Skip to content
Idaho AI Classroom
All lessons
AI FluencyApplication9-12.AIF.AP.1

A Second Reader, Not a Ghostwriter

9–1050 minutes90 minutes (extend hands-on and discussion)

Standard quoted exactly

Use an AI tool to critique student work.

Example from the standards. A student can use AI to ask for editorial feedback on a written assignment and make use of that to improve their writing.

Student-friendly learning targets

  • I can ask a district-approved AI tool for editorial feedback on writing I already drafted, without asking it to write the piece for me.
  • I can compare human feedback and AI feedback on the same draft and decide what to keep, change, or reject.
  • I can follow this class's academic-integrity protocol and FERPA rules so I never upload another student's work or anyone's personal information.
  • I can record how I used AI critique so a teacher, parent, or future employer can see that the thinking is still mine.

Essential questions

  1. When does a second reader help my writing, and when does it start doing the writing for me?
  2. What does AI critique notice that a classmate or teacher might miss, and what does it get wrong?
  3. Who is responsible for the words that go out under my name?
  4. What information about me or my classmates must never go into an AI tool?

Objectives

  1. Students will submit a draft they wrote before class and use a critique-only prompt (or an offline critique checklist) to request editorial feedback.
  2. Students will complete a human-versus-AI feedback comparison on their own work, citing at least one keep, one change, and one reject with a reason.
  3. Students will apply the posted academic-integrity protocol, including disclosure of the tool and date.
  4. Students will strip names, student IDs, school names, and other PII from any text before it is pasted into a tool.
  5. Students will revise at least one sentence of their own draft based on a decision they can explain, not on automatic acceptance of AI suggestions.

Key vocabulary

Critique
Specific feedback on strengths and weaknesses of work that already exists, offered so the author can decide what to change. Critique is not a rewrite and is not a grade.
Ghostwriter
A person or tool that produces the writing that will be turned in under someone else's name. In this lesson, using AI as a ghostwriter is not allowed.
Human-in-the-loop
A model of interaction where a human is required to participate in a process, such as verifying, approving, or correcting, to ensure the accuracy, safety, and ethical alignment of AI-generated outcomes.
Personally Identifiable Information (PII)
Information that can be used to identify a specific person, such as a name, home address, phone number, email address, or student ID number.
Academic integrity
Doing your own thinking and giving honest credit for help. In this lesson it means drafting first, asking for critique rather than a rewrite, deciding what to take, and disclosing the tool you used.
Prompt
The instructions you give an AI tool. A critique prompt asks for feedback on a draft. A ghostwriter prompt asks the tool to produce the assignment.

Teacher background

Idaho standard 9-12.AIF.AP.1 is an application standard for grades 9–10: students use AI to critique work they already made. The standards document example is exact: a student asks for editorial feedback on a written assignment and makes use of that feedback to improve the writing. The pedagogy is non-negotiable. Students must bring a draft that existed before the AI step. If the chatbot writes the paper, the standard has not been met, and academic integrity has been broken. Treat the AI as a second reader sitting beside a human reader, not as the author. Build a visible human-versus-AI comparison so students practice judgment instead of copying suggestions. District-approved tools only; if the network is down or the tool is not approved, the printed critique checklist is the lesson, not a consolation prize. FERPA: student writing that includes a name or other identifiers is an education record. Never paste a classmate's work into any tool. Never put student ID numbers, addresses, phone numbers, or photos into a prompt. Use a public sample (not a student's paper) whenever you model on a projector. This lesson sits in Semester 1, Weeks 5–9 (pacing unit 'Think with it, not for it') next to cognitive-offloading and hallucination work, so pair generation with verification and hold the integrity conversation before high-stakes writing season.

Materials and prep

Materials

  • Student drafts written before this class (printed or digital). Collect a reminder two days prior. Do not allow 'I will have the chatbot write it now.'
  • Backup public sample paragraph about an Idaho place or event (Craters of the Moon, a Snake River flood year, a school garden) for absentees only; they treat it as practice and apply the protocol to their real draft as homework.
  • Posted Academic Integrity Protocol poster (eight steps, see prep).
  • District-approved AI writing tool, teacher account for the model; student accounts only if the district data-privacy agreement allows them.
  • Printed Critique Checklist (offline fallback and required companion even when the tool is online): claim, evidence, organization, word choice, one confusing sentence, one strength.
  • Human vs. AI Feedback T-chart (three columns: Human said / AI said / I keep, change, or reject because).
  • Revision log slip: tool name, date, three decisions, one revised sentence.
  • PII strip card: names, school, teacher, student ID, email, phone, address, photos — black these out before any paste.
  • Timer and document camera or projector for the teacher model only.
  • Optional: sticky notes for the warm-up pair of comments.

Before class

  • Two school days before: remind students in class and in the learning-management system to bring a draft they already wrote for English, history, agriculture, or any other course. Name the rule: no draft, no AI step.
  • Confirm the district-approved tool and whether student logins are allowed. If not, run all live AI through the teacher account on a sample, and have students use the printed checklist on their own drafts.
  • Print enough Critique Checklists, T-charts, revision logs, and PII strip cards for the roster plus extras.
  • Post the Academic Integrity Protocol: (1) Draft first, without AI. (2) Use only your own work. (3) Strip all PII. (4) Prompt for critique, never 'rewrite this essay.' (5) Get one human reader (peer or teacher) on the same draft. (6) You decide keep / change / reject. (7) Disclose tool and date. (8) Never upload another student's work.
  • Prepare the public sample you will project. It must not be a current student's paper. Strip any leftover names.
  • Prepare two warm-up comments on that sample: one generic ('make it flow better') and one specific ('your second sentence names the lava, but the next three sentences repeat 'then we walked' without a new image').
  • Offline plan: if the filter blocks the tool, teach the whole period on paper. The standard is still met if students critique with the checklist, compare with a human reader, and decide what to take.
  • 90-minute block: keep this sequence. Add about 20 minutes to the human-versus-AI comparison (full peer read-aloud plus written rationale) and about 15 minutes to discussion and reflection. Do not add a second AI generation task.

Instructional sequence

Which comment would you actually use?

5 min
  1. Project the public sample paragraph (Idaho place or event). Do not use a student's paper.
  2. Read two comments aloud. Comment A is vague and could have come from anywhere. Comment B names a sentence and a fix.
  3. Students vote with fingers: 1 for A, 2 for B. Cold-call two students to say which comment they would act on and why.
  4. Name the day's claim: a second reader is useful when the feedback is specific and the writer still decides. AI can be that reader. It cannot be the ghostwriter.

Critique protocol, modeled on a public sample

10 min
  1. Read the standard aloud exactly: 'Use an AI tool to critique student work.' Read the example exactly: 'A student can use AI to ask for editorial feedback on a written assignment and make use of that to improve their writing.'
  2. Walk the eight-step Academic Integrity Protocol on the wall. Pause on step 2 and step 8: never paste a classmate's draft into a tool, even to 'be helpful.'
  3. Show the PII strip card on the sample. Cross out any name, school, or teacher. Say: FERPA treats student work with identifiers as an education record. This class does not put education records into unapproved systems.
  4. Contrast two prompts on the board. Ghostwriter: 'Write a five-paragraph essay about Craters of the Moon for English 9.' Critique: 'I already wrote this draft. Do not rewrite it. Name one strength, then give three specific editorial suggestions about evidence, organization, or word choice. Quote the sentence you mean. Keep my voice.'
  5. If the approved tool is available, run the critique prompt on the public sample from the teacher account. If not, read a printed set of critique notes you prepared earlier on that same sample. Label them 'AI-style notes' so students see the genre.
  6. Think aloud on one suggestion you would reject ('it asked me to add a statistic I do not have') and one you would take ('it caught that I used 'then' four times'). The human decides.

Build the class critique prompt and a human first-read

10 min
  1. In pairs, students write one sentence they want the second reader to focus on (for example: 'Does my claim about irrigation actually match the example in paragraph two?').
  2. Harvest three of those sentences and fold them into a class critique prompt on the board. Required lines: 'This is my draft. Do not rewrite it. Do not add new facts I did not write. Point to sentences.'
  3. Human first-read: pairs swap their own drafts (paper or screen, not into AI). Each reader has three minutes to mark one strength and one confusing sentence on the Critique Checklist. They return the paper to the author. No one types another person's sentences into a tool.
  4. Check for PII: authors look at their own draft and black out their name, header, and any friend names before the AI step.
  5. Show where the T-chart will go: left column is the human reader, middle is AI, right is the author's decision.

AI (or checklist) critiques my draft; I decide

12 min
  1. Students who have a pre-written draft and an approved tool paste only the stripped draft plus the class critique prompt. They are not allowed to add 'now rewrite the whole thing.'
  2. Students without network access, without an approved login, or whose draft is on paper only use the printed Critique Checklist as the 'AI-style' second reader. They still complete the T-chart using the checklist in the middle column.
  3. Absentees who brought no draft use the public sample for practice only and note on the revision log 'practice sample — will apply to my draft tonight.'
  4. Every student records three decisions on the T-chart: one keep, one change, one reject, each with a because-clause. Example reject: 'It told me to cite a 2021 DEQ report I never read, so I will not add it.'
  5. Students revise one sentence in their own handwriting or typing. The revision must be something they can explain to a neighbor in twenty seconds.

Real-world examples

  • An FFA officer at Filer or Minico High asks a district chatbot to flag unclear transitions in a prepared public-speaking draft, then sits with the advisor and keeps only the notes that match the actual speech time limit.
  • A reporter at a local Idaho paper runs a style checker on a draft about a county commission meeting, then verifies every name and vote against the minutes because the checker cannot attend the meeting.
  • A safety coordinator at a Magic Valley processing plant uses AI to mark confusing steps in a lockout procedure, then a supervisor who has done the job on the floor decides what language stays.
  • A 10th grader writing a college-prep personal statement about working a harvest uses AI to catch repeated words, then rejects a suggestion to add a 'life lesson' the student does not believe.
  • An English 9 teacher in Idaho Falls gives the same protocol for a narrative about the Greenbelt: AI may comment; it may not invent a memory of Boise the student does not have.

Hands-on activity

Human vs. AI T-chart, then one defended revision

8 min
  1. Students finish the three-column T-chart. If a cell is empty, they must write 'none' and say why, not leave it blank.
  2. Stand-up pair share: 45 seconds each. Prompt: 'One piece of AI feedback I rejected, and why the human reader was more useful — or the reverse.'
  3. Spot-check: teacher collects three revision logs at random (names already on the log; drafts themselves are not uploaded). Look for a because-clause, not just 'I fixed it.'
  4. Block extension (90 minutes): add a second human reader from a different class period's protocol (still no AI on anyone else's work), then a short gallery of anonymous 'reject' reasons on the board. Discuss whether AI flatters the writer more than a classmate does.

Discussion questions

  1. If the AI praise is always glowing, how should that change how much you trust the critique?
  2. When would a teacher, a parent, a shop boss, or a teammate be a better second reader than a chatbot?
  3. What is the difference between using AI to notice a repeated word and using AI to invent a story you did not live?
  4. Why is pasting a classmate's paper into a tool a FERPA and integrity problem even if you 'only wanted to help'?
  5. How will you disclose AI critique on the next paper in this class so the credit is honest?
  6. What happens to your writing muscle if every draft is born inside a chatbot?

Differentiation

Support

  • Provide sentence stems on the T-chart: 'The human reader said ___. The AI said ___. I will ___ because ___.'
  • Allow a partner to read the student's draft aloud while the author marks the checklist; the partner still never types that draft into AI.
  • Offer a shorter critique prompt that asks for only one strength and one suggestion.
  • Accept the revision as an oral explanation recorded by the teacher if writing output is the barrier, not the thinking.

Challenge

  • Find one claim in the AI critique that is a hallucination (a source, fact, or quote the draft never contained) and document it on the revision log.
  • Write a one-paragraph memo to a younger student: when to use AI as a reader and when to close the tab.
  • Compare two critique prompts on the same public sample (not a peer's paper) and explain which produced more usable feedback.

Multilingual learners

  • Students may draft and request critique in the language of the assigned task. If the assignment is English, the critique is on English; if the assignment is Spanish, the critique may be in Spanish.
  • Pre-teach critique, draft, reject, disclose, and PII with home-language equivalents on a pocket card.
  • Allow the T-chart because-clauses in the language the student thinks in; the revised sentence should match the assignment language.

IEP / 504

  • Extra time on the independent step; the T-chart can be completed in the resource room the same day.
  • Speech-to-text for the because-clauses if that is an approved accommodation; still no uploading of another student's audio.
  • Reduced load: one keep and one reject instead of three decisions, with the same quality of reason.
  • Large-print checklist and a quiet copy of the protocol. Do not require the student to log into an unapproved tool as a condition of credit.

Assessment

Formative

  • Warm-up vote plus one spoken reason.
  • PII strip visible on the draft before any paste.
  • T-chart in progress during independent practice; teacher circulates for empty because-clauses.

Summative

  • Completed revision log: tool or checklist named, date, one keep, one change, one reject with reasons, and one revised sentence from the student's own draft.
  • Exit ticket: 'In one sentence, how is a second reader different from a ghostwriter?'

Success criteria

  • The draft used for critique existed before the AI or checklist step (or is clearly labeled as the public practice sample).
  • No classmate's work was entered into a tool.
  • The student can explain at least one rejected suggestion, showing that the human remained the decision-maker.
  • Disclosure is filled in. PII was stripped.

Responsible use, ethics, and privacy

Responsible use

AI is allowed in this lesson only as a second reader of work the student already drafted. Prompts that ask the tool to write, rewrite, or 'make it sound like a 10th grader' are out of bounds. Students use a district-approved tool or the paper checklist. They disclose the tool and date. They do not shop for a chatbot that will hide the help. Teachers model on public samples, never on a live student paper on the projector. If a student arrives without a draft, they practice on the public sample and complete the real protocol later; they do not generate a draft in the tool to 'catch up.'

Ethics

Honesty about help is part of becoming a colleague people can trust in shops, farms, hospitals, and newsrooms across Idaho. Passing off generated text as your own thinking steals practice from you and misleads the reader. Using AI to critique, then deciding what to take, keeps the human responsible for the words. Flattering or generic praise is a known failure mode; treating it as a grade is an ethical mistake. Ghostwriting for a classmate, with or without AI, is cheating and a privacy violation.

Privacy

FERPA protects education records, including student writing that identifies a student. Do not paste another student's work into any AI tool. Do not include student ID numbers, emails, phone numbers, home addresses, photos, medical notes, or a teacher's comments that name a student. Strip headers before paste. Teacher modeling uses a public sample. Student accounts exist only on district-approved tools covered by a data-privacy agreement. Printed drafts stay with the author. Offline path: nothing leaves the paper.

Reflection

  1. Which reader — human or AI — changed my next sentence, and what does that tell me about what I still need from people?
  2. What suggestion did I reject, and how would my paper have gotten worse if I had accepted it?
  3. Did I follow every step of the protocol, including PII and disclosure?
  4. Where in my week am I tempted to skip the draft and jump to the chatbot, and what will I do instead?

Homework

Finish the one-sentence revision if it was not done in class. Complete the revision log. If you used the public sample today, apply the full protocol (human reader plus critique checklist or approved tool) to a real draft from any class and bring both the T-chart and the original draft. Students without home internet use the printed checklist only. Do not upload anyone else's work. Optional: ask a family member to be the human reader for five minutes and add their comment to the left column.

Closing

Return to the title. A second reader points at sentences. A ghostwriter replaces you. Three volunteers share one rejected suggestion. Restate the non-negotiables: your draft first, your decisions, no one else's work in a tool, PII stripped, help disclosed. Point to the protocol on the wall and tell students it applies to the next paper in every class, not only this period. Collect revision logs as the exit ticket.

Extensions and cross-curricular links

Go further

  • Apply the same protocol to a lab report, an FFA speech, or a history short-answer, still with a human comparison.
  • Invite the librarian to show how citation of AI critique differs from citing a source used for evidence.
  • Build a class 'banned prompt' list (rewrite this, write the essay, make it sound smarter) and a 'allowed prompt' list.
  • In a 90-minute block, score a set of anonymous printed comments (teacher-prepared, not student papers) as specific or useless, then rewrite two useless comments into specific ones without using AI.
English Language Arts
Revision stage of the writing process: peer conference plus AI conference, with the author in charge of the next draft.
Agriculture / CTE
Critique a procedure write-up (for example, a potato-storage observation) for missing steps; a chatbot cannot stand in the cellar and check the thermometer.
Social Studies
Editorial feedback on a short argument about a local issue (water, land use, a city council agenda) must not invent quotations from officials.
Advisory / counseling
Academic-integrity conversation before research-paper season; practice disclosure language families can understand.