Your teachers have AI tools.
Give them a shared instructional process.
Turn your next AI professional-learning session into practical lesson-design work. CODE helps your team identify language demands, choose purposeful supports and plan for evidence of learning—with educators retaining instructional authority.
You’ve invested in tools and training. What changes in the next lesson?
When teachers sit down to plan, the hard questions remain: What language does this task demand? Which supports fit these learners? Are we preserving the rigor—or simply making the work easier?
Without a shared process, teachers work out those decisions individually. Specialists keep troubleshooting lesson by lesson. Leaders see polished materials without a clear way to judge whether they provide meaningful access.
That costs planning time, coaching capacity and clarity about what students understand. CODE gives your team a process for making—and discussing—those decisions.
Work your team can build on
Participants work on a real lesson and develop a draft package with:
- Explicit content and language demands.
- Purposeful entry points and scaffolds.
- AI instructions grounded in learner needs.
- A check for evidence of student understanding.
- Shared questions for the next planning or coaching conversation.
The work is a draft for professional review and classroom adaptation, not an automatic guarantee of student outcomes.
Four moves. Human judgment throughout.
Capture the language demands
Identify the content, language and participation demands students must navigate.
Organize by proficiency levels
Plan access around the range of language development and entry points in the room.
Design appropriate supports
Create supports that expand access while preserving the thinking and rigor.
Exit with evidence
Examine evidence of understanding and language use to decide what instruction should do next.
One task. Four decisions. See CODE at work.
This guided example shows the instructional decisions behind the materials. Open each step to see what changes. It is an illustrative walkthrough, not a live AI generator or a report of student results.
Students compare observations of similar plants grown under different light conditions and explain the pattern using evidence. A student identifies the pattern orally but struggles to write the explanation.
Start here: what would your team ask AI to do?
“Make the lesson easier” leaves the barrier undefined. Shorter text might help—or remove the reasoning students need to practise. First ask whether the difficulty is understanding the observations, comparing them, or expressing the explanation. The student’s oral response is evidence to investigate, not proof that every concept is secure.
C — Capture the language demands
The task requires comparison, a claim supported by observations, and language connecting evidence to reasoning. Identify expressions such as “compared with,” “the observations show” and “this suggests.” Distinguish an observed pattern from a causal claim the investigation may not establish.
Planning question: What must students read, say or write to show the intended understanding?
O — Organize by proficiency levels
Keep the observations and reasoning task consistent. Use proficiency information alongside current student work: some learners may need labeled observations and oral rehearsal; others may need comparative phrasing and evidence-linking language. A proficiency label does not tell us what a student knows about plants.
Planning question: Who needs which entry point to the same intellectual work?
D — Design appropriate supports
Offer an observation table, selected vocabulary and an optional frame: “Compared with __, __. The observations show __. This suggests __.” Students supply the pattern, evidence and reasoning. The teacher reviews AI suggestions for accuracy and fit.
Planning question: Does this support remove the barrier without doing the thinking for the student?
E — Exit with evidence
Where the objective permits, collect a brief oral or written explanation requiring the same pattern, observations and reasoning. Examine content understanding and language use separately. If writing is itself the objective, retain a supported written response.
Planning question: What does this response show—and what should we teach next?
“Using the task and observations provided, identify the language needed to compare observations and explain a pattern with evidence. Suggest supports using the anonymized learner information I provide. Keep the data and reasoning task unchanged. Do not supply the students’ conclusions. Explain the barrier each support addresses and flag claims for teacher review.”
AI supports every step. CODE structures the decisions. The teacher remains the instructional authority.
Understand the method. Apply it to a lesson.
See the design decisions
Work through an example and identify the language demands hidden inside a content task.
Build with CODE
Apply the framework to an existing lesson, using AI to assist with clearly defined design work.
Review the evidence
Check the supports, preserve the intellectual work and plan how to see what students understood.
Designed for school and district leaders, multilingual specialists and instructional coaches bringing professional learning to teachers—especially teams serving multilingual learners in grades 6–12. The 90-minute virtual session uses an existing lesson. Audience, technology arrangements, fee and timing are agreed before booking.
Practical details
What should participants bring?
An existing lesson or content task, a clear sense of their learners, and access to a school-approved AI tool if hands-on generation is planned. Use de-identified examples; student personal information is not needed.
Is this a general AI tools demonstration?
The session centers on instructional design and teacher judgment. AI supports the design work; the framework is the organizing method.
How do we arrange a workshop?
Send your team size, roles, grade range, goals and preferred dates. I will confirm fit, availability and a written quote. A date is reserved only after arrangements are agreed.
What about the CODE book?
The CODE manuscript is in author revision. It explores the instructional decisions behind the framework. The book is not yet available for purchase; the workshop gives teams a practical way to apply the method now.
Make your next PD session useful in the next planning conversation.
Tell me your team’s roles, grade range and lesson-design challenge. We’ll determine whether the CODE workshop fits your goals, calendar and budget.