I'm partnering with an administrator to use AI and emergent structures during his instructional coaching process. The idea involves a three legged stool which forms a partnership. The instructional coach, teacher, and students (3 legs) form a partnership. The purpose is to co-design a future (walk-through) as a partnership where each member's learning objectives are revealed through role-play. Trust, innovation, communal possibility, commitment and chosen accountability arise from emergent practices. Class members transition from competitors to collaborators.
The administrator goes From: Observer as knower, judge, and provider of feedback and points
To: Facilitator in partnership with teacher and students, as learners,
Thank you for the support on my previous comment. I'm excited to delve deeper into this collaborative project and explore how we can integrate generative AI into our instructional coaching process.
As we embark on this initiative, I envision a concurrent structured six-week +/- period dedicated to research and design for a future walk-through based on, for example, a typical 11th-grade English Language Arts (ELA) unit during a quarter. This project will run concurrent with the curriculum.
Here's a more detailed breakdown of how we might implement this:
Week 1: Establishing the Foundation
Kick-off Meeting: Gather our core team, Administrator Anton W., myself (Coach Dan J.), and the selected teacher to discuss our shared purpose and clarify roles.
Design Element Questions: Participatory? Learning? Useful? Multi-modal? Emergent? (PLUME) are embedded in our project framework.
Introduction to Generative AI: Facilitate an inquiry to introduce AI tools and their potential applications in educational settings, emphasizing their role in fostering collaboration and innovation.
Week 2: Teacher and Student Engagement
Selecting a Teacher: Identify a teacher who embodies an openness to not knowing and uncertainty, curiosity, courage and innovation. This person will be crucial in modeling and facilitating the mindset we want to foster in students. There is no consequence for failure, wrong answers, being behind schedule or saying no.
Community Building: Learn and practice small group protocols with the coaches, teacher and students to establish trust and a sense of belonging, agency, and to invite all voices into the room. The small group is the unit for transformation. Connection before content. Practice the art of hosting conversations that matter and become a community of practice.
Divergent Conversations: Begin discussions that allow each partner (teacher, students, and the coaches) to express their ideas, wants, and needs, creating a repository of perspectives that will guide our design process.
Week 3: Exploring Curricular Connections
Curriculum Mapping: Collaborate with the teacher to outline the existing 11th-grade ELA curriculum, identifying key learning objectives and themes. No secrets, everything is laid on the table; the curriculum, checklists, mandates, plans, materials etc.
Generative AI Research: Utilize AI tools to analyze existing ELA resources and generate innovative ideas for unit design, focusing on how to engage individuality and collectively in active learning.
Week 4: Co-designing the Walk-through
Iterative Dialogue: Engage in iterative conversations, using AI to prototype potential activities and assessments that align with our objectives and incorporate student feedback.
Role Play: Implement role-play scenarios that allow all participants to embody different perspectives, promoting empathy and a deeper understanding of each partner's needs and contributions.
Week 5: Finalizing the Walk-through Design
Collaborative Refinement: Synthesize insights from previous weeks to finalize the walk-through design. Ensure that each partner’s voice is represented and that the learning experience is coherent and engaging.
Assessment Planning: Develop formative and summative assessments that reflect our co-designed learning objectives, leveraging AI to create adaptive learning pathways for students.
Week 6: Implementation and Reflection
Walk-through Execution: Conduct the walk-through, inviting stakeholders to observe and participate in the learning experience.
Feedback Loop: Collect feedback from students, teachers, and observers to evaluate the effectiveness of the design and identify areas for improvement.
Future Visioning: Conclude the project with a reflective session to envision next steps, discussing how this model can be expanded and adapted for future units.
By reimagining the roles within our educational system, from consumers to producers, we can foster a culture of collaboration, creativity, and citizenship. I would love to hear your thoughts on this proposed structure and any additional ideas you might have for integrating Generative AI into our process. Together, we can create a transformative learning experience that not only meets educational standards but also empowers students to take ownership of their education.
This is really good and really interesting. If you want to write up a longer piece about this process, give some context about the school environment and your team, I’d be interested in publishing this, and perhaps updates on your project.
Heavily requesting you add a key step please: Must implore that all public school educators reflect on Step 3 - output, very closely.
Add a bit of step 5 right there with step 3, output - have your students answer these questions:
Prior to Gen AI tools, which professional (or professionals) would have made this output?
Do I want to have people making a living wage (or more) in this output that don't use these tools?
How do I support that?
Background: In my AI and Ethics class, we have curricular time and focus to examine when we keep using an AI tool for creative output and which professional (or professionals) might have done this output in 2021 {no public generative AI like Open AI rolled out in Nov 2022).
Next, the AI and Ethics course here specifically creates room to discuss, research, and write about the question itself within Postman's question of a Technopoly. Does this gen AI version of the output equal, detract, or add value to the output of people in that field prior to public gen AI tools? For instance, being able to quickly generate AI style Studio Ghibli art for a presentation - that has an impact in multiple ways.
No matter the educator's subject, if they are teaching 10, 11, 12th, educators must force this issue daily, with nuance, and evidence within their discipline. Asking these questions in 2025 help sustain a larger question about art, people, and value that quickly could shift if each individual student doesn't have the chance to consider the economic impact of step 3, repeated, transactionally outside of school...which is happening already, but would likely happen more if teachers are not sensitive to reducing artistry to "output".
For instance, I winced a bit from your example of outsourcing of music. I want my students to think about the artistry in the world around them, consider what they like, and mindfully consume and support good artistry. For example, one of my students who is now attending film school spent a night last March distressed about the amount of AI generated music in the Apple Music app. We took class time the next week to listen to, look at web presence, and then discuss positives and drawbacks of projects like "The Tommy Lasorda Experience" being positioned alongside people living day to day lives trying to promote their music. We then contacted that band via e-mail to ask how much of their content was AI generated, if that was a statement or parody, and thoughts they had about people scaling out with gen AI to fill up outlets like Apple Music, Pandora, etc.... rather quickly that band changed their web presence and started to identify that it was somewhat of a social experiment and parody of multiple things...and all AI generated, every bit. Never answered our e-mail though.
I'm cutting back on almost all gen AI output in creative areas within my classroom assignments. I hope a vast majority of public school teachers outside of art classes do as well. If each of my students thoroughly understands the economic shift imposed by larger tech companies on these areas of creativity --- outside of the their own tech tools.
This is a small business issue, an entrepreneurial issue, then a political issue, but also an issue of social appreciation outside of economic value.
Would like to hear your viewpoint, and if you agree, please at least add this perspective as an asterisk for step 3, if not maybe even consider an adjustment.
I appreciate your feedback. You are speaking from a place of deep experience and wisdom. For younger students, generating a particular soundscape—a specific tone or resonance—can serve as evidence of their understanding of subtle aspects of a text or topic. The immersion in the creating process will offer valuable experience in how LLMs respond to different kinds of language. Every portion of a project like this can be used to develop skills and indicate levels of comprehension and mastery. I certainly respect the authenticity of real musicianship, and I think that can still be preserved in an AI infused space. And that can be another moment in the life of a course. In addition, you may be misreading the post. These aren’t steps students are working through, they are filters teachers can use to evaluate their assignments for potential impact in our evolving classroom spaces.
Nick, this is so much shorter than your typical post. Just as it finished I was expecting you to progress into how you use the framework.
Which leaves me with the question… do you use this practically in classroom situations?
The reason I ask is that this whole essay actually feels like, with a little editing in tone and content, could be used as a system prompt for a CustomGPT, which lecturers could then upload their assignments to for advice and guidance about how to evolve them according to your framework.
I'm partnering with an administrator to use AI and emergent structures during his instructional coaching process. The idea involves a three legged stool which forms a partnership. The instructional coach, teacher, and students (3 legs) form a partnership. The purpose is to co-design a future (walk-through) as a partnership where each member's learning objectives are revealed through role-play. Trust, innovation, communal possibility, commitment and chosen accountability arise from emergent practices. Class members transition from competitors to collaborators.
The administrator goes From: Observer as knower, judge, and provider of feedback and points
To: Facilitator in partnership with teacher and students, as learners,
producers and designers.
RE: Expanding on Our Collaborative Project Idea
Hi Nick,
Thank you for the support on my previous comment. I'm excited to delve deeper into this collaborative project and explore how we can integrate generative AI into our instructional coaching process.
As we embark on this initiative, I envision a concurrent structured six-week +/- period dedicated to research and design for a future walk-through based on, for example, a typical 11th-grade English Language Arts (ELA) unit during a quarter. This project will run concurrent with the curriculum.
Here's a more detailed breakdown of how we might implement this:
Week 1: Establishing the Foundation
Kick-off Meeting: Gather our core team, Administrator Anton W., myself (Coach Dan J.), and the selected teacher to discuss our shared purpose and clarify roles.
Design Element Questions: Participatory? Learning? Useful? Multi-modal? Emergent? (PLUME) are embedded in our project framework.
Introduction to Generative AI: Facilitate an inquiry to introduce AI tools and their potential applications in educational settings, emphasizing their role in fostering collaboration and innovation.
Week 2: Teacher and Student Engagement
Selecting a Teacher: Identify a teacher who embodies an openness to not knowing and uncertainty, curiosity, courage and innovation. This person will be crucial in modeling and facilitating the mindset we want to foster in students. There is no consequence for failure, wrong answers, being behind schedule or saying no.
Community Building: Learn and practice small group protocols with the coaches, teacher and students to establish trust and a sense of belonging, agency, and to invite all voices into the room. The small group is the unit for transformation. Connection before content. Practice the art of hosting conversations that matter and become a community of practice.
Divergent Conversations: Begin discussions that allow each partner (teacher, students, and the coaches) to express their ideas, wants, and needs, creating a repository of perspectives that will guide our design process.
Week 3: Exploring Curricular Connections
Curriculum Mapping: Collaborate with the teacher to outline the existing 11th-grade ELA curriculum, identifying key learning objectives and themes. No secrets, everything is laid on the table; the curriculum, checklists, mandates, plans, materials etc.
Generative AI Research: Utilize AI tools to analyze existing ELA resources and generate innovative ideas for unit design, focusing on how to engage individuality and collectively in active learning.
Week 4: Co-designing the Walk-through
Iterative Dialogue: Engage in iterative conversations, using AI to prototype potential activities and assessments that align with our objectives and incorporate student feedback.
Role Play: Implement role-play scenarios that allow all participants to embody different perspectives, promoting empathy and a deeper understanding of each partner's needs and contributions.
Week 5: Finalizing the Walk-through Design
Collaborative Refinement: Synthesize insights from previous weeks to finalize the walk-through design. Ensure that each partner’s voice is represented and that the learning experience is coherent and engaging.
Assessment Planning: Develop formative and summative assessments that reflect our co-designed learning objectives, leveraging AI to create adaptive learning pathways for students.
Week 6: Implementation and Reflection
Walk-through Execution: Conduct the walk-through, inviting stakeholders to observe and participate in the learning experience.
Feedback Loop: Collect feedback from students, teachers, and observers to evaluate the effectiveness of the design and identify areas for improvement.
Future Visioning: Conclude the project with a reflective session to envision next steps, discussing how this model can be expanded and adapted for future units.
By reimagining the roles within our educational system, from consumers to producers, we can foster a culture of collaboration, creativity, and citizenship. I would love to hear your thoughts on this proposed structure and any additional ideas you might have for integrating Generative AI into our process. Together, we can create a transformative learning experience that not only meets educational standards but also empowers students to take ownership of their education.
Looking forward to your feedback!
Best,
Dan Joyner
This is really good and really interesting. If you want to write up a longer piece about this process, give some context about the school environment and your team, I’d be interested in publishing this, and perhaps updates on your project.
Thanks for the offer Nick. I will put something together to share with you!
Nick, great work here.
Heavily requesting you add a key step please: Must implore that all public school educators reflect on Step 3 - output, very closely.
Add a bit of step 5 right there with step 3, output - have your students answer these questions:
Prior to Gen AI tools, which professional (or professionals) would have made this output?
Do I want to have people making a living wage (or more) in this output that don't use these tools?
How do I support that?
Background: In my AI and Ethics class, we have curricular time and focus to examine when we keep using an AI tool for creative output and which professional (or professionals) might have done this output in 2021 {no public generative AI like Open AI rolled out in Nov 2022).
Next, the AI and Ethics course here specifically creates room to discuss, research, and write about the question itself within Postman's question of a Technopoly. Does this gen AI version of the output equal, detract, or add value to the output of people in that field prior to public gen AI tools? For instance, being able to quickly generate AI style Studio Ghibli art for a presentation - that has an impact in multiple ways.
No matter the educator's subject, if they are teaching 10, 11, 12th, educators must force this issue daily, with nuance, and evidence within their discipline. Asking these questions in 2025 help sustain a larger question about art, people, and value that quickly could shift if each individual student doesn't have the chance to consider the economic impact of step 3, repeated, transactionally outside of school...which is happening already, but would likely happen more if teachers are not sensitive to reducing artistry to "output".
For instance, I winced a bit from your example of outsourcing of music. I want my students to think about the artistry in the world around them, consider what they like, and mindfully consume and support good artistry. For example, one of my students who is now attending film school spent a night last March distressed about the amount of AI generated music in the Apple Music app. We took class time the next week to listen to, look at web presence, and then discuss positives and drawbacks of projects like "The Tommy Lasorda Experience" being positioned alongside people living day to day lives trying to promote their music. We then contacted that band via e-mail to ask how much of their content was AI generated, if that was a statement or parody, and thoughts they had about people scaling out with gen AI to fill up outlets like Apple Music, Pandora, etc.... rather quickly that band changed their web presence and started to identify that it was somewhat of a social experiment and parody of multiple things...and all AI generated, every bit. Never answered our e-mail though.
I'm cutting back on almost all gen AI output in creative areas within my classroom assignments. I hope a vast majority of public school teachers outside of art classes do as well. If each of my students thoroughly understands the economic shift imposed by larger tech companies on these areas of creativity --- outside of the their own tech tools.
This is a small business issue, an entrepreneurial issue, then a political issue, but also an issue of social appreciation outside of economic value.
Would like to hear your viewpoint, and if you agree, please at least add this perspective as an asterisk for step 3, if not maybe even consider an adjustment.
I appreciate your feedback. You are speaking from a place of deep experience and wisdom. For younger students, generating a particular soundscape—a specific tone or resonance—can serve as evidence of their understanding of subtle aspects of a text or topic. The immersion in the creating process will offer valuable experience in how LLMs respond to different kinds of language. Every portion of a project like this can be used to develop skills and indicate levels of comprehension and mastery. I certainly respect the authenticity of real musicianship, and I think that can still be preserved in an AI infused space. And that can be another moment in the life of a course. In addition, you may be misreading the post. These aren’t steps students are working through, they are filters teachers can use to evaluate their assignments for potential impact in our evolving classroom spaces.
Like this a lot. I’d love to hear more about this approach.
Nick, this is so much shorter than your typical post. Just as it finished I was expecting you to progress into how you use the framework.
Which leaves me with the question… do you use this practically in classroom situations?
The reason I ask is that this whole essay actually feels like, with a little editing in tone and content, could be used as a system prompt for a CustomGPT, which lecturers could then upload their assignments to for advice and guidance about how to evolve them according to your framework.
Have you considered that?