AI for Mathematics Teachers

Session plans

1. 1

   Where AI actually helps in Mathematics — and where it fails

   ~45 min
   Session plan

   Open with a 3-minute live failure: ask any general chatbot a multi-step problem (e.g. a compound-interest or surds question) and work the answer on the board alongside it — let the room catch the error. That single demo reframes the whole session: AI is fast and useful, and you check every line. Then run the worked-examples activity in Lessio together and have pairs mark the output as if it were a student's.

   Discussion prompts

   • Which of the high-value uses would save our faculty the most time next week?
   • Where has a confident-but-wrong answer already slipped past someone — in a worksheet, a textbook, or AI?
   • What's our shared rule for checking AI-generated working before it reaches a class?
   Watch for

   Two failure modes in the room: the over-trusting ('it did the algebra, looks fine') and the dismissive ('so it's useless for maths'). Neither is right — the answer is 'powerful drafter, always verified'. Don't let the live-failure demo turn into AI-bashing; the variety win is real and worth protecting.

   Standards2.1 Content and teaching strategies of the teaching area2.5 Literacy and numeracy strategies2.6 Information and Communication Technology (ICT)
2. 2

   Subject-specific prompt craft for Mathematics

   ~50 min
   Session plan

   The hands-on hour. Live-build one maths prompt with the room using RICE on a shared screen, adding the 're-work and flag' self-check last and showing how the output changes. Then teach code-verification directly with the MA5-TRG case study: pull up MA5-TRG-C-02 vs MA5-TRG-P-01 on the NESA site so everyone sees Core vs Path with their own eyes. Finish with each teacher rebuilding a prompt from their own week.

   Discussion prompts

   • Which outcome codes in our courses are most easily confused (Core vs Path, or adjacent focus areas)?
   • What notation or unit errors do we most often need to catch — in textbooks and in AI output?
   • Let's write one faculty 'maths prompt' we can all reuse, with the self-check baked in.
   Watch for

   Some staff will trust an answer key because it 'looks right'. Insist the room verifies at least one full solution live. The Core-vs-Path point lands best when teachers find a real near-miss in their own programs — invite them to.

   Standards2.1 Content and teaching strategies of the teaching area2.2 Content selection and organisation3.4 Select and use resources
3. 3

   Planning & resources for Mathematics with Lessio

   ~50 min
   Session plan

   A faculty-team build. Each stage team generates a real program or resource set for next term in Lessio, then runs the Maths review-before-use checklist on it. Model the Core/Path check live on the Stage 5 Trigonometry example, then have each team verify two of their own codes against the NESA site and work two of the harder solutions by hand.

   Discussion prompts

   • Which of our focus areas has the trickiest Core/Path or sequencing decisions to get right?
   • Where in a program would a hallucinated code or a wrong answer key do the most damage?
   • Could a colleague defend this draft — and mark every answer correct — in a registration audit?
   Watch for

   The risk is teams treating a polished Lessio draft as finished. Emphasise that the edits and the hand-worked solutions ARE the professional work. The compound-interest and surds items are good places to make the room actually compute, not skim.

   Standards2.2 Content selection and organisation2.3 Curriculum, assessment and reporting3.4 Select and use resources
4. 4

   Assessment, feedback & integrity in Mathematics

   ~45 min
   Session plan

   Run a make-and-verify: each teacher generates a short assessment with marking guidelines in Lessio, then swaps with a colleague to work every question and audit the marking guide and totals — peer-marking the AI. Follow with a focused integrity conversation: map current maths tasks against 'could a student get full marks with AI?' and redesign one to make working visible.

   Discussion prompts

   • Which of our current maths assessments are most exposed to AI completion, and how would we redesign them?
   • What does 'monitor the working, not just the answer' look like in our marking and conversations?
   • How do we want students to use AI as a maths tutor — and do we teach that explicitly?
   Watch for

   Integrity anxiety runs high, and 'just ban it' is tempting. Steer to task design and authorship-by-process, not detection. Make sure at least one marking guide is fully checked in the room — finding one wrong answer key is the most persuasive moment of the session.

   Standards5.1 Assess student learning5.2 Provide feedback to students on their learning7.1 Meet professional ethics and responsibilities
5. 5

   Capstone — build a real Mathematics resource and critique it

   ~60 min
   Session plan

   Run as a longer workshop or directed time. Each teacher builds their connected maths set in Lessio, verifies codes and works every solution, then self-assesses against the Ethical-Use Checklist. Collect the reflections — they are your evidence of a Standards-relevant PD session and the teachers' eTAMS record. Consider a faculty share-back of the best artefact and the most instructive error someone caught.

   Discussion prompts

   • What's our shared standard for 'ready to use' AI-drafted maths material — and who checks the working?
   • What one faculty-wide rule for responsible AI use in Mathematics should we adopt from today?
   • How will we keep verifying codes and answers as a habit, not a one-off?
   Watch for

   Some will want to skip the reflection or wave through the hand-checking — protect both: the verification is the whole point, and the reflection is the eTAMS evidence. Celebrate the errors teachers caught; they prove the discipline works. Capture the faculty-wide rule for leadership to take forward.

   Standards2.3 Curriculum, assessment and reporting6.2 Engage in professional learning7.1 Meet professional ethics and responsibilities

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