AI for HSC / Stage 6 Teachers

Session plans

1. 1

   Where AI helps in the HSC year — and where it must not

   ~45 min
   Session plan

   Open by anchoring back to the flagship in two minutes — 'we're not redoing ethics; we're doing the senior-years edge'. Then run the year-mapping activity live: build a shared three-column board (AI drafts / AI assists / stays human) from the room's real Stage 6 tasks, and let the disagreements surface — the marks column is where it gets interesting. Close by naming the three failure modes as the spine of the rest of the series.

   Discussion prompts

   • Which of our Stage 6 tasks belongs in 'AI can draft', and which absolutely must stay human?
   • Where in our HSC year is the temptation to over-use AI strongest — and why exactly there?
   • What's the one verification step we'd never skip before senior material reaches a student?
   Watch for

   Senior teachers split into 'no AI near my HSC class' and 'I'm already marking with it'. Both need this module: the first to see the legitimate, time-saving uses; the second to see the hard limits (marking, unverified exemplars, integrity). Keep it concrete to Stage 6 — don't let it drift back into general AI debate.

   Standards2.6 Information and Communication Technology (ICT)6.2 Engage in professional learning7.1 Meet professional ethics and responsibilities
2. 2

   Exam-style questions, past papers & marking to the standards

   ~55 min
   Session plan

   This is the marking-to-standards backbone — run it as a faculty. Each subject team generates an exam-style question and a marking guideline in Lessio, then projects their course's band descriptors and aligns the draft against them live. Then run a short moderation: two teachers mark the same de-identified response and compare to the descriptor — surface where AI helped articulate the judgement and where the call was theirs.

   Discussion prompts

   • Where does an AI-generated question most easily drift off the demand or the syllabus for our subject?
   • What does 'aligned to the band descriptors' actually look like in a marking guideline for our course?
   • How do we keep AI-assisted marking as an input to faculty moderation rather than a replacement for it?
   Watch for

   The seductive error is treating AI 'marks' as if they carry NESA's authority — they don't. Keep hammering 'mark to the descriptor, not the AI'. Experienced HSC markers in the room are your best asset; have them model how they'd verify a generated guideline against the standard.

   Standards2.3 Curriculum, assessment and reporting5.3 Make consistent and comparable judgements2.1 Content and teaching strategies of the teaching area
3. 3

   Scaffolding Band 5/6 responses & giving targeted feedback at pace

   ~50 min
   Session plan

   Run a feedback make-and-take: each teacher produces a feedback frame from a real de-identified response and their criteria, then personalises it and shares what they had to change. Follow with an exemplar-analysis round: project a verified exemplar and co-construct, with AI assistance, the 'Band 5 → Band 6' move mapped to the descriptors. Keep one banner up all session: 'scaffold the thinking, never supply the response'.

   Discussion prompts

   • Where could an AI feedback frame go wrong for our subject — and how do we catch it?
   • What's a Band-5-to-Band-6 distinction in our course that students consistently miss, and how would we make it concrete?
   • Where's the line between scaffolding senior writing and writing it for the student?
   Watch for

   Two risks: teachers treating a generated feedback frame as the final verdict (it's a scaffold — they know the student), and the slide from 'scaffold' to 'write it for them'. Watch also for anyone tempted to hand out a generated exemplar — redirect hard to verified, real exemplars.

   Standards5.1 Assess student learning5.2 Provide feedback to students on their learning5.4 Interpret student data
4. 4

   HSC integrity & authorship — the highest-stakes version

   ~50 min
   Session plan

   Run the integrity conversation that senior faculties most need. Start by confirming the school's task-by-task position on AI in Stage 6 assessment. Then a redesign clinic: each faculty takes a real, exposed senior task and rebuilds it for visible authorship (checkpoints, class-specific prompt, in-class/viva), using AI to draft the resilient version. End by drafting the one-sentence student instruction for each task's AI boundary.

   Discussion prompts

   • Which of our senior tasks are most exposed to undisclosed AI use — and how do we redesign them?
   • For our major works/projects, what authorship checkpoints do we have, and where are the gaps?
   • What exactly do we tell senior students about using AI on each task — and do we say it consistently?
   Watch for

   Integrity anxiety peaks here, and 'AI detectors' will be raised as the fix — steer firmly to design-and-process, which is both NESA's position and what actually works. Avoid catastrophising: the goal is resilient task design and clear boundaries, not surveillance. Capture the faculty AI-in-assessment rule.

   Standards7.1 Meet professional ethics and responsibilities7.2 Comply with legislative, administrative and organisational requirements2.3 Curriculum, assessment and reporting
5. 5

   Capstone — build an HSC-aligned task or practice exam, then critique it

   ~50 min
   Session plan

   Run as a longer workshop or directed time with senior faculties. Each teacher builds their exam-style task + marking guideline + integrity design in Lessio, then self-assesses against the HSC Ethical-Use Checklist with the band descriptors projected. Collect the reflections — they're your evidence of a Standards-relevant PD session and the teachers' eTAMS record. Finish with a faculty share-back and agree the Stage 6 AI rule to take forward.

   Discussion prompts

   • What's our shared standard for a 'ready to set' AI-drafted senior task and marking guideline?
   • What one faculty rule for AI in HSC assessment should we adopt from this series?
   • How will we log this as PD and keep verifying-and-aligning as the norm in our senior teaching?
   Watch for

   Some will want to skip the reflection — protect it, because it's what makes this real PD and the eTAMS evidence. Watch for capstones where the marking guideline was accepted as drafted rather than aligned to the descriptors — that alignment is the point. Capture the faculty Stage 6 AI rule.

   Standards2.3 Curriculum, assessment and reporting5.3 Make consistent and comparable judgements6.2 Engage in professional learning

Standards-relevant professional learning, mapped to the APST · verified against national and NSW frameworks, June 2026.