lessio·GeneratorHow it worksAcademyFor schoolsAI frameworkPricing
← AI for PDHPE Teachers

Facilitator guide · staff development day

AI for PDHPE Teachers

Everything you need to run this course with your staff — 5 sessions, ~4 hours total.

How to run it

Run this as a PDHPE-faculty session: a twilight, a faculty meeting block, or part of a staff development day — the whole playbook is ~4 hours and works well split across two sittings. It assumes staff have done (or will do) the flagship 'Teaching with AI' course, so you can move fast through general ethics and spend the time on what's PDHPE-specific. Before you start: decide the tools (NSWEduChat for general tasks, Lessio for the syllabus-grounded planning) and check logins; ask each teacher to bring a real, de-identified PDHPE task from their own load — a unit to build, a resource to differentiate, an assessment to design; and project two things for the room — the Lessio Ethical-Use Checklist and the faculty's list of real support services (Kids Helpline 1800 55 1800, Lifeline 13 11 14, headspace, the eSafety Commissioner, your school counsellor/psychologist and chaplain, and your sector's child-protection contact). The through-line to hold all day: AI drafts the scaffolding; the teacher owns every sensitive word, verifies every health claim, and is the one who decides what a young person sees. Capture two outputs: a faculty 'safe AI use in PDHPE' protocol, and each teacher's capstone reflection for their eTAMS record.

Session plans

  1. 1

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

    ~50 min
    Session plan

    Open by naming PDHPE as the highest-stakes subject for AI — contrast a wrong Maths code with wrong sexual-health or mental-health information in front of a Year 9 class. Build the green/amber/red sort live as a faculty: project three columns and have the room call out where each PDHPE task lands. Then run the activity — everyone generates one green-zone resource and writes the verification plan for one amber/red task. Close by drafting the first lines of the faculty's 'safe AI use in PDHPE' protocol and the shared list of real support services.

    Discussion prompts
    • Where in our teaching have we seen confidently-wrong health information — from AI or anywhere — and what was the risk?
    • Which topics do we agree are red-zone (AI never touches the content raw), and which are green (AI is genuinely useful)?
    • What's our agreed list of real support services and trusted adults that every PDHPE resource must point to?
    Watch for

    Two failure modes. The keen adopter who wants AI to draft a sexual-health or mental-health lesson outright — redirect to structure-only, with every claim verified and supports real. And the teacher who concludes 'then AI is useless for PDHPE' — show them the movement, differentiation and reformatting wins so they don't throw the time-saving out with the risk. Keep the room anchored on the two hard lines.

    Standards2.1 Content and teaching strategies of the teaching area4.4 Maintain student safety7.1 Meet professional ethics and responsibilities
  2. 2

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

    ~50 min
    Session plan

    Most hands-on session. Project a vague PDHPE one-liner and rebuild it live with the room using RICE — adding the focus area, a real outcome from the table, the cohort, the format, and then the safety block, watching the output improve and get safer. Hand out the safety block as a copy-paste snippet. Everyone hardens a prompt from their own teaching, pairing a confident teacher with a hesitant one. Finish by adopting one shared faculty prompt (with the safety block) the whole team can reuse.

    Discussion prompts
    • Which part of the safety block does our team most often forget — age-fit, verification, or real supports?
    • Pick a sensitive topic — what specifically would we add to the constraints to keep AI's draft safe?
    • Should our faculty standardise one safety block and one support-services list that everyone pastes in?
    Watch for

    Staff may treat the safety block as a magic shield — stress that it reduces unsafe slips but never replaces verification; the teacher still checks every claim and every support. Also watch for over-long prompts that lose the outcome anchor; the focus area + real code is the non-negotiable core.

    Standards2.1 Content and teaching strategies of the teaching area2.6 Information and Communication Technology (ICT)3.4 Select and use resources
  3. 3

    Planning & resources for PDHPE with Lessio

    ~50 min
    Session plan

    A build session, faculty working in pairs or as a team. Each pair generates a real PDHPE scope & sequence or unit in Lessio for next term, then runs the PDHPE review-before-use checklist on it live — verifying two outcome codes against NESA, checking the 300-hour / weekly-MVPA coverage, and doing a sensitivity screen on any red-zone content. Then each teacher differentiates one resource into enable + extend. Share back the best-screened sensitive unit and the cleanest movement progression.

    Discussion prompts
    • Where would under-allocated hours or a theory-heavy sequence create a registration risk in our program?
    • On a sensitive unit, what's our shared standard for 'screened and ready' — and who second-reads it?
    • Which differentiation wins (enable/extend/EAL/D/accessible) would lift the most students in our cohort?
    Watch for

    The danger is a polished draft being treated as finished — make explicit that on sensitive units the screening edits ARE the professional work, ideally with a second teacher's eyes. Keep the movement/practical wins celebrated so the session doesn't become all-caution; that's where the time is genuinely saved.

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

    Assessment, feedback & integrity in PDHPE — theory and practical

    ~50 min
    Session plan

    Run as a make-and-validate workshop. Half the team builds a scenario-based theory task with marking guidelines in Lessio; half builds a movement rubric. Swap and peer-validate against the relevant checks — sensitivity screen and supports for theory, observability and inclusion for practical. Then a focused integrity conversation: map current PDHPE tasks against 'could a student pass this with AI?' and note how the practical components and authorship-by-design protect the schedule. Capture one task each pair will redesign.

    Discussion prompts
    • Which of our PDHPE written tasks are most exposed to AI misuse, and how do the practical components offset that?
    • What's our protocol when a student's assessment response signals distress or risk — and does everyone know it?
    • How do we keep identifiable student work and wellbeing information out of general AI tools when marking?
    Watch for

    Watch for AI being used to 'handle' sensitive feedback — draw the hard line that distress/risk is human-only and follows reporting pathways. On rubrics, watch for criteria that read well on paper but can't be judged live or that penalise disability; push for observable, inclusive descriptors. Reassure staff anxious about integrity that PDHPE's practical strand is a built-in safeguard.

    Standards2.3 Curriculum, assessment and reporting5.1 Assess student learning5.2 Provide feedback to students on their learning
  5. 5

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

    ~50 min
    Session plan

    Run as a longer workshop or directed time. Each teacher builds their connected PDHPE set in Lessio and self-assesses against the Ethical-Use Checklist, with a deliberate second-reader step on any sensitive unit. Collect the reflections — they're your evidence of a Standards-relevant PD session and the teachers' eTAMS record. Close by finalising the faculty's 'safe AI use in PDHPE' protocol and the shared verified-supports list, and consider a share-back of the best-screened unit.

    Discussion prompts
    • What's our faculty's shared standard for a sensitive PDHPE unit being 'screened and ready to teach'?
    • What safe-AI-use rules should go into our PDHPE protocol — and who second-reads sensitive content?
    • How will we keep our verified support-services list current, and embed it in every resource?
    Watch for

    Protect the reflection and the sensitivity second-read — some will want to skip them, but they're what makes this real PD and what keeps students safe. Land the faculty protocol and the verified-supports list as the tangible takeaways leadership carries forward.

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

After the day

Collect each teacher's capstone artefact and reflection — that's your evidence of a Standards-relevant PD day, and theirs to log in eTAMS. Part of the whole-school Lessio programme and the 'Subject AI Playbooks' line — faculty-specific PD that travels with the syllabus-grounded generator. Available standalone per teacher or per faculty. Because NESA removed the Accredited/Elective PD categories in 2024, this playbook counts as Standards-relevant PD with no NESA endorsement gate — a PDHPE faculty can run it on a staff development day or twilight and log the hours in eTAMS.

  • No student personal data or wellbeing information entered into general AI tools; cohorts described, never a child.
  • All health content verified against authoritative sources and kept age-appropriate for the stage.
  • Help-seeking/support information points to real services and trusted adults, never AI — and every helpline and number is checked as current.
  • Sensitive content (mental health, sexual health, drugs, body image, abuse, child protection) screened, syllabus- and policy-aligned, and second-read before use.
  • Resources are strengths-based and inclusive — respectful of cultural, gender and ability diversity; Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives sourced respectfully, not AI-fabricated.

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