Day 6 · Dimension 6 · ~5 hrsnew in v5
Collective Agentic Practice
Anchoring What One Cannot Anchor Alone — Collective Agentic Practice
D6 measures the teacher's capacity for collective agency — the Banduran mode that cannot be reduced to the sum of individual personal or proxy agency. Ambient (Type F) and delegated (Type E) extensions at platform or institutional scale cannot be anchored by one teacher acting alone. The primary evidence is shared written work that would not have existed without peer interaction, institutional escalation, or policy-level engagement. Individual opinion pieces score at Level 2 or below.
Level 1–2
Audit memo lists generic platform risks without a specific feature or mechanism. Professional-community evaluation is a parallel pair of individual opinions. Escalation draft has no concrete ask or timeline. Policy response summarises rather than takes a position.
Level 3
Audit names a specific Type-F feature, mechanism, and affected population. Community evaluation includes a recorded disagreement and a genuinely joint insight. Escalation specifies recipient, ask, and timeline. Policy response takes a defended position.
Level 4
Audit identifies a second-order effect of the Type-F feature. Community evaluation produces a changed practice, not just a changed opinion. Escalation shows institutional-decision-process literacy. Policy response engages the consultation's own argumentative structure.
4 TASKS What you will produce on Day 6
01
Ambient-Extension (Type F) Audit Memo
Type F (ambient) extensions are the hardest to anchor because they are not invoked by the user — they are present in the infrastructure, shaping cognition persistently and invisibly. This task asks you to pick ONE such feature in your own school's platforms and audit it. The critical move is from "AI is everywhere" (generic) to "this specific feature, in this specific platform, is doing this specific thing to this specific student population." Invisibility is the defining risk: agency cannot anchor what it does not see.
Key concepts:
- Type F extensions are infrastructural — not invoked by the user, but acting on them
- The audit must name a mechanism, not just an outcome — "the recommender weights engagement metrics" is a mechanism
- Subject-specific affected populations — not "all students" but e.g. "the EAL group who engage less with video recommendations"
What good looks like: One specific feature in one specific platform. Mechanism named. Affected population specified with a subject-specific lens. Evidence that you interrogated something the platform does not surface in its own marketing. Level 4 identifies a second-order effect — e.g. how the feature reshapes what counts as a "good student" in the platform's own logic.
Evaluation criteria: D6.1 Professional-Community Scrutiny
02
Professional-Community Evaluation
Collective evaluation builds professional knowledge that no individual teacher could build alone. This task is deliberately cooperative: you must produce a shared artefact with at least one colleague. The rubric-significant element is the recorded disagreement — it is evidence that you engaged with a peer's judgment, not just assembled adjacent individual opinions. Consensus without friction is usually consensus without thought.
Key concepts:
- Collective agency is not aggregated individual agency — the shared artefact has to be authentically joint
- A recorded disagreement demonstrates actual engagement, not parallel monologue
- The "one insight neither of you had alone" is the epistemic payoff — it's why collective evaluation is a competency, not a convenience
What good looks like: Shared artefact with both names. One disagreement concretely recorded. One insight attributed to the exchange rather than to either teacher alone. Level 4 shows the collective evaluation led to a changed practice, not just a changed opinion.
Evaluation criteria: D6.2 Institutional Voice and Escalation
03
Institutional Escalation Draft
Some risks cannot be fixed from inside the classroom — they require institutional decisions about procurement, policy, or governance. This task asks you to draft (you don't have to send it) a formal escalation to someone with institutional authority. The artefact is evaluated on whether it is actionable: a leadership colleague receiving this memo should be able to act on it without asking you further clarifying questions. Vague concerns get filed. Concrete asks get answered.
Key concepts:
- An escalation is not a complaint — it carries a concrete ask on a timeline
- Affected parties named specifically; evidence base cited
- The memo must make the risk institutionally legible — it translates classroom-level concern into decision-ready language
What good looks like: Recipient, risk, mechanism, ask, and timeline all specified. Evidence base cited (not just asserted). A colleague in leadership could act on this without further clarification. Level 4 demonstrates you understand the institutional decision process — what the recipient has authority over, what they don't, and what the realistic next step in the chain is.
Evaluation criteria: D6.3 Policy-Level Agency
04
Policy-Level Response
The teacher is a political agent in the conditions under which AI enters education — not merely an end-user of conditions others set. This task asks for substantive engagement with a real policy item: you take a position, defend it, and submit it (or prepare it for submission). A position paper that just restates the consultation's framing without taking a stand is not a response; it is compliance theatre.
Key concepts:
- Policy engagement is collective agency expressed through institutional channels
- A response has a stance — you agree / disagree / propose an alternative, and you say why
- Subject-specific grounding — your response draws on your actual teaching experience, not generic advocacy
What good looks like: Named policy item. A clear position. Reasons grounded in your teaching practice. Level 4 engages with the policy's own argumentative structure — identifies a premise the consultation elides, or proposes an alternative the drafters had not considered.
Evaluation criteria: D6.1 Professional-Community Scrutiny
3 SUB-COMPETENCIES Evaluation criteria for Day 6
D6.1
Professional-Community Scrutiny
Primary site for Type F; relevant to E
1 — Nascent
Generic awareness. does the shared artefact show genuine joint thinking, or parallel individual opinions — not yet asked. Audit memo lists generic platform risks without a specific feature or mechanism. Professional-community evaluation is a parallel pair of individual opinions. Escalation draft has no concrete ask or timeline. Policy response summarises rather than takes a position.
2 — Developing
Partial demonstration. Audit memo lists generic platform risks without a specific feature or mechanism. Professional-community evaluation is a parallel pair of individual opinions. Escalation draft has no concrete ask or timeline. Policy response summarises rather than takes a position.
3 — Proficient
Full demonstration. Audit names a specific Type-F feature, mechanism, and affected population. Community evaluation includes a recorded disagreement and a genuinely joint insight. Escalation specifies recipient, ask, and timeline. Policy response takes a defended position.
Anchor: Joint artefact with recorded disagreement and ≥1 insight attributable to the exchange.
4 — Advanced
Audit identifies a second-order effect of the Type-F feature. Community evaluation produces a changed practice, not just a changed opinion. Escalation shows institutional-decision-process literacy. Policy response engages the consultation's own argumentative structure.
500–800 words. Pick ONE ambient (Type F) AI feature in your school's platforms — LMS content recommender, adaptive sequencing, notification/nudge system, analytics dashboard that frames student identity. Name the mechanism, the affected student population, what it is silently doing to student cognition, and why it is invisible by design.
p6t4Policy-Level Response
Respond substantively to ONE live or recent AI-in-education policy item — a school district consultation, a national curriculum comment period, an internal PD policy, a professional-association position paper. ≥300 words. Must take a position, not summarise.
D6.2
Institutional Voice and Escalation
Core for Types E/F; applies across A–F
1 — Nascent
Generic awareness. is the escalation actionable — does it carry a concrete ask on a timeline — not yet asked. Audit memo lists generic platform risks without a specific feature or mechanism. Professional-community evaluation is a parallel pair of individual opinions. Escalation draft has no concrete ask or timeline. Policy response summarises rather than takes a position.
2 — Developing
Partial demonstration. Audit memo lists generic platform risks without a specific feature or mechanism. Professional-community evaluation is a parallel pair of individual opinions. Escalation draft has no concrete ask or timeline. Policy response summarises rather than takes a position.
3 — Proficient
Full demonstration. Audit names a specific Type-F feature, mechanism, and affected population. Community evaluation includes a recorded disagreement and a genuinely joint insight. Escalation specifies recipient, ask, and timeline. Policy response takes a defended position.
Anchor: Escalation specifies recipient, risk, mechanism, affected parties, ask, and timeline.
4 — Advanced
Audit identifies a second-order effect of the Type-F feature. Community evaluation produces a changed practice, not just a changed opinion. Escalation shows institutional-decision-process literacy. Policy response engages the consultation's own argumentative structure.
Co-author a shared evaluation of ONE AI tool with ≥1 colleague (in-person or async, same subject or cross-subject). The artefact must include: a recorded disagreement, how it was resolved (or why it remains open), and one insight that neither of you had alone.
D6.3
Policy-Level Agency
Cross-cutting; primary salience for Type F
1 — Nascent
Generic awareness. does the response take a defended position, or summarise the consultation — not yet asked. Audit memo lists generic platform risks without a specific feature or mechanism. Professional-community evaluation is a parallel pair of individual opinions. Escalation draft has no concrete ask or timeline. Policy response summarises rather than takes a position.
2 — Developing
Partial demonstration. Audit memo lists generic platform risks without a specific feature or mechanism. Professional-community evaluation is a parallel pair of individual opinions. Escalation draft has no concrete ask or timeline. Policy response summarises rather than takes a position.
3 — Proficient
Full demonstration. Audit names a specific Type-F feature, mechanism, and affected population. Community evaluation includes a recorded disagreement and a genuinely joint insight. Escalation specifies recipient, ask, and timeline. Policy response takes a defended position.
Anchor: Named policy item; clear stance; reasons grounded in the teacher's own practice.
4 — Advanced
Audit identifies a second-order effect of the Type-F feature. Community evaluation produces a changed practice, not just a changed opinion. Escalation shows institutional-decision-process literacy. Policy response engages the consultation's own argumentative structure.
p6t3Institutional Escalation Draft
Written escalation to leadership (HoD, VP, curriculum lead, tech coordinator) about ONE AI-related risk at your institution that individual teachers cannot mitigate. Must specify: the risk, the mechanism, affected parties, the concrete ask, the timeline, and the evidence base.