Subject playbook

AI for PDHPE Teachers

Cut the planning load in PDHPE without ever letting AI near the sensitive content that needs a human — verified, age-appropriate, and pointing students to real support.

Modules

Each module: clear learning outcomes → short, accurate, PDHPE-specific input → a hands-on activity using the Lessio generator → interactive knowledge checks. The sensitive-content safety-and-accuracy discipline runs through every module. Mapped to the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers.

Click a module to read it.

1. 1

   Where AI actually helps in PDHPE — and where it must not

   The high-value PDHPE use cases that genuinely save time, mapped against the sensitive-content red zone where general AI is inaccurate, age-inappropriate or unsafe — and the safety discipline that governs everything else.~50 min

   By the end of this module you'll be able to:

   • Identify the high-value PDHPE tasks where AI is a strong, time-saving drafting assistant.
   • Name the sensitive and high-risk PDHPE content where general AI output is unsafe and must be verified, kept age-appropriate, or kept out entirely.
   • Apply a PDHPE-specific safety rule: verify every health claim against an authoritative source and route all help-seeking to real services and trusted adults, never AI.

   Standards2.1 Content and teaching strategies of the teaching area4.4 Maintain student safety7.1 Meet professional ethics and responsibilities

   Start here: PDHPE is the highest-stakes subject for AI

   You've done the flagship course — you know AI is a fast, fluent, sometimes-wrong drafting assistant, and that you stay the author. This playbook takes that one principle and pushes it into the subject where it matters most.

   PDHPE is unlike Maths or Geography. A hallucinated outcome code is embarrassing; wrong, age-inappropriate or unsafe health information in front of a young person is a wellbeing risk. Our syllabus carries the most sensitive content in the school: mental health, suicide and self-harm, sexual health and consent, drugs and alcohol, body image and eating disorders, abuse, child protection and road safety. So the rule for PDHPE is sharper than "verify outputs" — it's verify the health, keep it age-appropriate, and never let AI be the one a student in distress turns to.

   Where AI genuinely helps — the high-value PDHPE cases

   Used well, AI is a real time-saver across the load PDHPE teachers carry. Strong use cases:

   Use case	What AI drafts	Your job
   Scenario & case studies	Decision-making scenarios for Respectful relationships, consent, peer pressure, online safety	Check realism, age-fit, and that resolutions model safe, respectful behaviour
   Differentiated theory resources	Enable / extend / EAL/D versions of a health concept	Confirm each version still targets the same outcome and the facts hold
   Movement & games planning	Skill-progression sequences, modified games, warm-ups and cool-downs, fitness circuits	Check safety, equipment, space and inclusion for your class
   Explaining health concepts	Plain-English explanations, analogies, worked examples (e.g. components of fitness, the dimensions of health)	Verify accuracy against an authoritative source
   Question sets	Graduated recall-to-application questions with answer keys	Check answers and remove anything ambiguous or unsafe
   Structuring student research	A scaffold and source-evaluation frame for a health-topic inquiry	Supply the vetted sources; teach reliability (.gov / .edu over .com)

   Notice the pattern: AI is strongest on structure, variety and reformatting, and on the movement/skills side where the risk is physical-safety, not misinformation. Lean in there.

   The red zone — sensitive and high-risk content

   Here, general AI is at its most dangerous, because it is confidently fluent about exactly the topics where being wrong does harm. Treat all of the following as handle-with-care:

   Mental health · suicide and self-harm · sexual health, contraception and consent · drugs and alcohol · body image and eating disorders · abuse, domestic and family violence · child protection.

   What can go wrong, specifically:

   • Inaccurate health information stated with total confidence — wrong facts about contraception, drug effects, nutrition or mental-health support.
   • Age-inappropriate content — pitched too explicitly or too maturely for the stage (what suits Stage 5 is not what suits Stage 3).
   • Unsafe framing — e.g. anything that names methods of self-harm, glamorises risk, or reads like advice rather than education.
   • Fabricated supports — invented helplines, wrong phone numbers, or "talk to a chatbot" where the only safe answer is a real person.

   Two hard lines for PDHPE:

   1. AI is never a health adviser, and never the support a student in distress sees. Help-seeking and support information must point to real, current services and trusted adults — Kids Helpline, Lifeline, headspace, the school counsellor, a trusted adult — never an AI chatbot. Verify every helpline and number before it reaches a student.
   2. Every health claim is verified against an authoritative source (NESA syllabus support materials, NSW Health, the Australian Government dietary and physical-activity guidelines, the eSafety Commissioner, the relevant peak body) — and kept aligned to the NSW PDHPE syllabus and your school's and sector's policy. Plausible is not verified.

   Child protection and road safety are mandatory — and yours

   PDHPE is where child protection education and road safety are taught across K–10 (you'll see protective behaviours, No-Go-Tell, consent, and pedestrian/passenger/rider responsibilities all through the syllabus). These are mandatory and sensitive at once. AI can help you structure a protective-behaviours lesson, but the content — what's safe to say, to whom, and where help comes from — is a professional and child-safe judgement you own. If a task touches disclosure or a child at risk, that is a human-only conversation that follows your mandatory-reporting obligations, full stop.

   The strengths-based, inclusive lens

   The PDHPE syllabus is deliberately strengths-based and inclusive — it values cultural, gender and ability diversity, embeds Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives (the mind, body and spirit approach; connection to Country), and assumes adjustments for students with disability. Hold AI to that standard: prompt for strengths-based, inclusive, respectful language, and reject anything deficit-framed, stereotyped or culturally unsafe. Don't have AI fabricate Aboriginal cultural content — source it properly and respect Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property.

   Activity — sort your term into green, amber, red (12 min)

   List the PDHPE tasks you'll do next term. In the Lessio generator, produce one green-zone resource (a movement/skills progression, or a differentiated theory resource on a non-sensitive concept) and feel how much time it saves. Then take one amber/red task you'd never hand to AI raw (anything touching mental health, sexual health, drugs, body image or abuse) and write down exactly what you'd verify, how you'd keep it age-appropriate, and which real supports you'd point students to. The sort itself is the skill.

   Knowledge check

   1Why is the safety bar in PDHPE higher than 'verify the outputs' from the flagship course?

   Show answer

   2A generated wellbeing resource ends with 'if you're struggling, you can talk to an AI assistant any time'. What's wrong, and what do you do?

   Show answer

   3Which PDHPE tasks are the safest, highest-value uses of AI?

   Show answer

   Mark this module complete
2. 2

   Prompt craft for PDHPE — grounding, safety guards & a subject library

   How to brief AI for PDHPE: anchoring to the real NSW outcomes and focus areas, building sensitivity and safety guards into the prompt itself, and a ready-to-use PDHPE prompt library.~50 min

   By the end of this module you'll be able to:

   • Ground a PDHPE prompt in the real NSW outcomes, focus areas and strands, with a de-identified cohort.
   • Build PDHPE safety guards into a prompt — age-appropriateness, strengths-based language, verification and real-support requirements.
   • Diagnose and fix a PDHPE prompt that produced unsafe, inaccurate or deficit-framed output.

   Standards2.1 Content and teaching strategies of the teaching area2.6 Information and Communication Technology (ICT)3.4 Select and use resources

   RICE still applies — now with a PDHPE spine

   From the flagship course you know RICE — Role, Intent, Constraints, Examples. It still works. What changes for PDHPE is what you put in each slot: the syllabus anchor gets specific, and Constraints carries the safety load that nothing else in the school needs.

   Anchor to the real PDHPE structure

   Generic prompts get generic, sometimes-unsafe output. Anchor instead to the actual syllabus.

   The PDHPE 7–10 syllabus is built on three strands — Health, Wellbeing and Relationships; Movement Skill and Performance; Healthy, Safe and Active Lifestyles — delivered through five focus areas:

   Movement skills and strategies · Health and wellbeing through physical activity · Safe, active and healthy lifestyle choices · Respectful relationships · Identity, belonging and change.

   Name the focus area, the stage, and where you can, the real outcome. A few you can cite with confidence:

   Stage / focus	Real outcome code
   Stage 4 — Respectful relationships	PH4-RRL-01 (promoting safe and respectful relationships)
   Stage 4 — Safe, active and healthy lifestyle choices	PH4-SHW-01, PH4-IPS-01 (contextual factors; health information and support services)
   Stage 4 — Movement skills and strategies	PH4-MSS-01, PH4-MSS-02
   Stage 4/5 — self-management & interpersonal	PH4-SMI-01 / PH5-SMI-01
   Stage 5 — Movement skills and strategies	PH5-MSS-01, PH5-MSS-02
   Stage 5 — Identity, belonging and change	PH5-IBC-01
   K–6 — Respectful relationships and safety	PHE-RRS-01, PH1-RRS-01, PH2-RRS-01, PH3-RRS-01

   Verify any code against the official syllabus before it lands in a document — and in Lessio you pick the real outcomes from the engine, so the anchoring is done for you.

   The PDHPE addition to RICE — safety guards in the Constraints

   This is the move that makes prompting safe in our subject. Every PDHPE prompt that goes near health content should carry, in its constraints, an explicit safety block:

   - Age-appropriate for [stage] — pitch and content suitable for this developmental stage.
   - Strengths-based and inclusive — respectful of cultural, gender and ability diversity; no deficit framing or stereotypes.
   - Accuracy — only include health information you are confident is correct; flag anything I must verify against an authoritative source.
   - Support — where help-seeking is relevant, point to real services and trusted adults (I will insert our verified list); never suggest an AI as support.
   - No-harm — do not name methods of self-harm, glamorise risk, or give individual medical, mental-health, legal or clinical advice; keep it educational, not advisory.

   Make that block a habit — paste it into every sensitive-topic prompt. It doesn't make the output trustworthy on its own (you still verify), but it stops the most common unsafe slips.

   See the difference — weak vs PDHPE-strong

   Weak prompt	PDHPE-strong prompt
   "Write a lesson on vaping."	"You are an experienced NSW Stage 4 PDHPE teacher planning for Safe, active and healthy lifestyle choices (PH4-SHW-01), for a mixed-ability Year 8 class. Draft a lesson structure on the risks of e-cigarettes that examines risk and protective factors and harm-minimisation. Age-appropriate for Stage 4; strengths-based, non-judgemental; flag every health fact I should verify against NSW Health; where help-seeking arises, leave a placeholder for our verified support contacts; do not give individual medical advice. Output as a lesson outline with a learning intention and a formative check."
   "Give me a consent scenario."	"You are a NSW Stage 5 PDHPE teacher addressing Respectful relationships and the laws of consent. Write two short, realistic, de-identified decision-making scenarios about communicating and respecting consent for a Year 10 class, each with three discussion questions that build empathy and refusal/acceptance skills. Age-appropriate and respectful; no explicit content; model that consent is actively communicated and can be revoked; end by signposting that support comes from trusted adults and services (placeholder for our list)."

   The strong prompts are longer because they carry the focus area, the real outcome, the de-identified cohort, the format, and the safety block. That length is the PDHPE craft.

   Diagnose a bad PDHPE output

   When a PDHPE output is off, it's usually one of these:

   • Unsafe / advisory — reads like medical or clinical advice → add the no-harm and educational-not-advisory constraints.
   • Age-inappropriate — too explicit or too mature → name the stage and tighten the age constraint.
   • Inaccurate — confident health facts you can't trust → demand a flag-what-to-verify self-check, then verify.
   • Deficit / stereotyped — frames a group negatively → add strengths-based, inclusive and re-prompt.
   • Fake supports — invented helplines → strip them; insert your verified list yourself.

   A subject prompt library

   Below the modules you'll find a PDHPE prompt library — RICE-shaped, de-identified, with the safety block built in, for the jobs you do most: a respectful-relationships decision scenario, a differentiated theory resource, a skill-progression/games plan, a concept explained three ways, a case study with discussion questions, and a movement-assessment rubric. Copy one, anchor it to your outcome, run it — then verify.

   Activity — harden a real prompt (15 min)

   Take a PDHPE task you'd give AI this week. Write your instinctive one-liner. Now rebuild it with RICE: add the focus area + real outcome, a de-identified cohort, the format, and the PDHPE safety block. Run both in NSWEduChat (or your tool), keep the safer/stronger output, and note which element fixed it. Then run the same job in Lessio and see how much syllabus-anchoring is already done — leaving you to focus on the safety verification.

   Knowledge check

   1What does the PDHPE 'safety block' add to a prompt's constraints?

   Show answer

   2Name the five PDHPE 7–10 focus areas you can anchor a prompt to.

   Show answer

   3An AI consent lesson for Year 8 comes back too explicit and deficit-framed about boys. Which prompt fixes apply?

   Show answer

   Mark this module complete
3. 3

   Planning & resources for PDHPE with Lessio

   Building a NSW-grounded PDHPE scope & sequence, program, resources and differentiated materials with Lessio — covering the mandated hours, embedding inclusion, and screening sensitive content before use.~50 min

   By the end of this module you'll be able to:

   • Generate a syllabus-grounded PDHPE scope & sequence, program and resources as one connected, teacher-verified set.
   • Check coverage against the NESA mandate — 300 hours of PDHPE across Years 7–10, and the K–6 physical-activity requirement.
   • Differentiate PDHPE resources inclusively and screen any sensitive content before it reaches students.

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

   Plan it connected — and grounded

   From the flagship course you know the planning chain: scope & sequence → program/unit → resources → assessment, all pointing at the same outcomes. Lessio is built to produce exactly this set for PDHPE, grounded in the verbatim NSW PDHPE syllabus and the NSW DoE program template — so the draft reads like your faculty's work, not generic AI. It's still a draft: you set sequence, pace, context, emphasis and, above all, the sensitivity screening.

   Worked example — a Stage 5 Respectful relationships unit

   Ask Lessio to build a Stage 5 unit on Respectful relationships (anchored to PH5-RRL-01/PH5-SMI-01 and the related Stage 4 PH4-RRL-01). A good grounded draft will scaffold the focus-area content — types of relationships, power and coercion, consent and the laws of consent, bystander/upstander strategies, online safety and image-based abuse, and help-seeking. Your job on a unit like this is heightened:

   1. Verify the sensitive content — consent, coercive control, and the legal framing must be accurate, current and aligned to your school's respectful-relationships approach and NSW guidance.
   2. Age-appropriateness — confirm depth and language fit Stage 5.
   3. Real supports throughout — every help-seeking reference points to verified services and trusted adults (Kids Helpline, the eSafety Commissioner, the school counsellor), never AI.
   4. Inclusion — language is respectful of gender, sexuality, culture and ability; embed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives properly, not as AI-fabricated content.

   Don't skip the mandate — coverage is a compliance check

   NESA sets hard requirements your plan must respect:

   - Years 7–10: a minimum of 300 hours of PDHPE.
   - K–6: at least 150 minutes of planned moderate-to-vigorous physical activity per week.

   When you generate a scope & sequence, check the time allocation as deliberately as the content. AI can draft a beautifully sequenced year that quietly under-allocates hours or over-weights theory against movement — a registration risk. Coverage across the three strands and the balance of theory and practical/movement is yours to confirm.

   A differentiated theory resource — inclusively

   Take one core theory resource (say, the dimensions of health or components of fitness) and have Lessio generate:

   • an enable version — more scaffolding, a worked example, sentence starters, key-term glossary;
   • an extend version — analysis and an open-ended challenge for high-potential students;
   • an EAL/D scaffold — plain English, visuals, glossary, aligned to the EAL/D Learning Progression;
   • accessible formats — clear layout, simplified instructions, alternative representations, with reasonable adjustments (a legal requirement under the Disability Standards for Education 2005).

   This is Universal Design for Learning in PDHPE: multiple means of engagement, representation and expression. Confirm each version still targets the same outcome — accessibility must never quietly lower the learning.

   Movement and practical resources — the green zone, done well

   Lessio can draft skill-progression sequences, modified games, fitness circuits, and warm-up/cool-down routines. Here the review is physical-safety, equipment, space and inclusion, not misinformation: is the progression developmentally sound, safely sequenced, inclusive of varied abilities (assistive devices, modified rules), and runnable with your facilities? This is where AI saves time at the lowest risk — use it generously.

   The PDHPE review-before-use checklist

   Before any PDHPE draft becomes a real document:

   1. Outcomes & focus area — codes match the current syllabus and the right focus area.
   2. Hours & coverage — 300 hours (7–10) / weekly MVPA (K–6) respected; theory-and-movement balance sound.
   3. Sensitivity screen — all sensitive content verified, age-appropriate, and policy-aligned; help-seeking points to real supports.
   4. Inclusion & culture — strengths-based, inclusive; Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives sourced respectfully, not fabricated.
   5. Practical safety — movement tasks are safe, inclusive and runnable.
   6. Accuracy — health facts, guidelines and examples are correct.

   If you couldn't defend it at a faculty meeting and to a parent on the sensitive content, it isn't ready.

   Activity — build and screen (15 min)

   In Lessio, generate a program or unit for a focus area you teach next term. Run the PDHPE review-before-use checklist on it: verify two outcome codes, check the hours/coverage, and — if it touches sensitive content — do a full sensitivity screen and insert your verified supports. Then differentiate one resource into enable + extend. The screening and edits are the visible proof of your professional judgement.

   Knowledge check

   1What are the two NESA coverage requirements your PDHPE plan must respect?

   Show answer

   2Lessio drafts a Stage 5 Respectful relationships unit. What review does this need beyond a normal unit?

   Show answer

   3When you generate enable, extend and EAL/D versions of a theory resource, what must you confirm?

   Show answer

   Mark this module complete
4. 4

   Assessment, feedback & integrity in PDHPE — theory and practical

   Designing valid PDHPE assessment with AI across theory and practical/movement: scenario tasks and marking guidelines, movement rubrics, sensitive feedback, and assuring authorship the NESA way.~50 min

   By the end of this module you'll be able to:

   • Generate valid, fair PDHPE assessment — scenario-based theory tasks and practical/movement rubrics — with marking guidelines.
   • Use AI to draft feedback frames while handling sensitive PDHPE content and student data with care.
   • Assure authorship and integrity in PDHPE the way NESA expects — by design, not 'AI detectors'.

   Standards2.3 Curriculum, assessment and reporting5.1 Assess student learning5.2 Provide feedback to students on their learning

   PDHPE assessment is two jobs — theory and practical

   PDHPE assesses both knowledge/understanding (health concepts, decision-making, analysis) and movement skill and performance (technique, strategy, application in dynamic contexts). AI can help draft for both — but they need different review, and the sensitive-content discipline still governs the theory side.

   Scenario-based theory tasks — a strength, screened

   A scenario or case-study task is one of PDHPE's best assessment forms, and AI drafts them well. Ask Lessio for a Stage 4 Safe, active and healthy lifestyle choices task (PH4-SHW-01/PH4-IPS-01) where students analyse contextual factors and recommend help-seeking and harm-minimisation strategies — with marking guidelines mapped to the outcome and a grade scale. Then screen and check:

   • Validity — does it actually measure the outcome (analysis and application, not recall)?
   • Sensitivity — if the scenario touches drugs, mental health, relationships or body image, is it realistic but not distressing, age-appropriate, and does it point to real supports in the model answer?
   • Fairness & accessibility — inclusive contexts; reasonable adjustments available; clear criteria.
   • Marking guideline accuracy — the exemplar answers and band descriptors are correct and aligned to the syllabus's grade scale.

   Movement/practical assessment — rubrics with criteria

   For practical assessment, AI is good at structuring an observation rubric. Ask for a movement-assessment rubric for, say, Movement skills and strategies (PH4-MSS-01/PH4-MSS-02) — criteria for skill execution, decision-making, use of space, and applying strategy under pressure, across performance bands. Your review:

   • criteria genuinely reflect the outcome and are observable in a live setting;
   • bands discriminate fairly and are usable while you're watching a game, not just on paper;
   • the rubric is inclusive — it credits skill relative to ability and allows for adjustments/assistive devices, so a student isn't penalised for a disability.

   AI cannot watch your class or judge a performance — it drafts the instrument; you observe, apply and moderate.

   Feedback — frames from AI, judgement and care from you

   AI drafts feedback structure fast — a strength, a priority, a next step against your criteria. In PDHPE, two extra cautions:

   1. Never paste an identifiable student's work or wellbeing information into a general tool (the flagship student-data hard line). De-identify, or use your school's approved, secured environment. PDHPE work can carry deeply personal disclosures — a reflection on body image, family or mental health — so this matters more here than anywhere.
   2. Sensitive content needs a human voice. If a student's response reveals distress or risk, AI does not draft that reply — you respond, with care, and follow your wellbeing and mandatory-reporting pathways. AI feedback is for skills and knowledge, never for a child who needs help.

   Integrity — NESA's way, in a PDHPE context

   Schools decide whether AI is permitted for a given task, and you uphold integrity. For PDHPE's written and research tasks, assure authorship by design, not by 'AI detectors' (which are unreliable): review drafts at checkpoints, talk with students about their thinking and their personal reflections, and build in in-class and viva-style components. Practical assessment is naturally AI-resistant — it's performed live — which is one reason a balanced PDHPE assessment schedule is robust. Be transparent with students about your own AI use as a drafting aid you check and own; that models the integrity you ask of them.

   What stays human in PDHPE assessment

   The contentious grade. The reflection that reveals a child at risk. The pastoral judgement about how much to push. Moderating a borderline practical performance. AI supports the instrument; the professional and ethical calls are yours.

   Activity — build and validate an assessment (15 min)

   In Lessio, generate one of: a scenario-based theory task with marking guidelines (for a focus area you teach), or a movement-assessment rubric. Then validate it: check it measures the outcome, run the sensitivity screen (theory) or the observability/inclusion check (practical), and verify the marking guidelines or band descriptors. Note one change your professional judgement made — and, if it's a sensitive theory task, confirm the model answer points to real supports.

   Knowledge check

   1You generate a scenario-based theory task on drug use. Beyond checking validity, what PDHPE-specific reviews apply?

   Show answer

   2A student's PDHPE reflection reveals they may be at risk. Can AI help draft your response?

   Show answer

   3Why is a balanced PDHPE assessment schedule relatively robust to AI misuse?

   Show answer

   Mark this module complete
5. 5

   Capstone — build a real PDHPE resource with Lessio and critique it

   Build a connected, defensible PDHPE unit/resource/assessment with Lessio end-to-end, run the full safety-and-accuracy critique, self-assess against the Ethical-Use Checklist, reflect, and log it as PD.~50 min

   By the end of this module you'll be able to:

   • Build a connected PDHPE scope & sequence, program/resource and assessment with Lessio, end to end.
   • Critique and improve the set against the syllabus, the PDHPE sensitivity-and-accuracy discipline, and professional standards.
   • Self-assess against the Lessio Ethical-Use Checklist, reflect, and record the hours as Standards-relevant PD.

   Standards2.3 Curriculum, assessment and reporting4.4 Maintain student safety6.2 Engage in professional learning

   The task — a real, connected, defensible PDHPE set

   Choose a topic you'll teach next term. Using Lessio, build and then critique:

   1. A scope & sequence for the stage (with the hours/coverage right).
   2. A program / unit of work for one focus area within it — ideally one that includes some sensitive content, so you practise the screening.
   3. An assessment with marking guidelines for that unit — a scenario-based theory task, a movement rubric, or both.

   Then improve each with your professional judgement: verify outcome codes against the official syllabus, check coverage against the 300 hours (7–10) / weekly MVPA (K–6) mandate, run the sensitivity screen on anything touching mental health, sexual health, drugs, body image or abuse, confirm age-appropriateness and inclusive, strengths-based language, insert your verified real supports, and make the assessment valid and fair.

   What good looks like

   A connected, syllabus-accurate, safe PDHPE set you'd actually use — drafted by AI, unmistakably screened, shaped and owned by you. On the sensitive content especially, your edits are the evidence of professional judgement and the teacher-in-the-loop principle made real.

   Self-assessment — the Lessio Ethical-Use Checklist (PDHPE)

   Run your capstone against all five checklist items on this page — including that all health content is verified against authoritative sources and kept age-appropriate, and that help-seeking points to real services and trusted adults, never AI. Every box should be honestly tickable. If one isn't, fix the artefact — that is the learning.

   Reflection — write a short response

   • What did AI genuinely save you time on in PDHPE, and what did you have to fix or screen?
   • Where did your professional judgement change the output — especially on sensitive content?
   • How did you keep it age-appropriate, inclusive, and pointed to real supports?
   • One safe-AI-use rule you'll keep for PDHPE from now on.

   Log it as professional learning

   This module is your assessment: a complete, critiqued PDHPE artefact plus your ethical-use reflection — keep it as evidence of practice. Since NESA removed the Accredited/Elective PD distinction in 2024, Standards-relevant learning like this counts toward your 100 maintenance hours — record it in eTAMS against the Standards it addresses (especially 2, 3, 4 — including 4.4 maintaining student safety — 5, 6 and 7). Your faculty can also run this playbook as part of its professional-learning plan or a staff development day.

   Activity — build, screen, critique, log (15 min)

   Build your connected set in Lessio, then run the full PDHPE critique and the Ethical-Use Checklist, paying particular attention to the sensitivity screen and your verified supports. Write your reflection and log the hours. The screened, critiqued artefact plus the reflection is your evidence — and a unit you can teach with confidence.

   Knowledge check

   1What turns an AI-generated PDHPE unit into defensible professional work — especially on sensitive content?

   Show answer

   2Which two Ethical-Use Checklist items are the heart of the PDHPE playbook?

   Show answer

   3How does this playbook count toward your NESA professional-development hours?

   Show answer

   Mark this module complete

Take-away prompt library

Ready, RICE-shaped prompts for common NSW teaching jobs (Module 3). De-identified — copy one, swap in your details, and use it today.

You are an experienced NSW Stage 5 PDHPE teacher addressing Respectful relationships and the laws of consent (outcome PH5-RRL-01 / PH4-RRL-01). Write two short, realistic, de-identified decision-making scenarios about communicating, giving, denying and respecting consent for a Year 10 class, each with three discussion questions that build empathy, refusal and acceptance skills. Constraints: age-appropriate for Stage 5; respectful, strengths-based, no explicit content and no stereotypes; model that consent is actively communicated and can be revoked; signpost that support comes from trusted adults and services (leave a placeholder for our verified list); do not give legal advice. End with a note of anything I should verify against NSW guidance and our school's respectful-relationships approach.

SELF-CHECK before I use this: is every claim accurate, age-appropriate, and does support point to real services and trusted adults — never an AI?

You are a NSW PDHPE teacher planning for a mixed-ability class (de-identified: [stage/year, key needs, EAL/D numbers]). From the concept below — [e.g. the dimensions of health / components of fitness] — produce three versions targeting the SAME outcome: an 'enable' version with scaffolding, a worked example, sentence starters and a glossary; an 'extend' version with analysis and an open-ended challenge; and an EAL/D scaffold in plain English with visuals and a glossary. Keep the outcome constant and tell me what changed in each. Constraints: accurate, strengths-based, inclusive; flag any health fact I must verify.

[paste concept]

SELF-CHECK before I use this: is every claim accurate, age-appropriate, and does support point to real services and trusted adults — never an AI?

You are a NSW Stage 4 PDHPE teacher planning Movement skills and strategies (PH4-MSS-01 / PH4-MSS-02) for a mixed-ability Year 7 class. Draft a skill-progression and modified-games plan for [skill/sport], moving from simple to dynamic, with a warm-up, three progressions, a modified game that transfers the skill, and a cool-down. Constraints: physically safe and well-sequenced; inclusive of varied abilities with modified rules and assistive-device options; low-prep and runnable with standard PE equipment in [space]. Note any safety considerations I should confirm for my class.

SELF-CHECK before I use this: is it physically safe, inclusive, and runnable with my facilities — and have I confirmed the safety points?

You are a NSW [stage] PDHPE teacher. Explain [health concept] in three ways for a [de-identified class]: a plain-English explanation, a concrete real-world analogy (Australian context), and a worked example. Note one common misconception to pre-empt. Constraints: accurate and age-appropriate; strengths-based and inclusive; flag every health fact I should verify against an authoritative source (e.g. NSW Health, the Australian dietary/physical-activity guidelines); give no individual medical advice.

SELF-CHECK before I use this: is every claim accurate, age-appropriate, and does support point to real services and trusted adults — never an AI?

You are a NSW Stage 4 PDHPE teacher planning Safe, active and healthy lifestyle choices (PH4-SHW-01 / PH4-IPS-01) for a de-identified Year 8 class. Write a short, realistic case study where a young person navigates [non-distressing health/safety decision — e.g. peer influence and harm-minimisation], with five discussion questions that build analysis of contextual factors, help-seeking and protective strategies. Constraints: age-appropriate; realistic but not distressing; strengths-based, non-judgemental, inclusive; route all help-seeking to real services and trusted adults (placeholder for our list); flag anything I must verify.

SELF-CHECK before I use this: is every claim accurate, age-appropriate, and does support point to real services and trusted adults — never an AI?

You are a NSW Stage 5 PDHPE teacher. Draft a movement-assessment rubric for Movement skills and strategies (PH5-MSS-01 / PH5-MSS-02) covering skill execution, decision-making, use of space, and applying strategy under pressure, across four performance bands. Constraints: criteria must reflect the outcome and be observable in a live game; bands discriminate fairly and are usable while watching, not just on paper; inclusive — credit skill relative to ability and allow for adjustments and assistive devices so no student is penalised for a disability. Note any criterion I should refine for observability.

SELF-CHECK before I use this: are the criteria observable live, inclusive of disability, and faithful to the outcome?

Standards-relevant professional learning, mapped to the APST · content verified against national and NSW frameworks, June 2026 · self-log the hours in eTAMS.