Module 5 AI-Enabled Pedagogy
The method at the heart of the programme. Teachers decompose Motion into the concepts students actually have to hold, list what each concept assumes from earlier classes, write down the wrong answers they have seen for years, and turn those into questions that reveal who believes what. Then comes the honest turn — a teacher cannot do this by hand for 40 students every week — and the technology is demonstrated, not taught, as one way of carrying the method. The assignment is a decomposition and misconception map of a chapter the teacher will teach next term.
By the end, teachers can…
- 1 Break a chapter into 6–10 assessable concepts and place them in the order students need to learn them.
- 2 List the prerequisites a chapter assumes, naming the earlier class and chapter each comes from.
- 3 Write at least one likely misconception per concept as the wrong answer a student would actually give.
- 4 Draft a competency question for a concept whose wrong options each correspond to a named misconception.
- 5 Read sample diagnostic results and sort students into two or three remediation groups with a different plan for each and a reassessment date.
- 6 Describe how a class log, a short diagnostic from a question bank, per-question results and a student profile carry the same method to a class of 40 — and which decisions in it stay with the teacher.
Session plan — 3 hours
| Time | Activity | Format |
|---|---|---|
| 0:00 15 min | Opening: what must a student already know? Pairs list everything Class 9 Motion silently assumes: ratio and rate, converting km/h to m/s, reading a line graph and its slope (Class 8 Maths, Introduction to Graphs), substituting into an equation, squares and square roots, signed numbers, a reference point for direction. Lists go on the wall; most teachers are surprised how long theirs is. | Discussion |
| 0:15 20 min | The chapter decomposition method Eight steps: prerequisites → concepts → misconceptions → competency questions → assess → gaps → differentiated remediation → reassess. Why “concept” and not “topic” — a topic is a heading; a concept is something a student can get wrong in a specific way. Motion is the running example for the whole session. | Input |
| 0:35 30 min | Decompose Motion Groups of four build the concept map for Motion on chart paper: distance vs displacement; uniform and non-uniform motion; speed and average speed; velocity; acceleration, including retardation; distance–time graphs; velocity–time graphs and the area under them; the three equations of motion; uniform circular motion. Each concept gets its prerequisites and its dependency arrows. Groups compare maps; the differences are the discussion. | Group work |
| 1:05 25 min | Misconception hunt For every concept on the map, teachers write the wrong answer they have actually seen: “displacement can’t be zero if the car moved”; “negative acceleration means moving backwards”; “a ball at the top of its flight has zero acceleration”; “constant speed round a circle means no acceleration”; “the higher line on a distance–time graph is the faster object”; “72 km/h is 72 m/s”; “average speed is always (u + v)/2”. Each is written as a student would say it, not as a teacher would label it. | Hands-on |
| 1:30 30 min | Write competency questions Each group takes one concept and writes three questions. Every wrong option must be a misconception from the hunt, so that a student’s choice tells the teacher what they believe. Peer review against a short checklist: one concept per item, all options plausible, no double-barrelled stems. The best items go on the wall as the session’s shared bank. | Hands-on |
| 2:00 30 min | “Now do it with 40 students” The turn. The facilitator shows — does not teach — one way of carrying the method at class scale: today’s lesson logged in the class log with its concepts tagged; a ten-item diagnostic assembled from the question bank (some items AI-drafted, every one teacher-approved before it reaches students) and set to 9-B; results read by question and by student; one student’s profile opened to see their weak concepts. At each screen the question to the room is the same: “what would you decide now?” A spreadsheet can carry the method too; what matters is that the method exists. | Demonstration |
| 2:30 20 min | Differentiate and plan the reassessment From a sample results sheet for 9-B, groups sort students into three: strong on the equations but weak on graphs; a prerequisite gap in unit conversion; partial on acceleration. Each gets a different plan — a whole-class reteach, a small-group session, practice carried home — and a reassessment on the same concepts with different items, ten days out. | Group work |
| 2:50 10 min | Reflection + assignment briefing Individually: “the concept in my next chapter I have been teaching as a topic; the misconception I have been marking wrong without naming.” Briefing on the chapter-decomposition planner and what a complete submission looks like. | Reflection |
| Total 3 h · timings are a default; facilitators adapt to the group. | ||
Key ideas
A topic is a heading; a concept is something a student can get wrong
“Graphs” is a topic. “The slope of a distance–time graph is speed, so a steeper line means faster” is a concept — a student can hold the opposite belief, and a question can catch it. Planning at concept grain is what makes the rest of the method possible.
Most gaps are prerequisites
When a Class 9 student cannot use v = u + at, it is often not about motion at all: it is substitution, or signs, or km/h to m/s. A chapter plan that names its prerequisites turns “weak in Physics” into “needs fifteen minutes on unit conversion” — a much smaller problem.
Misconceptions are the raw material of good questions
A question whose wrong options are random tells you a student was wrong. A question whose wrong options are the three misconceptions you have seen for years tells you what the student believes. The second kind is what this programme means by a competency question.
The method first, the tool second
Everything in this module can be done with chart paper and a mark book for one class. What a teacher cannot do by hand is run it every week for 40 students across three sections — which is why the technology is shown here as a carrier of the method, and why the teacher keeps every decision in it.
Worked example
Class 9-B, Motion, one diagnostic
A Science teacher decomposes Motion into nine concepts and lists seven prerequisites. From her marking memory she writes twelve misconceptions and turns them into a ten-item diagnostic, given to 9-B (38 of 40 present) after three periods on the chapter. Numbers below are illustrative.
By question: Q7 — a car at constant speed on a circular track — is wrong for 21 students; 14 of them chose “acceleration is zero because speed is constant”. Q2 and Q5, both needing km/h → m/s, are wrong for the same 9 students. Everything else is above 75%.
By student: the 9 with the conversion gap are not the 14 with the circular-motion belief; only two overlap.
Her decisions: circular motion goes back to the whole class on Monday — 14 of 38 is too many for a small group, and it is a new concept, not a gap. The 9 get a prerequisite sheet on unit conversion and practice carried home; Monday’s class log tags both concepts so each student’s tutor re-explains the same thing she did. Reassessment on Friday week: three fresh items on circular motion, two on conversion.
Done with a mark book this would have taken her a Saturday. Done once, it is the same decision; done every week for three sections, it needs the tool — which is the whole reason the demonstration sits in this module.
Assignment — counts towards certification
Chapter decomposition + misconception map
Using the chapter-decomposition planner, take one chapter you will teach in the next term (any subject, Classes 6–10). Decompose it into concepts in learning order; name the prerequisites with the class and chapter they come from; write at least one misconception per concept as a student would say it; and sketch how you would group students and what each group would get if those misconceptions turned out to be common.
Deliverable: The completed chapter-decomposition planner for one chapter — 6–10 concepts, prerequisites, misconception map, at least two draft competency questions with a distractor map (from the planner’s question plan), differentiation sketch — typically two to three pages.
| Criterion | Meets the standard when… |
|---|---|
| Concepts at the right grain | 6–10 concepts, each something a student can get wrong in a specific way, in an order that respects dependencies. |
| Prerequisites named and sourced | Each prerequisite names the earlier class and chapter it comes from, not just “basic maths”. |
| Misconceptions in the student’s voice | At least one per concept, written as the wrong answer a student gives (“negative acceleration means going backwards”), not as a teacher’s label (“confusion about signs”). |
| Two draft items with a distractor map | At least two competency questions, each on one concept from the map, whose wrong options each map to a named misconception; a reader can say what a student who chose each believes. |
| Differentiation sketch | Two or three groups described by concept, each with a different action and a reassessment point — not one revision plan for everyone. |
Where this lands in the PrepGraph workflow
Each certification task corresponds to a behaviour in the teacher portal — so the programme produces a working habit, not a slide deck. The pedagogy comes first; the surface implements it.
| Certification task | Pedagogical move | PrepGraph surface |
|---|---|---|
| Record today’s lesson and tag the concepts taught | Planning at concept grain; what the tutor continues at home | Class logRecord what you taught today — topic, tagged concepts, homework, next test — so every student's AI tutor carries the lesson home. |
| Write or approve competency questions whose distractors are named misconceptions | Review-first item authoring | Question bank (review-first)Author or AI-draft competency questions; nothing reaches students until a teacher approves it. |
| Set a short diagnostic and read results by question | Short competency diagnostic; identifying the gap | Assignments & resultsSet a short diagnostic or homework from the question bank; see who attempted, how each question went, and give feedback. |
| Open one student before deciding their remediation | Student-level reading of results; differentiation | Student profilesOpen one student and see their practice, weak concepts and recent work in one place. |
Materials
- •NCERT Class 9 Science, chapter “Motion” — one copy per group, with the exercise questions
- •Chapter-decomposition planner (printed, one per teacher; also the assignment template)
- •Competency-question checklist card: one concept per item, plausible distractors, no double-barrelled stems
- •Sample 9-B results sheet, 38 students × 10 items with option chosen (illustrative data)
- •Demo account on the teacher portal with a 9-B group, a logged lesson and the ten-item diagnostic already set — and a projector
- •Chart paper, sticky notes, markers
Facilitator notes
- •Hold the line on “demonstrated, not taught”. Teachers will ask where to click; answer “Module 8” and return to “what would you decide now?” The module is about the method.
- •If the group is not Science-heavy, run the decomposition on Class 8 Maths, Linear Equations in One Variable, instead — the planner and the rest of the session work unchanged. Keep Motion for the demo so everyone sees one complete case.
- •In the misconception hunt, reject teacher-labels (“weak concept”) and insist on the student’s sentence. It feels pedantic; it is the difference between a label and a question.
- •The demo runs on prepared sample data; say so. Never show real student names from any school.
- •Say plainly that practice carried home by the student’s AI tutor is part of the student’s AI plan, which the school or pilot provisions for the practicum cohort; the diagnostic, results and profiles do not depend on it.
Bring the programme to your school
Tell us your board, grades and teacher count. We’ll reply within two working days with a cohort plan and the CPD record templates.