AI-Assisted Learning for the 21st Century Classroom

Name: AI-Assisted Learning for the 21st Century Classroom
Price: 400 EUR

Why this is Erasmus+ eligible

Structured, multi-day programme (5 days) with a pre-defined schedule and learning outcomes — not a passive lecture format.

Built around interaction: participants engage directly with the trainer and with peers from other countries throughout the course.

Transnational by design — open to participants travelling from outside the host country, a core requirement of Erasmus+ mobility funding.

Aligned with the Erasmus+ horizontal priority: Digital Transformation.

The Erasmus+ Programme Guide opens its digital transformation priority with the sentence "To support the successful digital transformation and address societal challenges such as AI or disinformation more effectively Europe needs education, training and youth systems that are fit for the digital age", and goes on to describe the programme as playing "a key role in supporting citizens of all ages in acquiring the digital skills and competences they need to live, learn, work, exercise their rights, be informed, access online services, communicate, critically consume, create and disseminate digital education content" (Erasmus+ Programme Guide 2026, Part A - Priorities of the Erasmus Programme). This course works through a named international competence framework for teachers and returns written classroom procedures a school can put into its own digital transformation plan.

Source: Erasmus+ Programme Guide 2026, Key Action 1 — School Education Mobility.

Overview

Most AI training for teachers is a tour of tools. You come home with a list of products, and within a term half of them have changed their pricing, their interface or their data policy, and none of them answered the question you actually had: when this thing hands me something about one of my pupils, how do I know whether to use it?

That question has a serious reference point. In 2024 UNESCO published the AI Competency Framework for Teachers. It sets out fifteen competency blocks across five aspects — a human-centred mindset, ethics of AI, AI foundations and applications, AI pedagogy, and AI for professional development — at three progression levels named Acquire, Deepen and Create. This week works at the Acquire level across all five aspects. The framework defines that level as the set teachers need “in order to evaluate, select and use AI tools appropriately in education”. Acquire is the level at which a teacher can assess a tool before adopting it, which is the order most schools have been doing in reverse.

Two further documents, both published this year and both free, are used alongside it. The European Commission’s Guidelines on the ethical use of artificial intelligence and data in teaching and learning for educators, revised edition 2026, sets out guiding questions in two columns — one for the teacher, one for the school. They run across eight requirements, from human oversight and transparency to privacy and accountability. The European Commission and the OECD’s Empowering Learners for the Age of AI, published in June 2026, describes what pupils themselves need: nineteen competences across four domains. One of them is simply to “evaluate whether AI outputs should be accepted, revised or rejected”. Both are used here as working instruments rather than reading.

Each day produces something written. A one-page note on what one tool in your school is and is not for. A teaching sequence marked step by step for what stays human. A marking and feedback rule with the review point named in it, tested against a supplied set of anonymised pupil responses. A short statement for your own pupils explaining which tools are used in their class and how they can question a decision. And on the last day, an honest score of where the week actually took you against the framework’s own descriptors, plus the one request that has to go to somebody above you.

None of this certifies that a school’s AI use is sound, and no week could. What it changes is who is in the room the next time a tool is bought, trialled or quietly switched on — somebody able to put the European Commission’s own questions to it, and to tell a documented answer from a sales sheet.

Methodology

Two documents, open all week

the UNESCO framework and the European Commission's guiding questions are on the table every day, used to structure the work rather than summarised in a slide at the start.

Your own classroom, not a case study

every exercise runs on a unit you actually teach and a tool your school actually uses. Nothing has to be prepared in advance - the unit is sketched out in the room and the pupil responses used for marking are supplied.

Written output each day

five short documents, each one usable in your own school the following week, not notes about the sessions.

Named tools, no allegiance to any of them

you work with the general-purpose assistant your school already permits - ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini or Claude - and examine the teacher-facing platforms colleagues keep recommending, such as MagicSchool AI, Diffit or Khanmigo. The week teaches judgement that survives a change of product.

What you'll take home

Place a specific AI tool used in your school against the UNESCO framework's five aspects and state, in writing, what it is and is not fit for.

Break one of your own teaching units into steps and mark which steps AI may automate, which it may support, and which carry the learning and stay human.

Write a marking and feedback rule for one class that names the review step, and test it against a supplied set of anonymised pupil responses, including answers written in a second language.

Check one tool's outputs across different pupil profiles - language level, reading age, prior attainment, additional needs - and record where personalisation turns into a smaller task.

Produce a short, age-appropriate statement telling your pupils which AI tools are used in their class, what happens to their work, and how they can question or opt out of an AI-influenced decision.

Score yourself against the framework's Acquire descriptors in all five aspects and turn the gaps into one written request for the person who decides.

Daily programme

Warm-up, AI or Not: the group sorts everyday school systems into AI, not AI, and cannot tell - attendance software, spellcheck, the panel in the learning platform that flags a struggling pupil, the exam add-on that marks multiple choice, the translation tool the office uses for letters home. The disagreements set the day's agenda. The activity is taken from the European Commission and OECD's AI literacy framework, where it is written for pupils; here it runs with adults.
Two different machines, two different failures: what a predictive system is doing when it flags a pupil, and what a generative system is doing when it writes a comment about one. Why the first fails quietly and consistently, and the second fails loudly and unpredictably.
Why a wrong answer reads well: pattern completion, confident tone, invented citations, plausible but non-existent detail. Participants run the same subject-specific request on the general-purpose assistant their own school permits - in practice ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini or Claude, and often more than one in the same room - and the group collects the errors into one shared set. Running several assistants side by side on one request is itself the lesson: they do not agree, and the disagreement is visible to anyone.
Accept, revise or reject: applying the test to that shared set - consulting a trusted source, judging it against what the task actually required, and writing down the reason for each decision. The reason is the point; the verdict on its own is not teachable.
Output: a one-page note on a single tool already in use in your school - what it is for, what it is not for, and what you would need to check before trusting it with something that matters.

Warm-up, four corners: participants move to AI only, AI-supported, human only or not sure as the trainer reads out tasks from a teacher's actual week, from writing a parent email to deciding a borderline grade. The not sure corner is where the day starts.
Taking a unit apart: one unit you teach, broken into its real steps - choosing the focus, finding sources, setting the task, drafting, giving feedback, redrafting, assessing. Each step marked for what AI could automate, what it could support, and what carries the learning and must stay in human hands.
The three uses teachers reach for first, each tried on your own unit: drafting differentiated versions of a task, adapting a text for reading level or a second language, and producing first-draft formative comments. In every case the review step is written into the workflow before the workflow is used.
Reading a tool instead of its marketing: taking the teacher-facing platforms colleagues actually recommend - MagicSchool AI, Diffit, Curipod, Khanmigo and whatever is already built into your learning platform - and going to their published documentation rather than their front page. What does the provider itself say about who the tool is for, how it decides what a pupil sees next, what data it needs, and what it states it cannot do? Where a school cannot obtain that documentation at all, the absence is itself the finding, and it is one a purchasing decision should turn on.
Where this course stops: choosing between specific personalisation products, tool by tool, is the work of our separate course on AI in personalised learning. This week decides whether a step should be automated at all, which is the decision that comes first.
Output: one teaching sequence for a real unit, marked step by step, with the human review point named at each place AI enters.

Where the rules already sit, in plain terms, and what they change on Monday: inferring pupils' emotions with AI has been prohibited in education since February 2025; transparency duties on AI-generated content, deepfakes and chatbots have applied since 2 August 2026; the AI-literacy duty on schools as deployers, rewritten in July 2026, is now a duty to take measures rather than to guarantee a result; and four education uses are listed as high-risk - deciding admission, evaluating learning outcomes, deciding the level of education a pupil gets, and monitoring pupils during tests - with the obligations attached to them deferred to December 2027. Participants mark which of the four, if any, already happen in their own school, and who currently signs them off. This is not compliance training and not legal advice; it is a map of where the serious decisions sit.
Building the marking workflow: participants write a feedback and marking procedure for one class - the request they will make of the tool, the rubric it works from, the review rule, and the sentence that tells pupils what was drafted by a machine.
Running it against real answers: the course supplies an anonymised set of pupil responses at a range of levels, across several subjects, including answers written by pupils working in a second language. Each participant runs their own workflow over the set, then compares the machine's comments with their own professional judgement on the same scripts. Where it helped, where it was confidently wrong, and where it was unfair to a particular kind of pupil.
Why detection is not evidence: participants run the same texts through the free detectors pupils and teachers actually reach for, GPTZero and ZeroGPT, and see the verdicts disagree in front of them. Both were among the seven commercial detectors in the peer-reviewed study that ran 91 TOEFL essays written by non-native English speakers: more than half were misclassified as AI-generated, one detector flagged nearly all of them, and essays by American eighth-graders were correctly identified as human more than nine times out of ten. For a mixed-language European classroom that is not a margin of error, it is a pattern with a direction. What a school can defensibly do instead - assessment design, evidence of process, and a conversation with the pupil.
What must never go into the tool: working through the guidelines' privacy questions on the workflow just built, and identifying who at your own school answers a data protection question.
Output: a written marking and feedback rule for one class, including what pupils are told.

Equity audit: the same request run across different pupil profiles - a fluent writer and a pupil working in a second language, a confident reader and a struggling one, a pupil with additional needs - with the differences documented. The recurring finding to look for is the point at which personalisation quietly becomes a smaller task with a lower ceiling.
What the class sees: the names, faces, examples and reading passages a tool produces for a lesson, and who is missing from them. Turning that from a private worry into a lesson pupils can run themselves.
Telling pupils, in their own words: drafting a short statement for your class - which tools are used here, what for, what happens to work that goes into them, and what a pupil does if they think a decision about them was wrong. Written at the age of the class you actually teach, not in policy language.
The conversation with families: what to say when a parent asks whether their child's work goes into an AI system, who can see it, and whether a machine had a hand in the grade - and what your school is in a position to answer honestly today.
Output: the pupil-facing statement, plus a plan for the lesson in which you introduce and discuss it.

Where the week actually reached: scoring yourself against the framework's Acquire descriptors in all five aspects, and naming what the Deepen level would require. An honest map of a starting point, not a claim to have finished.
Two columns: the European Commission's guiding questions are printed one column for the teacher and one for the school. The week's open items get sorted the same way - what you can change on your own, what needs one willing colleague, and what only somebody with a budget or a signature can answer.
Writing the request: one page for the person who decides. What is being asked for, which of the guidelines' questions it answers, what it costs, and what continues to happen if nothing changes.
Planning the session you will run at home: the forty minutes with colleagues after you get back, built around the five documents you are carrying rather than a slideshow about the trip.
Where to keep learning: the free European instruments for continuing this on your own, including SELFIE for Teachers, the Commission's free self-reflection questionnaire on digital competence, and the European School Education Platform.
Course evaluation and feedback survey; certificates.

Please note: sessions run from 09:30 to 15:00, Monday to Friday, with a break for lunch. Timings can shift a little to suit the venue and the group. If you'd like a specific topic covered, let us know when you apply — the confirmed day-by-day schedule is sent to registered participants ahead of the course.

Certificate: we issue the Certificate of Attendance to everyone who's present for at least 80% of the course — tracked with the daily sign-in sheet (see Certificate & assessment).

Equipment: a few of our courses ask participants to bring a laptop — check the day-by-day programme above, or ask us if you're not sure.

Need a formal invoice or proforma for your school's records? Ask us — we issue official invoices with the participant's name and course details.

Materials & tools

UNESCO, AI Competency Framework for Teachers (2024) - the five aspects and three progression levels that structure the week.

European Commission, Guidelines on the ethical use of artificial intelligence and data in teaching and learning for educators, revised edition (Publications Office of the European Union, 2026) - the guiding questions in their teacher and school columns, and the worked school scenarios.

European Commission and OECD, Empowering Learners for the Age of AI: An AI Literacy Framework for Primary and Secondary Education (2026) - the nineteen pupil competences, used for the classroom activities.

The articles of the EU Artificial Intelligence Act that apply to schools, in their current wording - used on Day 3 to establish what the documents say, not to give legal advice.

These four documents are worked on during the week rather than handed over as background reading. All of them are official and freely available online.

Tools used during the week: the general-purpose assistant your own school permits (ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini or Claude); the published documentation of teacher-facing platforms such as MagicSchool AI, Diffit, Curipod and Khanmigo; and the free detectors GPTZero and ZeroGPT. None of these is a product this course endorses or requires you to adopt.

Certificate & assessment

This is a Certificate of Attendance, not an exam-based qualification — recognition comes from completing the structured programme, not from passing a test. The real, lasting value is in the competencies listed above under What you'll take home.

Erasmus Mobility Academy

Certificate of Attendance

AI-Assisted Learning for the 21st Century Classroom · 5 days · 25 hrs

+ Europass Mobility document

Type your name above — clearly marked "SAMPLE" in the PDF, not an official document.

The real certificate is signed by your trainer and EMA's authorised signatory. Your own signature isn't on this document — it's captured separately, on the Europass Mobility document.

Need to verify a real certificate? Check it online using the serial number and participant's full name, or contact us directly — [email protected], OID E10304561.

Attendance

Tracked using a sign-in sheet with one signature per participant per day (paper or digital). This record is used to issue your Certificate of Attendance and Europass Mobility document. View sign-in sheet (PDF)

Output

Every participant leaves with a completed Dissemination & School Impact Plan — a step-by-step template for applying the course back at your school (see below).

Feedback

An end-of-course evaluation form is sent to every participant after the course ends — a chance to reflect on what you've learned and how you'll apply it, and it helps us keep improving the course for future participants.

Your paperwork

Keep your travel tickets, boarding passes and (if you used green travel) any related receipts — your school or National Agency may ask for these for their own Erasmus+ reporting.

How to prepare

Bring a laptop - it is used every day, and a tablet is not enough for the marking and documentation work on Days 3 and 5.

Check before you travel that you can sign in to one general-purpose assistant - ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini or Claude. Any one of them is enough, and many schools already provide Copilot or Gemini inside their existing Microsoft or Google account. Networks and national rules differ, so check at home rather than on the first morning.

If everything is blocked on your school's account, tell us when you register and you will work in a pair. Nobody sits out a session.

Useful if you have it, and no problem if you do not: a link to your school's AI or ICT policy, and a rough idea of which AI tools your school already permits or pays for. If your school has no policy and nobody is sure what is switched on, say so - that is a common situation and the week is built to work from it.

You do not need to bring pupil work. All the sample responses used in the marking sessions are supplied on the course, already anonymised, at a range of levels and across several subjects. Please do not bring identifiable pupil work of any kind.

The unit you work on across Days 2 and 3 is one you already teach - you sketch it out in the room on the first morning, so there is nothing to prepare in advance.

No coding or technical background is needed, and no software has to be installed.

AI rules differ from one country and one school to the next, and they are moving quickly. Before you register, check what your own ministry and your own school currently permit staff to use with pupil work. We cannot make that call for you, and the week is far more useful when you arrive already knowing where your limits sit.

Practical information

Registration & documents

Not sure how registering works or what paperwork is involved? See our full Registration & Documents guide — from applying to your Certificate of Attendance, in one place.

Invitation letter

Need a formal invitation letter for your school or embassy? Request one — we send it within 2 business days. See a sample (PDF).

Learning Agreement

Prepared by our staff and sent to you and your school once your registration form is submitted — see what it looks like. See a sample (PDF).

Billing & invoicing

We issue official invoices/proformas with the participant's name and course details — ask us. Payment is due in full by bank transfer before the course start date. See a sample (PDF).

Airport transfer

Guidance on getting from the nearest airport to the venue is included in your welcome information.

Accommodation

We can recommend partner hotels close to the venue in the host city — ask us when you apply.

For your school / proposal

School impact

After completing this Artificial Intelligence course, the participating staff member can transfer outcomes directly to their school: a short briefing for colleagues sharing the key takeaways, applying relevant tools or strategies from the programme in their own role, and inclusion of the course materials in the school's professional development resources — turning one person's mobility into a wider institutional gain that supports the school's European Development Plan. Use the Dissemination & School Impact Plan below to fill in your own — it saves as you go and can generate a one-page summary for your coordinator too.

Prefer a blank, course-independent version of this template? Get it here →

After the course

Participants will receive their certificates (Certificate of Attendance + Europass).

Participants will complete a general course evaluation and event survey.

Participants will receive course materials, videos, photos, and PDF documents in both digital and print formats.

Follow-up support: an email group is created for idea exchange, self-evaluation materials are provided, and participants receive a follow-up check-in after 3 months - the conversation is about the documents produced during the week, whether the marking rule survived contact with a real set of scripts, how pupils reacted to the statement written for them, and what answer, if any, came back to the request sent up the school.

Frequently asked

This course is an eligible training activity under Erasmus+ Key Action 1 (School Education Mobility) — the course fee, travel and subsistence fall within the eligible cost categories. Whether it is covered depends on your own project's approved grant agreement and your National Agency's rules; we provide all the invoices, attendance records and certificates your National Agency requires for reporting.

B1 is enough — you do not need to be fluent. Trainers speak slowly and plainly, every session is built around doing something rather than sitting and listening, and groups are mixed by nationality so people help each other out. A rough test: if you could follow a staff meeting held in English and ask a question in it, you will be fine here.

Absolutely — group bookings of 3+ from one school receive priority placement, and we can schedule a dedicated session for groups of 12 or more.

Our courses run on request at our centres in Antalya, İstanbul, İzmir, Mersin, Budapest, Bremen and Rome. Tell us your preferred city and dates and we will arrange a session.

Tuition, all course materials, both certificates (attendance + Europass Mobility) and a half-day guided tour of the host city with a local guide. Flights, accommodation and travel insurance are booked separately — we send a vetted hotel list.

You can move to any later session free of charge. Cancellations made 30+ days before the start date receive a full refund; a reduced refund applies closer to the date — see our full Cancellation & Refund Policy for the exact schedule.

The Erasmus+ Programme Guide opens its digital transformation priority with the sentence "To support the successful digital transformation and address societal challenges such as AI or disinformation more effectively Europe needs education, training and youth systems that are fit for the digital age", and goes on to describe the programme as playing "a key role in supporting citizens of all ages in acquiring the digital skills and competences they need to live, learn, work, exercise their rights, be informed, access online services, communicate, critically consume, create and disseminate digital education content" (Erasmus+ Programme Guide 2026, Part A - Priorities of the Erasmus Programme). This course works through a named international competence framework for teachers and returns written classroom procedures a school can put into its own digital transformation plan. Frame it in your own project's terms — your National Agency's current call will confirm exactly how it applies.

No. The week starts from what an AI system is actually doing and stays there; nothing is installed, nothing is programmed, and no prior AI use is assumed. It does assume you teach, or support teaching, and can talk about a unit you already deliver. There is nothing to prepare beyond a laptop and an assistant you can sign in to.

No, and nobody should tell you otherwise. Day 3 works through what the relevant articles say and which questions a school needs to be able to answer. It is not legal advice, and compliance is a decision for your school and its legal authority. What you take home is the ability to recognise which questions apply to your own classroom, and who at your school has to answer the rest.