Case #1: Visualizing the Past
Card 1: Teacher Information
Veera is a classroom teacher working at a primary school in Finland. Since Finnish education emphasizes inquiry-based learning and critical thinking, she wants her students to actively analyze historical concepts rather than simply memorizing the information during her Environmental Studies lessons.
To engage her students, Veera decides to use historical images as primary sources and have students generate their own AI-created interpretations of the historical concepts such as "past vs. present".
Card 2: Instructional Use
Veera implements her lesson by:
-Step 1: Showing students a real historical painting depicting a village in the past and asking them to identify historical details (e.g., clothing, buildings, daily life).
-Step 2: Dividing the students into small groups and instructing them to use DALL-E (an AI-powered image generation tool in ChatGPT) to create an image that represents a village in the past.
She guides them with prompts like "Generate an image of a village in the past."
She also shows them an example video of how DALL-E can be used to create images (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J683kmIfI5s).
-Step 3: Having the students compare AI-Generated vs. Real Historical Sources
Once the AI images are generated, students compare them with the original historical painting and realize the inaccuracies between the real historical painting and AI-generated images.
Card 3: Solution
✅ To encourage students to think critically about AI-generated images vs. real historical sources, Veera facilitates a classroom discussion by asking:
What looks different in the AI-generated image and the real historical painting? Why do you think this happened?
Do you think AI understands history, or is it just guessing based on existing images?
How can we check if a picture really shows how things looked in the past?
If AI gets history wrong, who is responsible for correcting it?
Card 4: User Reflection
Imagine you are Veera.
🔹 What would you do in this case?
🔹 What would you suggest to Veera to help students critically evaluate AI-generated content, illustrating historical concepts such as "the past"?
👉 Write your reflection in the text box below. Your insights will contribute to a shared discussion on the responsible use of AI in education.
Case #2: Vocabulary Development in a Multilingual Classrooms
Card 1: Teacher Information
Minna is a 1st-grade teacher with 3 years of experience, working at a Finnish primary school. She teaches in a linguistically diverse classroom. Some of her 1st graders are Finnish-speaking, while others are learning Finnish as a second language. To support vocabulary learning for all learners, she decides to use GrammarlyGO (an AI tool that helps simplify and rephrase text) to generate age-appropriate definitions and example sentences for new words they encounter in class.
She prompts the tool by typing:
"Give me a simple explanation and an example sentence for the word 'metsä' (forest) for a 1st grader."
The tool produces examples like:
"A forest is a big area with many trees. We went hiking in the forest."
Minna prints these out and uses them as support cards for both native and non-native speakers.
Card 2: Ethical Challenge
Minna begins to notice:
The AI-generated vocabulary support often favors native Finnish speakers.
Some of the definitions and example sentences include vocabulary or contexts that assume fluency, making them difficult for second-language learners to understand.
Additionally, the examples sometimes reflect only majority culture experiences, leaving out diverse perspectives found in her classroom.
Despite using simplified prompts, the tool does not adjust its output based on the varying needs of her students. While the AI appears neutral, Minna realizes it may unintentionally reinforce inequity by offering more accessible support to some students than others.
She asks herself: ''Can I continue using this tool if it benefits certain learners more than others and fails to promote equal learning opportunities for all?''
Card 3: Possible Solutions
Imagine you are Minna.
🔹 What would you do in this case?
🔹 What would you suggest to the teacher?
👉 Select from the box(es) below. Your insights will contribute to a shared discussion on the responsible and ethical use of AI in education
Multiple Choice Answers:
A: Test the AI outputs with both native and non-native speakers to check if they support all learners equally.
B: Use the same AI-generated content for all students to maintain consistency, even if it’s harder for some.
C: Adjust prompts and add teacher support where necessary to ensure that explanations are clear and inclusive.
D: Talk with colleagues about the possible strategies on how AI can be used fairly to support students from different language backgrounds.
Case #3: Curriculum Design in Music Education
Card 1: Teacher Information
Matias is a classroom teacher in a Finnish primary school, teaching music education. This year, he has been asked to design a new curriculum module for his students, aligning with the Finnish National Core Curriculum. He wants the curriculum to reflect student-centered and hands-on learning, as emphasized in Finnish education.
To make the process more efficient, Matias decides to use Eduaide AI (an AI-powered tool for curriculum design and lesson planning) to generate a structured curriculum module outline.
Card 2: Instructional Use
Matias prompts Eduaide AI:
"Generate a curriculum module for primary school music education in Finland, including key objectives, activities, and assessments."
While the AI-generated curriculum provides a well-structured plan, Matias quickly identifies several issues:
The content lacks adaptability. It focuses on predefined lesson sequences and standardized activities, leaving little room for improvisation, group collaboration, or student-driven musical exploration, which are key aspects of Finland's music education approach.
The assessment methods are too traditional. The AI prioritizes technical skill evaluation over student-led musical exploration, limiting opportunities for creative experimentation with instruments and sounds.
Matias realizes that while AI provides a helpful starting point, it does not fully capture the Finnish educational approach.
Card 3: Possible Solution
Matias modifies his prompt to be more specific:
"Generate a curriculum module for primary school music education in Finland that emphasizes student-led exploration, improvisation, and group collaboration."
This improves the AI-generated output, but Matias knows further refinement is needed.
✅ To ensure the curriculum aligns with national guidelines, Matias:
Reviews the ´Finnish National Agency for Education´ curriculum to verify the AI-generated learning objectives and teaching strategies.
Consulting colleagues for insights on designing student-led learning experiences.
Card 4: User Reflection
Imagine you are Matias.
🔹 What would you do in this case?
🔹 What would you suggest to Matias to enhance his AI-assisted curriculum planning and ensure better alignment with the Finnish National Education guidelines?
👉 Write your reflection in the text box below. Your insights will contribute to a shared discussion on the responsible use of AI in education.
Case #4: Math Feedback and Scoring
Card 1: Teacher Information
Sari is a 2nd-grade teacher, working at a Finnish primary school. She teaches early math concepts such as counting, recognizing patterns, and solving simple addition problems.
To support independent practice, she introduces Khan Academy Kids (an AI-powered learning app that uses adaptive learning technology to personalize tasks and give instant feedback to learners).
Students solve simple math problems about those early math concepts using tablets. The app automatically adjusts the difficulty level and shows progress with stars, happy faces, or "level up" sounds. Sari uses the app's built-in analytics to check how each student is doing.
Card 2: Ethical Challenge
At first, the tool seems fun and engaging but Sari soon notices:
Some students who struggle with reading instructions or navigating the tablet get lower scores, even though they understand the math
The app rewards speed and accuracy, which can unfairly favor quick, confident users
Learners who use assistive features like audio support may progress more slowly, causing them to appear "behind" in the analytics
Students start comparing their "levels," leading some to feel discouraged
Sari later realizes that the AI-based tool:
Doesn't clearly account for diverse learning needs
May unintentionally disadvantage certain students, even if the content is well-designed
Appears neutral but may reproduce classroom inequalities through subtle scoring biases
She asks herself: Can I use AI-generated scores or feedback if they favor some learners over others?
Card 3: Possible Solutions
Imagine you are Sari.
🔹 What would you do in this case?
🔹 What would you suggest to the teacher?
👉 Select from the box(es) below. Your insights will contribute to a shared discussion on the responsible and ethical use of AI in education
Multiple Choice Answers:
A: Use the AI scores as the main basis for evaluating students, since it ensures objectivity.
B: Check how the tool scores performance and whether it accounts for differences in reading speed or support needs.
C: Combine AI feedback with your own observations to better understand each student’s abilities and progress.
D: Give alternative tasks or formats for students who need more time or support, ensuring they can demonstrate learning without pressure.
Case #5: Activity Questions for Exploring Materials
Card 1: Teacher Information
Veli is a primary school teacher with 12 years of teaching experience. He is teaching 2nd graders, and the topic is exploring materials and their properties (e.g., soft, hard, wet, dry). Next week, he is going to prepare a play-based assessment on this topic.
Since he has limited time, he decides to use ChatGPT to generate simple observation-based or hands-on activity questions. He asks for interactive assessment ideas, such as sorting objects by texture, identifying materials in daily life, or discussing how water changes when it gets cold or warm.
Card 2: Instructional Use
Veli prompts ChatGPT with:
"Generate interactive, play-based assessment activities for 2nd graders on exploring materials and their properties (e.g., soft/hard, wet/dry, and how water changes when heated or cooled)."
After reviewing the output, he identifies two issues:
Some suggested activities are too abstract for young learners, requiring explanations beyond their developmental level.
A few activities do not align with hands-on, sensory exploration, relying too much on verbal questioning rather than real-world observation and play.
Card 3: Possible Solution
✅ To improve the quality of his assessment activities, Veli decides to try an alternative AI tool:
He generates a new set of interactive, hands-on activity ideas using Google Gemini after watching a short video about how to use it.
He compares the suggestions from ChatGPT and Gemini, evaluating which aligns best with student-centered, play-based learning.
He selects the most engaging and developmentally appropriate activities, refining them to create a balanced, exploratory assessment that encourages observation, discussion, and real-world connections.
Card 4: User Reflection
Imagine you are Veli.
🔹 What would you do in this case?
🔹 What would you suggest to Veli to appropriately use AI for assessment, which is engaging, age-appropriate, and accurate?
Case #6: Seasons and Weather
Card 1: Teacher Information
Eero is a second-grade teacher at a Finnish primary school with 8 years of teaching experience. He is teaching a unit on seasons and weather to his students within the scope of ´Environmental Studies´ class.
To create more personalized content and save time, he decides to use Microsoft Copilot to help generate weather-related worksheets and visual materials for his students.
He types prompts like:
"Create a worksheet for 2nd graders about spring weather in Finland."
"Make a fun quiz about the four seasons for early primary students."
Card 2: Ethical Challenge
The AI generates fast, polished materials, but Eero notices some odd or inaccurate phrases-such as describing the Finnish summer as "extremely hot," or including weather examples from other continents with no clear relevance.
Eero feels that the developers of Copilot should be accountable for such mistakes in educational contexts. However, he soon realizes:
There is very little information about who actually built the tool.
He doesn't know how Microsoft Copilot creates content.
The tool seems to rely on general web data, not Finland-specific educational sources.
Later, Eero raises a concern about accountability and finds himself asking: ´´Is it responsible to use content generated by an AI tool when the developers and their educational values are unknown?´´
Card 3: Possible Solutions
Imagine you are Eero.
🔹 What would you do in this case?
🔹 What would you suggest to the teacher?
👉 Select from the box(es) below. Your insights will contribute to a shared discussion on the responsible and ethical use of AI in education
Multiple Choice Answers:
A: Research Microsoft Copilot’s documentation to understand how the tool generates content and what data sources it uses.
B: Trust the tool’s generated content as-is because it was developed by a well-known tech company.
C: Consult your school’s digital learning coordinator to assess whether the tool is suitable for early primary education.
D: Use Copilot only for drafting ideas and revise or replace content to ensure it aligns with the curriculum.
Case #7: AI and Speech Writing
Slide 1: Introducing Context and Challenge
Susanna, a Finnish language and literature teacher in a lower secondary school, assigns a traditional task: each 9th grader writes a farewell speech as they finish school.
When the speeches are submitted, Susanna realizes that many students have used generative AI to write the entire text. The speeches sound polished but lack personal voice and authenticity. Susanna wonders: How can I ensure the students learn how to write a speech that reflects their own experiences?
Slide 2: Teacher’s Solution
Susanna decides to keep the AI option but adds a new requirement. Every speech must include personal experiences and memories from the student’s school years.
She explains that the goal is to make the speech meaningful and unique, something only the student can write.
Susanna also models this by sharing examples of authentic memories and discussing why they matter in a farewell speech.
Slide 3: User Reflection
Imagine you are Susanna.
🔹 What would you do in this situation?
🔹 How can teachers design assignments so that AI supports learning without replacing students’ personal voice and experiences?
Case #8: Technostress about AI
Slide 1: Introducing Context and Challenge
Jukka, a primary school teacher in a combined 3rd to 4th grade class, notices that his school is encouraging teachers to integrate generative AI tools into lessons. He sees colleagues experimenting with AI for lesson planning and creative writing tasks.
Jukka feels technostress:
He doesn’t fully understand the pedagogical benefits of AI.
He worries about falling behind professionally if he doesn’t adopt these tools.
The rapid pace of change and lack of clear guidance make him anxious: he is not sure what his role is when AI seems to do so much.
Slide 2: Teacher’s Solution
Instead of rushing into full adoption, Jukka aims to gain a sense of control and professional agency by the next actions. He…
Starts small: He chooses one simple AI-supported activity (e.g., generating vocabulary lists for Finnish language lessons).
Seeks support: Talks to his teaching partner, who is a more active user of generative AI in teaching, and shares his concerns.
Focuses on pedagogy first: Learns about how AI can support creativity and differentiation without replacing core teaching practices or the personal connection he has with the children in his class.
Advocates for training: Suggests to the school leadership that professional development sessions on AI literacy and ethics be organized.
Slide 3: User Reflection
Imagine you are Jukka.
🔹 What would you do in this situation?
🔹 How can the school support teachers in adopting AI without creating pressure or compromising pedagogical integrity?
Case #9: AI-Generated Exam
Slide 1: Introducing Context and Challenge
Lilja, a history teacher at a lower secondary school (yläkoulu), decides to experiment with generative AI to create a full exam on Finnish history. She hopes it will save time and make the exam more engaging.
When students take the exam, they notice that several questions and answer options don’t match what their textbooks contain. They raise concerns about the reliability of the exam and fairness of assessment. Later, Lilja’s colleague questions if the exam allows her to assess the students following the guidance of the Finnish National Core Curriculum and the local curriculum.
Slide 2: Teacher's Solution
Lilja acknowledges both the students’ concerns and her colleague’s observation. She realizes that the AI-generated exam may not fully reflect the curriculum or the textbooks used in class.
She decides to revise her practices by:
Cross-checking AI-generated questions against the curriculum and the used teaching material.
Keeping some AI-created questions but reframing them as supplementary or enrichment tasks to encourage critical thinking and comparison.
Explaining to the students how AI has been used and answering their concerns.
Lilja also uses this as a teaching moment: she discusses with her students how AI can produce useful but sometimes unreliable information, and why source evaluation is essential in both academic work and everyday life.
Slide 3: User Reflection
🔹Imagine you are Lilja. What would you do in this situation?
🔹How can teachers balance the efficiency of AI tools with the responsibility to ensure that assessment reflects the curriculum and supports student learning?
Case #10: Unequal Access to AI Tools
Slide 1: Introducing Context and Challenge
Olivia is a primary school teacher who also teaches music in grades 7–9. She is eager to explore generative AI to help plan lessons and create especially music-related materials.
She discovers that some of her subject teacher colleagues have access to a paid version of a generative AI tool. Olivia, however, was never informed about the pilot project through which these accounts were distributed.
When Olivia tries to use the free version, she quickly runs into limitations, such as restricted output length and fewer customization options. This makes her feel disadvantaged compared to her colleagues despite her own readiness to make use of the tools. Olivia feels frustrated by the situation.
Slide 2: Teacher's Solution
Olivia raises the issue with her principal, explaining how unequal access to AI tools can affect both her workload and the quality of materials she can provide to students.
Together, they agree on a plan:
The principal commits to greater transparency about pilot projects and resource distribution.
Olivia is invited to join the next phase of the pilot, ensuring she has equal access to the paid version.
In the meantime, Olivia adapts by combining the free AI tool with traditional resources, as well as collaborating with the other music teacher who has the full access.
Slide 3: User Reflection
🔹Imagine you are Olivia. What would you do in this situation?
🔹How can schools ensure fairness and transparency when introducing new digital tools like AI?