AI Training · Teachers & Educators

AI Training for Teachers & Educators

Lesson prep, differentiation, feedback, and research checks eat a teacher's week. This hands-on training turns them into faster workflows a teacher can still check line by line.

Nothing about a student moves to the tool. Classroom practitioners learn to use generative AI for drafting and adapting material, while grading and every judgment call about a learner stay exactly where they belong: with the teacher.

modules
6
hours
13
Contact us

Some of the 500+ brands we've worked with

Selected brands we’ve worked with across industries.

See all references

A chatbot will hand a teacher a polished lesson plan and clean rubric, along with finished-sounding quiz questions. None of that guarantees the material fits the class in front of them. Worksheets, examples, rubrics, and feedback drafts sound fluent even when a concept, reading level, or assumption fails. The checking step is where a teacher's judgment does the real work.

Differentiation and assessment stay design decisions a teacher makes, not the model — a fluent rubric or question bank still needs someone who knows the learners to catch bias, ambiguity, and a leaked answer before it reaches a desk. AI gives a faster first draft to inspect and stand behind; governance and institution-wide policy belong to the separate AI training program for education organizations.

Preparation time belongs to teaching

AI drafts lesson outlines, worksheets, and activities in minutes — a teacher still checks and fits each one to the room.

One activity, several reading levels, one afternoon

Adapting one activity to every reading level and access need rarely gets the time it deserves — a prompt turns it into options fast.

A fluent rubric is not the same as a correct one

A fluent rubric can still miss the lesson's goal — only a teacher catches ambiguity, bias, and leaked answers before a desk sees it.

Banning AI teaches students nothing about using it well

Students already meet generated text and images outside class — teaching source-checking and disclosure helps more than a ban.

The grade stays with the teacher, always

AI organizes evidence and drafts feedback — it never grades, places, disciplines, or decides on a student; the boundary stays checkable.

  1. Generative AI foundations built for the classroom

    120 minBeginner

    A clear picture of what language models can and cannot do in a teaching context, including why polished output can still be wrong. Participants leave knowing how to pick a low-risk task that stays easy to check.

    • What happens between a prompt and an answer
    • Hallucinations, hidden assumptions, bias
    • Classroom tasks worth handing to AI, and decisions that are not
    • Weighing a consumer chatbot against an institution-approved tool
    • A checklist before anything reaches a student's screen
  2. Prompt craft built around the learning objective

    120 minBeginner

    A reusable structure (objective, learner context, source material, format, and checks) practiced on material from the participant's own subject and age range instead of a generic demo.

    • Building a focused drafting brief from a learning objective
    • Sequences, explanations, examples, activities
    • Giving useful context without naming a single student
    • Asking the model to show its assumptions and its sources
    • Improving a weak first draft through iteration
    • Building a personal library of prompts that already work
  3. Differentiation and accessibility in inclusive materials

    135 minIntermediate

    One core activity becomes several carefully reviewed alternatives for different readiness, language, and access needs, without labeling any student by the version they receive. The learning goal stays identical across every version. Only the material options change.

    • Adjusting reading level while the core concept stays intact
    • Scaffolds, extensions, alternatives
    • Plain-language versions with accessible content structures built in
    • Supporting multilingual learners without a single personal detail exposed
    • A check for stereotypes and lowered expectations in adapted material
    • Teacher review before any adaptation gets assigned
  4. Questions, rubrics, feedback, and teacher-led assessment

    165 minIntermediate

    Assessment components and feedback come together faster here, while interpretation and final judgment stay the educator's job throughout. AI can draft, but it does not grade, rank, diagnose, or decide anything consequential about a learner.

    • Question banks that cover more than one level of cognitive demand
    • Rubrics and success criteria built from a single learning objective
    • A check for ambiguity, leakage, bias, and mismatched difficulty
    • Feedback stems grounded in evidence the teacher provided
    • Personalizing a draft without inventing an observation that never happened
    • Grades and student decisions that never leave human hands
  5. Research and source checks for classroom AI literacy

    135 minIntermediate

    A dependable routine for checking AI-assisted research, captured as something a class can practice. Participants design activities that ask students to trace a claim, find its original source, disclose AI help, and explain their own reasoning.

    • Telling a plausible claim apart from a verified one
    • Tracing a citation back to its original, appropriate source
    • Checking an AI answer against curriculum-approved references
    • Designing assignments where the reasoning has to show
    • Disclosure, attribution, responsible use
    • Talking through synthetic media and generated misinformation with a class
  6. Student data and integrity in classroom policy

    105 minAdvanced

    Privacy duties and academic integrity turn into daily decisions. Institutional rules also become choices decisions a teacher can make on a busy school day. Each participant leaves with boundaries for tools, data, review, and escalation that line up with their institution's policy.

    • What student data has to stay out of an unapproved tool
    • Anonymized and synthetic examples for safe practice
    • Where academic-integrity rules draw the line between support and substitution
    • Why a detector alone is not a decision method
    • Documenting teacher review inside an AI-assisted workflow
    • Lining classroom practice up with institutional policy and safeguarding

What you will learn

  • Turn a clear learning objective into a lesson plan, explanation, example set, or activity draft
  • Adapt one material for different levels or access needs without lowering what it teaches
  • Rubrics checked before release
  • Produce feedback drafts grounded in evidence a teacher already gathered, while grading and student decisions stay with the teacher
  • Check an AI-generated claim against its source before it goes anywhere near classroom material
  • Your disclosure and source checks
  • Protect student data in every prompt and example, including the tool choice
  • Set classroom AI rules that hold up against academic-integrity and institutional policy

Who should attend

  • Primary and secondary school teachers
  • University lecturers and teaching assistants
  • Special education and learning-support educators
  • Language and vocational instructors, including adult-learning teachers
  • Department heads and mentors, alongside instructional coaches
  • Private tutors and course instructors

Teaching teams spend close to 13 hours together across two days or shorter sessions fitted around their schedules. Onsite and live-online formats both use exercises built around participants' subjects and learner groups, using only approved tools.

Format
Onsite or live online
Duration
2 days (about 13 hours, can be split into shorter sessions)
Group size
Up to 20 participants per group
Language
English or Turkish
Materials
Prompt library, classroom templates, review checklists, and exercise workbook
Certificate
Certificate of completion
Start with who teaches and what they teach. Then show us which classroom tasks eat the most time. From there, the exercises, schedule, and safeguards get built around your educators and institutional policy.
Contact us
Two colleagues handing over a reviewed work item between their role stations
  • Who actually attends this training?

    Classroom practitioners: school teachers, lecturers, teaching assistants, learning-support educators, tutors, and instructors. Examples can be grouped by subject and age range, then by teaching context so exercises match the work participants really do. Institution-wide governance belongs to the education-sector program. Administration and rollout sit there too.

  • Is any coding or data background required?

    Familiarity with your own subject, learners, and teaching workflow matters far more than coding or data-science experience, and the course explains what AI concepts you do need in plain language before moving into supervised classroom tasks.

  • What's the actual time commitment?

    About 13 hours in total, run across two full days or split into a sequence of shorter onsite or live-online sessions timed around lessons, office hours, and prep periods.

  • Will the exercises match what I actually teach?

    Before delivery, we identify participants' subjects, age ranges, common materials, approved tools, and institutional boundaries, then build the examples around that without touching identifiable student work or personal data.

  • Does the AI ever grade a student directly?

    No. Autonomous grading, ranking, placement, discipline, progression, or support decisions are not part of what this training teaches. AI may help draft a rubric, organize evidence a teacher already gathered, or suggest feedback language, but a qualified educator reviews that evidence and owns every consequential judgment.

  • What about students using AI themselves?

    A good part of the course is built around exactly that. Participants develop rules that separate legitimate assistance from substitution. They redesign tasks so reasoning has to show and teach disclosure with source-checking directly. Detectors come up too, but only as a limited signal, never as proof or grounds for action against a student on their own.

  • How does the training handle student privacy law?

    The material is synthetic or anonymized, and nothing else. The privacy module covers which student information must stay out of unapproved tools and how enterprise settings differ from consumer ones. It also shows how classroom workflows should follow your institution's policy. The training is educational and does not stand in for legal advice.

  • What does this cost, and what's left once it's over?

    Price depends on four things: group size, format, location, and the depth of customization the sessions ask for. We build a proposal after learning about your teaching context. Participants keep the prompt library, classroom templates, review checklists, and policy worksheet from the sessions. A follow-up round can be planned later if it turns out to be useful.

Contact us

How we handle your data

Open as a full page