises, when the assessment feels too hard or too much, when the shortcut is tempting, when the AI offers convenient relief.

I argued that in an AI-disrupted classroom, clear expectations are pedagogical, ethical, and relational.

---

Some practical classroom moves

So what might this look like in practice? Here’s a few possibilities. I’m sure we’ll thnk of more in the years ahead!

1. Use “No AI yet” phases

Not “No AI ever”.

Just “No AI yet”.

Students first retrieve, notice, annotate, plan, draft, or question using their own minds.

Then AI may enter later.

This protects the first encounter with thinking.

Remember: “Think First” is a golden rule for our students!

2. Name the AI role

Before students use AI, ask them to name the role that they expact AI will play within the learning experience they are engaged in:

• I am using AI as an explainer.
• I am using AI as a quizzer.
• I am using AI as a critic.
• I am using AI as a guide to my assessment rubric.
• I am using AI as a reviewer and marker of my work.
• I am using AI as a tutor.
• I am using AI as a comparison partner.

There are so many options!

If they cannot name the role that they intend the AI to play, they are perhaps not ready to use it well.

3. Require a human created artefact of thinking first

Before prompting AI, students should produce something of ‘their own’. Collecting artefacts of student work might form links in a chain of evidence of learning (CEL) across the learning process. These artefacts could be digital or non-digital. What’s important is that we can see evidence of the students’ thinking throughout the learning process.

Perhaps artefacts might include:

• three questions
• a rough paragraph
• a concept map
• a source annotation
• a claim
• a plan
• a list of confusions

AI then works on the student’s thinking, not instead of it.

4. Teach better verbs

The verb matters.

Students need to learn the difference between:

Tell me…

What is…

Give me the answer to…

Write for me…

and

Question
Challenge
Clarify
Compare
Coach
Critique
Explain
Probe
Test

… and many more! (See Cognitive verb resources (Version 9.0) | Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority)

The second set preserves more learning.

5. Ask for judgement after AI

After AI use, students should reflect, discuss, be able to answer:

What did I accept?
What did I reject?
What changed in my thinking?
What do I still need to verify?
What remains my responsibility?

Consider some activities where you might be able to elicit these responses from your students.

This is where AI use becomes educative rather than merely efficient.

---