PROGRAMME V–X
One journey. Six stages of growing judgement.
From thinking visibly before AI is introduced to deciding whether an evaluated system is suitable for use. The learner remains the thinker at every stage.
A DEVELOPMENTAL PROGRESSION
Each stage builds on the last.
The challenge changes with age and readiness. The commitment stays the same: think, check, revise and own the explanation.
The experiences below are illustrative. Activities, tools and supervision are adapted to the school’s context, age requirements and demonstrated readiness.
STANDARD V
The Problem-Solver
Thinking visibly before AI is introduced.
CORE THINKING HABIT
Test a rule before trusting it.
Notice → Compare → Find the Rule → Test → Predict → Explain
REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE
The rule that almost works
Sort a set of shapes, explain the rule and predict where a new shape belongs. A counterexample prompts a revised rule—without using AI.
WHERE THE JOURNEY BEGINS
The foundation: move from giving an answer to showing a testable explanation.
STANDARD VI
The Thinker
Using AI for help without surrendering thinking.
CORE THINKING HABIT
Make your own attempt before asking for help.
Attempt → Ask → Inspect → Check → Decide → Reflect
REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE
A hint, not a handover
Attempt a school-garden planning problem, then inspect a teacher-provided AI hint. Check it against the constraints and decide what to use.
WHAT BECOMES MORE SOPHISTICATED
From explaining your own thinking in V to using assistance while keeping ownership of it.
STANDARD VII
The Reasoner
Deciding whether a confident answer deserves trust.
CORE THINKING HABIT
Ask what supports a claim—and what limits it.
Claim → Evidence → Assumption → Check → Limit → Conclude
REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE
Does this explanation deserve trust?
Examine an AI-generated explanation of plant growth. Separate claims from evidence, uncover an assumption and revise the conclusion after checking a source.
WHAT BECOMES MORE SOPHISTICATED
From checking help in VI to evaluating the evidence and assumptions behind an answer.
STANDARD VIII
Designer & Decision-Maker
Deciding whether AI belongs in a solution at all.
CORE THINKING HABIT
Define success before deciding whether AI belongs.
Problem → Success → AI? → Test → Challenge → Judge
REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE
Does the library need AI?
Compare a simple rule-based book-return reminder with an AI-assisted option. Test against agreed needs, challenge the trade-offs and justify the choice—including choosing no AI.
WHAT BECOMES MORE SOPHISTICATED
From judging an answer in VII to designing a solution and defending whether AI is appropriate.
STANDARD IX
Analyst & Builder
Deciding what evidence actually supports.
CORE THINKING HABIT
State only what the evidence supports.
Claim → Evidence → Limit
REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE
A pattern is not a cause
Analyse a synthetic dataset of study time and quiz results. Visualise the pattern, test another explanation and write a claim with an explicit limit.
WHAT BECOMES MORE SOPHISTICATED
From comparing solutions in VIII to analysing data, testing assumptions and bounding claims.
PATTERN ≠ CAUSE
STANDARD X
Evaluator & System Builder
Decide whether an evaluated system is suitable for use.
CORE THINKING HABIT
Separate a model’s score from a decision to use it.
Build → Measure → Interpret → Challenge → Justify
REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE
A good score. A suitable system?
Build and evaluate a small classifier using non-personal sample data. Inspect errors under different conditions, consider consequences and justify use, redesign or non-use.
WHAT BECOMES MORE SOPHISTICATED
From judging evidence in IX to judging an evaluated system in its intended context.
TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE ≠ SYSTEM SUITABILITY
THE V–X PROGRESSION
From solving a problem to judging a system.
V solve and explain → VI work with AI without surrendering thinking → VII decide whether an AI answer deserves trust → VIII design and justify an AI solution → IX decide what evidence supports → X decide whether an evaluated system is suitable for use