The Middle Principle gives teachers a simple sequence for using AI without handing over the thinking: you set the direction, AI accelerates the middle, you make the judgement. Choose the setting you work in to see examples and copyable prompts for planning, adapting resources, questioning, feedback and helping learners understand.
Human Direction
You decide the purpose, the class, the standard and what must not be delegated — before any tool is opened.
AI Acceleration
AI expands options: structures, questions, adaptations and labelled drafts — not a lesson you would teach unedited.
Human Judgement
You check accuracy, pitch and fairness, then put your name to what learners see. Responsibility stays with you.
In primary, direction starts with the children in front of you: what they already know, the language they can read, and the misconception you expect. AI can draft options. You decide what is accurate, kind and teachable.
Human Direction→AI Acceleration→Human Judgement
Planning
Planning a short sequence
Human Direction
Decide the year group, the learning intention in one sentence, what “good” looks like, and the misconception you expect. Note time, grouping and any non-negotiables (no named children, no invented curriculum facts).
AI Acceleration
A realistic prompt. Fill the brackets with your own context. Do not paste confidential or identifiable information.
I am a primary teacher. Do not write a finished lesson yet. Help me plan options.
Year: [e.g. Year 3]
Subject: [e.g. science]
Learning intention: pupils will be able to [one sentence]
What they already know: [brief]
Misconception I expect: [one sentence]
Time: [mins] Grouping: [whole class / pairs / groups]
What good looks like: [the standard I would accept]
What I will reject: [too hard, off-curriculum, generic, unsafe]
Give me three alternative lesson structures and five questions at different levels of challenge. Label anything I must check as [CHECK]. Do not invent curriculum content.
Human Judgement
Check every fact against the national curriculum or your scheme. Cut anything that does not fit this class. Rewrite questions in your voice. You remain responsible for what is taught.
Adapting resources
Adapting a resource for mixed readers
Human Direction
Keep the same learning intention. Decide which parts of the original task every child must still do, and where the language or scaffolding should change. Do not paste pupil names or identifiable work.
AI Acceleration
A realistic prompt. Fill the brackets with your own context. Do not paste confidential or identifiable information.
Adapt this classroom task for mixed reading ages. Keep the same learning intention. Do not invent new curriculum content.
Learning intention: [one sentence]
Year: [e.g. Year 4]
Original task (anonymised, no pupil names):
[paste the worksheet or activity in your own words]
Produce:
1. a version with simpler sentences and more structure
2. a version with stretch (same idea, more independence)
3. one shared success criterion I can put on the board
Flag any part that might change the learning, not just the wording, as [CHECK].
Human Judgement
Read both versions aloud. Confirm they still assess the same idea. Adjust scaffolding to what this class actually needs. Do not use anything that identifies a child.
Feedback
Feedback that teaches, not just corrects
Human Direction
Decide the one thing this piece of work should improve, against your success criteria. Use an anonymised extract or a typical error, never a named child’s work.
AI Acceleration
A realistic prompt. Fill the brackets with your own context. Do not paste confidential or identifiable information.
Help me write feedback comments that teach. Do not mark a named child.
Year: [e.g. Year 5]
Subject: [e.g. writing]
Success criteria: [list]
Typical error I am seeing (anonymised): [describe the pattern, no names]
The one improvement I want next time: [one sentence]
Give me:
- three short comments in plain language a child can act on
- one whole-class mini-lesson idea that targets this error
- one question I can ask in a conference
Do not invent grades. Label anything I must check as [CHECK].
Human Judgement
Edit into language this class will understand. Check the advice matches your criteria. You decide what is said to pupils and you remain responsible for it.
In secondary, direction is your subject knowledge and the specification. AI can expand examples, questions and explanations. You check accuracy, pitch and whether this would actually work with this class.
Human Direction→AI Acceleration→Human Judgement
Planning
Planning around a specification
Human Direction
Write down the topic, exam board language, what students already know, and the misconception you expect. Do not ask for a finished set of slides first.
AI Acceleration
A realistic prompt. Fill the brackets with your own context. Do not paste confidential or identifiable information.
I am a secondary teacher. Help me plan. Do not write finished slides.
Subject: [e.g. history]
Phase: [KS3 / GCSE / A-level]
Specification or topic: [board and reference, or your wording]
Class: [year, set, what they already know]
Misconception I expect: [one sentence]
Success: students can [one sentence]
Time: [mins]
Give me three lesson structures, five questions at different challenge, two worked examples and one non-example. Do not invent specification content. Label uncertainty as [CHECK].
Human Judgement
Check command words and content against the specification. Cut generic material. You decide the sequence and what goes in front of students.
Questioning
Better questions, not more worksheets
Human Direction
Decide the thinking you want: retrieval, explanation, or a hinge that shows who has understood. Note the exact idea and the wrong answer you expect.
AI Acceleration
A realistic prompt. Fill the brackets with your own context. Do not paste confidential or identifiable information.
Write hinge and stretch questions for this idea. Do not produce a full worksheet.
Subject: [subject]
Idea students must grasp: [one sentence]
Wrong answer I expect: [the misconception]
Class: [year / set]
I need:
- three hinge questions (one correct answer, plausible distractors)
- two “explain why the wrong answer is tempting” prompts
- one stretch question that still stays on this idea
Stay accurate to [spec or key facts]. Mark anything I must verify as [CHECK].
Human Judgement
Sit the questions against your subject knowledge. Change distractors to ones this class would actually choose. You own what is asked in the lesson.
Developing understanding
Helping students understand a stuck idea
Human Direction
Name the misconception in one sentence and the accurate idea. Decide whether you want a visualisation, a broken example to repair, or a short activity — not another lecture.
AI Acceleration
A realistic prompt. Fill the brackets with your own context. Do not paste confidential or identifiable information.
Students keep making this mistake in [subject]: [misconception].
The accurate idea is: [your account].
Year: [year]. Time: [mins].
Design one activity that makes the misconception fail in front of them (sorting, repair-the-example, or a simple visualisation I can sketch on the board).
Give me the setup, what students do, the moment the idea breaks, and three questions I ask afterwards. Do not invent facts. I will check this before I teach it.
Human Judgement
Test the activity against your subject knowledge. If the visualisation oversimplifies, reject it. Adapt the timing to this class. You remain responsible for the explanation.
In college and further education, direction is vocational standards, assessment criteria and the learners in the room. AI can speed up drafts. You keep professional and assessment judgement.
Human Direction→AI Acceleration→Human Judgement
Adapting resources
Adapting a task to a vocational brief
Human Direction
Keep the unit criteria in view. Decide what learners must do themselves for the assessment, and what AI may only help them practise.
AI Acceleration
A realistic prompt. Fill the brackets with your own context. Do not paste confidential or identifiable information.
I teach in further education. Help me adapt a task. Do not write the assessed work.
Course / unit: [e.g. BTEC Level 3, unit name]
Criteria learners must meet (in my words): [list]
Vocational context: [e.g. a small salon / a charity / a workshop]
What learners already know: [brief]
Time: [mins]
Give me:
1. a scenario that makes the criteria matter
2. a practice task they can complete in class
3. a checklist they can use to judge their own work
Do not invent awarding-body wording. Label anything I must check as [CHECK].
Human Judgement
Map the scenario back to the real criteria. Remove anything that would let a learner submit AI text as evidence. You decide what counts as their work.
Feedback
Feedback on practical or written evidence
Human Direction
Pick one criterion and one typical gap. Use an anonymised pattern, not a named learner’s file.
AI Acceleration
A realistic prompt. Fill the brackets with your own context. Do not paste confidential or identifiable information.
Help me give developmental feedback. Do not grade a named learner.
Unit: [name]
Criterion in my words: [one sentence]
Typical gap I am seeing (anonymised): [describe the pattern]
What “pass / merit / distinction” looks like in this task: [short]
Give me three comments a learner can act on, one example of how to improve a paragraph or step, and one question I can ask in a tutorial. Do not invent grades.
Human Judgement
Check the comments against the actual criteria. Edit into your voice. You remain the assessor.
Questioning
Questions that build independence
Human Direction
Decide whether you are checking recall, method, or professional judgement. Note the workplace context you want them to think in.
AI Acceleration
A realistic prompt. Fill the brackets with your own context. Do not paste confidential or identifiable information.
Write questions for a college session. Do not write a lecture.
Subject / trade: [e.g. computing, health, construction]
Workplace context: [one sentence]
What they should be able to decide afterwards: [one sentence]
Misconception I expect: [one sentence]
Give me five questions that move from “what” to “what would you do, and why?”, plus one discussion prompt that has no single right answer. Stay practical. Label uncertainty as [CHECK].
Human Judgement
Cut anything that is generic corporate training. Check it matches this group’s placement reality. You lead the discussion.
In higher education, direction is the disciplinary question, the assessment brief and academic integrity. AI can help students practise in the middle. Staff and students both keep judgement at the end.
Human Direction→AI Acceleration→Human Judgement
Planning
Planning a seminar, not a content dump
Human Direction
Write the one question the seminar is for, the reading students should have done, and what “good discussion” looks like. Do not start by asking for slides.
AI Acceleration
A realistic prompt. Fill the brackets with your own context. Do not paste confidential or identifiable information.
Help me plan a university seminar. Do not write a lecture.
Discipline: [e.g. education, computer science]
Level: [e.g. Year 1 undergraduate]
The question this seminar is for: [one sentence]
Core reading (titles only): [list]
What students should be able to do afterwards: [one sentence]
Time: [mins]
Give me three seminar structures, five discussion questions from concrete to conceptual, and one activity that makes a common misunderstanding visible. Do not invent citations. Label anything I must check as [CHECK].
Human Judgement
Check questions against the actual reading. Cut anything that would let students skip the text. You remain responsible for the session.
Feedback
Feedback that does not write the assignment
Human Direction
Keep the assessment criteria in view. Decide what the student must still think for themselves. Use an anonymised extract or a typical pattern.
AI Acceleration
A realistic prompt. Fill the brackets with your own context. Do not paste confidential or identifiable information.
I am giving formative feedback. Do not rewrite the assignment.
Level: [e.g. Level 5]
Task in one sentence: [brief]
Criteria that matter most: [list]
Typical gap (anonymised, no student names): [describe the pattern]
Give me:
- three questions that send the student back to their own argument
- one example of how a stronger paragraph is structured (not content they can copy)
- a short note on what they must still decide
Do not write the submission. If the request would do the assessed work, refuse and say so.
Human Judgement
Check you have not supplied the answer. Edit into your disciplinary voice. You remain the marker of the real submission.
Developing understanding
Helping students use AI without losing the thinking
Human Direction
Be clear what the assessment requires them to do themselves. Offer a way to use AI for critique or structure, not for the argument.
AI Acceleration
A realistic prompt. Fill the brackets with your own context. Do not paste confidential or identifiable information.
I want students to use AI in the middle of study, not to write the assessed work.
Assignment (in my words): [task]
What they must do themselves: [the thinking that will be marked]
Help they may ask a tool for: [structure / critique of their draft / practice questions]
Write a short briefing I can give students: three allowed uses, three uses that would be academic misconduct in this task, and one example prompt they may paste that still leaves the thinking with them. Do not invent university policy — I will align this with our integrity guidance.
Human Judgement
Align the briefing with your institution’s policy. Make the boundary explicit in class. You still judge the submitted work.
INSET, department sessions and ITE workshops on using AI without handing over professional judgement — built around Direction, Acceleration and Judgement.
