Developing Communicative Competence and Media Literacy in Grades 10–11
Twenty-four complete 90-minute lesson plans • original comics • visual frameworks • printable worksheets • language support • assessment rubrics • answer guidance.
Choose a lesson to begin
Each lesson opens on its own page with tabs for every part.
Reference & support
Framework, rubrics and reusable templates.
Grade 10 — All Lessons
Twelve 90-minute lessons covering source verification, digital consent, manipulated media, persuasive campaigns, generative AI integrity, cyberbullying upstander skills, recommendation algorithms, greenwashing, phishing, app permissions, health misinformation and representation/AI bias.
Choose a lesson
Each lesson opens on its own page with tabs for every part.
Methodological Framework for Teachers
This resource adapts the staged comic-teaching sequence identified in the supplied model: orientation, familiarisation, commentary, textual analysis, productive communication and homework. It extends the model for contemporary English language education by integrating explicit media-literacy inquiry and performance-based assessment.
| Communicative competence | Media literacy |
|---|---|
| Interpret visual and verbal meaning; negotiate ideas; justify opinions; use functional language; collaborate; present a coherent message. | Identify source, purpose and audience; distinguish fact from claim; recognise emotional framing and omission; verify evidence; create ethical media. |
| Phase | Key question | Observable student action |
|---|---|---|
| Context | What situation, audience and platform are involved? | Predicts the situation and activates relevant language. |
| Observe | What do I literally see and read? | Describes panels without adding assumptions. |
| Meaning | How do words, images and sequence construct meaning? | Infers relationships and explains visual/verbal choices. |
| Interrogate | Who created the message, why, and what evidence is missing? | Questions source, purpose, framing, credibility and representation. |
| Create | How can I communicate responsibly and effectively? | Produces and defends an ethical comic or media response. |
- Display the comic without dialogue first. Give students silent observation time before discussion.
- Require students to separate observation (“I can see...”) from inference (“This may suggest...”).
- Move from pairs to groups to whole-class reporting so every learner rehearses language before public speaking.
- Treat verification as a communicative task: students must explain how they know, not merely name a source.
- Assess both the quality of English and the quality of media reasoning.
The comics contain deliberately empty speech bubbles. Teachers may use the supplied language banks, or ask learners to construct original dialogue. This converts visual interpretation into purposeful speaking and writing.
Viral or Verified? Checking a School Rumour
| Grade / level | Grade 10 • CEFR B1+ |
| Duration | 90 minutes (2 × 45) |
| Theme | Online news, rumours and source verification |
| Language focus | Reporting verbs; modals of certainty; agreeing/disagreeing; asking for evidence |
| Materials | Core comic, projector, worksheets, coloured cards or sticky notes |
| Final product | A completed comic dialogue and a 60-second verification briefing |
- Students will summarise a four-panel visual narrative using logical sequencing.
- Students will ask for and provide evidence using appropriate functional language.
- Students will distinguish observation, claim, evidence and conclusion.
- Students will apply a simple verification routine before sharing information.
- Students will collaboratively create and perform credible dialogue for the comic.
Lesson Architecture
Detailed Procedure
Stage duration in minutes across the 90-minute lesson (hover a segment for detail).
| # | Stage | Time | Teacher's actions / instructions | Students' actions | Interaction |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Orientation | 8 min | Display Panel 1 only. Say: “Observe silently. What can you see? What might have happened? Do not decide whether the message is true yet.” | Record two observations and one prediction; compare in pairs. | I → P |
| 2 | Familiarisation | 10 min | Reveal all panels in mixed order. Instruct: “Put the panels in the most logical order. Use because, therefore and however to defend your sequence.” | Sequence panels and orally justify decisions. | G |
| 3 | Expressive reading | 8 min | Read the model rumour aloud twice: once neutrally, once dramatically. Ask: “How did intonation change credibility and emotion?” | Identify stress, pace and emotional effect; repeat selected lines. | T ↔ C |
| 4 | Media commentary | 15 min | Introduce SIFT-Lite: Stop; Identify the source; Find better coverage; Trace to the original. Ask groups to apply it to the rumour. | Complete credibility questions and nominate one verification action. | G |
| 5 | Textual analysis | 12 min | Give Claim–Evidence–Conclusion chart. Prompt: “Which detail is a claim? What evidence would be sufficient?” | Separate facts from assumptions and formulate a provisional conclusion. | P |
| 6 | Communicative task | 17 min | Assign roles: Student A believes the post; Student B is cautious; Student C checks the source; Student D reports the conclusion. | Write dialogue in bubbles, rehearse and perform. | G → C |
| 7 | Productive stage | 12 min | Say: “Deliver a 60-second verification briefing: what circulated, what you checked, what you found, and what people should do.” | Present briefing; peers ask one evidence question. | G → C |
| 8 | Reflection | 8 min | Exit ticket: “Before I share a surprising post, I will...” and “One phrase I can use to question a claim is...” | Complete and submit exit ticket. | I |
Figure note: Original AI-generated educational comic created for this lesson (embedded at full original resolution). The empty speech bubbles are intentional and support student-generated language.
Each worksheet below is collapsed by default. Open a worksheet, then click a question to reveal its answer field.
Write O for an observation and I for an inference. Then add one detail from the comic.
Discuss every question before recording a group answer. Do not write “reliable” without a reason.
Complete the reasoning chain in precise English.
Create a four-part verification briefing: (1) state the circulating claim, (2) name the original source, (3) explain two checks, and (4) recommend an ethical action. Every group member must speak.
- Reflection: Complete “I used to think...; now I think...; next time I will...”.
- Homework: Find a non-sensitive public claim online. Do not repost it. Capture its wording, identify its source, complete SIFT-Lite, and write a 120–150-word verification note.
Differentiation and Inclusion
Provide a partially completed phrase bank and allow rehearsal with a partner.
Require a complete evidence-based dialogue and briefing.
Ask students to compare two sources and explain which is more authoritative and why.
- Panel sequence: surprising post → cautious discussion → official-source check → corrected conclusion.
- A source is not credible merely because it looks professional or has many views.
- Strong verification mentions the original source, date, corroboration and evidence.
- Accept different dialogues if they remain coherent, respectful and evidence-based.
Ask Before You Post: Consent and Digital Identity
| Grade / level | Grade 10 • CEFR B1+–B2 |
| Duration | 90 minutes (2 × 45) |
| Theme | Digital consent, privacy and respectful participation |
| Language focus | Requests; permission; refusal; apology; conditionals for consequences |
| Materials | Core comic, scenario cards, worksheet, projector |
| Final product | A consent-aware comic and a peer-advice role-play |
- Students will interpret emotion and interpersonal relationships from visual cues.
- Students will request, grant and refuse permission politely and clearly.
- Students will explain how framing, captions and audience affect digital identity.
- Students will evaluate ethical choices before publishing an image.
- Students will redesign an online post to protect dignity and context.
Lesson Architecture
Detailed Procedure
Stage duration in minutes across the 90-minute lesson (hover a segment for detail).
| # | Stage | Time | Teacher's actions / instructions | Students' actions | Interaction |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Orientation | 8 min | Show Panel 1. Ask: “What is visible? What is the photographer's possible intention? How might the photographed person feel?” | Separate visible detail from emotional inference. | I → P |
| 2 | Familiarisation | 10 min | Reveal the full comic. Say: “Give each panel a verb phrase. Then retell the story in four sentences.” | Label, sequence and retell. | P |
| 3 | Commentary | 12 min | Ask: “Who controls the image? Who is represented? Who may see it later? What context is missing?” | Use the Audience–Purpose–Impact lens. | G |
| 4 | Language focus | 12 min | Model direct but respectful consent language. Contrast weak consent (“You don't mind, right?”) with genuine choice. | Transform pressuring questions into neutral requests. | T ↔ C |
| 5 | Critical incident | 13 min | Distribute scenario cards: class group chat, public account, school website, disappearing story. Ask groups to rank risk. | Rank, justify and challenge one another's reasoning. | G |
| 6 | Role-play | 15 min | Assign photographer, subject, friend and moderator. Require a request, refusal or condition, apology and solution. | Perform a consent negotiation. | G → C |
| 7 | Productive stage | 12 min | Say: “Complete the bubbles and redesign the final post. Add a caption that does not embarrass or misrepresent anyone.” | Create ethical comic ending and explain design choice. | P |
| 8 | Reflection | 8 min | Use traffic-light self-assessment: green = ready to post; amber = ask/check; red = do not post. | Classify one new scenario and justify. | I → C |
Figure note: Original AI-generated educational comic created for this lesson (embedded at full original resolution). The empty speech bubbles are intentional and support student-generated language.
Each worksheet below is collapsed by default. Open a worksheet, then click a question to reveal its answer field.
Analyse the possible post before deciding whether it should be shared.
Rewrite each pressuring or vague line as a clear, neutral request.
Tick each box only when the answer is genuinely yes.
In pairs, create a new final panel that demonstrates genuine consent. Perform the dialogue, then explain how the image, audience and caption protect the subject's dignity.
- Reflection: Finish the sentence “Consent online is meaningful only when...”.
- Homework: Write a 140–170-word advice message to a younger student titled “Three Questions to Ask Before Posting Someone Else's Photo”. Include one conditional sentence and two permission phrases.
Differentiation and Inclusion
Offer emotion cards and sentence frames; allow students to choose a low-risk fictional scenario.
Require clear consent language and a reasoned ethical decision.
Ask students to discuss whether consent can be withdrawn and what responsible repair should involve.
- Genuine consent must be informed, specific, freely given and reversible.
- A disappearing post can still be copied, forwarded or remembered.
- Audience size is not the only factor; context, power and dignity also matter.
- A strong redesign changes both language and media choices, not only the final caption.
Can We Trust This Video? Detecting Manipulated Media
| Grade / level | Grade 11 • CEFR B2 |
| Duration | 90 minutes (2 × 45) |
| Theme | Manipulated video, synthetic media and verification |
| Language focus | Hedging; probability; evidence-based argument; reporting findings |
| Materials | Core comic, verification checklist, device or printed screenshots |
| Final product | A forensic dialogue and a structured credibility verdict |
- Students will describe audiovisual inconsistencies using precise language.
- Students will distinguish suspicion from proof and use appropriate hedging.
- Students will apply source, context, content and corroboration checks.
- Students will explain how visual authority and emotional framing influence belief.
- Students will present a balanced credibility verdict and responsible response.
Lesson Architecture
Detailed Procedure
Stage duration in minutes across the 90-minute lesson (hover a segment for detail).
| # | Stage | Time | Teacher's actions / instructions | Students' actions | Interaction |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Orientation | 8 min | Display Panel 1. Ask: “What makes this video appear authoritative? Which features may influence viewers before they check evidence?” | Identify setting, clothing, camera angle and emotional reaction. | I → P |
| 2 | Familiarisation | 10 min | Reveal panels. Instruct: “Write one neutral caption for each panel. Avoid saying fake until evidence is examined.” | Caption and sequence the investigation. | P |
| 3 | Media commentary | 14 min | Introduce four layers: Source, Context, Content, Corroboration. Model one question for each. | Generate questions and identify missing information. | G |
| 4 | Language focus | 10 min | Place certainty phrases on a continuum from possible to conclusive. Emphasise: “an anomaly raises suspicion; it does not prove manipulation.” | Rank phrases and revise overconfident claims. | T ↔ C |
| 5 | Forensic stations | 16 min | Set four stations: uploader/origin; date/context; visual/audio clues; independent coverage. | Rotate, record findings and rate strength of evidence. | G |
| 6 | Structured controversy | 14 min | Half the group argues “withhold judgment”; half argues “label as manipulated”; then students switch sides. | Use evidence and hedging; summarise the strongest opposing point. | G |
| 7 | Productive stage | 12 min | Say: “Complete the comic dialogue and deliver a verdict using Claim–Evidence–Limit–Action.” | Perform and present a cautious verdict. | G → C |
| 8 | Reflection | 6 min | Ask: “Which check most changed your confidence, and why?” | Write a two-sentence metacognitive response. | I |
Figure note: Original AI-generated educational comic created for this lesson (embedded at full original resolution). The empty speech bubbles are intentional and support student-generated language.
Each worksheet below is collapsed by default. Open a worksheet, then click a question to reveal its answer field.
Record what is known, what is uncertain and what action would reduce uncertainty.
Place each phrase on the continuum and add evidence that would justify it.
Use Claim–Evidence–Limit–Action. A responsible verdict must acknowledge uncertainty.
Prepare a 75-second credibility verdict using Claim–Evidence–Limit–Action. After presenting, answer one hostile or sceptical question without overstating certainty.
- Reflection: Write one clue that raises suspicion and one check that can provide stronger evidence.
- Homework: Create a one-page “Pause Before You Believe” guide for peers. Include four verification questions, three hedging phrases and one warning about the limits of visual clues.
Differentiation and Inclusion
Provide a glossary with anomaly, corroborate, original, context and manipulate; allow note-supported speaking.
Require all four verification layers and a qualified verdict.
Ask students to compare synthetic-media detection with traditional source verification and explain why technical tools alone are insufficient.
- Visual or audio anomalies are indicators, not conclusive proof.
- Stronger evidence comes from tracing the original, checking context and finding independent corroboration.
- A responsible verdict states both confidence and limitations.
- Students should not identify or speculate about a real person; the case is fictional and focuses on process.
Persuade Responsibly: Designing a School Media Campaign
| Grade / level | Grade 11 • CEFR B2 |
| Duration | 90 minutes (2 × 45) |
| Theme | Persuasion, evidence and ethical media production |
| Language focus | Persuasive devices; qualifying claims; proposing and negotiating |
| Materials | Core comic, campaign canvas, markers or digital design tools |
| Final product | A four-panel campaign comic and a 90-second pitch |
- Students will analyse how visual and verbal choices target an audience.
- Students will distinguish ethical persuasion from manipulation.
- Students will negotiate a campaign message and support it with proportionate evidence.
- Students will represent peers respectfully and avoid exaggerated claims.
- Students will create and defend a balanced school media campaign.
Lesson Architecture
Detailed Procedure
Stage duration in minutes across the 90-minute lesson (hover a segment for detail).
| # | Stage | Time | Teacher's actions / instructions | Students' actions | Interaction |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Orientation | 8 min | Show Panel 1. Ask: “What problem is the team addressing? Who could be affected? What assumptions are we making?” | Observe, infer and identify stakeholders. | I → P |
| 2 | Familiarisation | 10 min | Reveal the sequence. Say: “Summarise each panel with a production verb: plan, research, test, revise, publish.” | Construct the campaign workflow. | P |
| 3 | Commentary | 13 min | Present ethos, pathos and logos. Ask: “Which combination informs and motivates without misleading?” | Identify persuasive appeals and possible ethical risks. | G |
| 4 | Audience interview | 12 min | Give each group an audience profile. Instruct: “Ask three neutral questions; do not lead respondents.” | Role-play interviewers/respondents and record needs. | G |
| 5 | Evidence check | 12 min | Provide sample claims. Ask groups to label accurate, exaggerated, vague or unsupported and rewrite weak claims. | Qualify claims and identify evidence needs. | P |
| 6 | Design negotiation | 15 min | Assign editor, fact-checker, visual designer and audience advocate. Require consensus on message, image and call to action. | Negotiate and document design decisions. | G |
| 7 | Productive stage | 14 min | Say: “Complete the comic and pitch your campaign. Explain one persuasive choice and one ethical safeguard.” | Present; peers use rubric and ask a challenge question. | G → C |
| 8 | Reflection | 6 min | Ask: “What did you change after considering audience or evidence?” | Write one revision and its reason. | I |
Figure note: Original AI-generated educational comic created for this lesson (embedded at full original resolution). The empty speech bubbles are intentional and support student-generated language.
Each worksheet below is collapsed by default. Open a worksheet, then click a question to reveal its answer field.
Analyse the proposed campaign message before producing it.
Agree on every element. The fact-checker must approve the final claim.
Make each statement accurate, specific and useful.
Create a four-panel campaign comic: Problem → Investigation → Decision → Responsible call to action. Pitch it in 90 seconds and explain how evidence, audience and ethics shaped the final media message.
- Reflection: Complete “Our first idea was...; after checking audience/evidence, we changed... because...”.
- Homework: Produce a polished campaign post or comic with a 100–130-word rationale explaining target audience, evidence, persuasive choices and one ethical safeguard.
Differentiation and Inclusion
Offer a campaign template and a choice of sentence starters; allow hand-drawn or digital production.
Require one verified/qualified claim, audience rationale and ethical safeguard.
Ask students to A/B test two versions with peers and report how feedback changed the design.
- Ethical persuasion uses accurate, proportionate claims and transparent evidence.
- Emotion may engage an audience, but it must not replace facts or exploit fear.
- Strong calls to action are specific, realistic and appropriate to the audience.
- A campaign rationale should explain not only what was designed, but why each choice was made.
Too Good to Be True? Spotting Phishing and Social Engineering
Trust, urgency and authority are manipulated online to obtain money, credentials or confidential information. This lesson builds a calm, repeatable routine for recognising and refusing that pressure.
| Grade / level | Grade 10 • CEFR B1+–B2 |
| Duration | 90 minutes (2 × 45) |
| Theme | Phishing, urgency and trust manipulation |
| Language focus | Warning; questioning; refusing; verifying; reporting an incident |
| Media-literacy focus | Sender identity, urgency cues, suspicious requests, independent verification |
| Final product | A phishing-resistance comic and a 60-second safety advisory |
- Students will identify emotional and linguistic pressure cues in a suspicious message.
- Students will explain why familiarity, authority or urgency is not proof of legitimacy.
- Students will verify a message through an independently located official channel.
- Students will refuse requests for passwords, codes, money or confidential information.
- Students will report a fictional incident using clear factual language.
Lesson Architecture
Detailed Procedure
Stage duration in minutes across the 90-minute lesson (hover a segment for detail).
| # | Stage | Time | Teacher's actions / instructions | Students' actions | Interaction |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Orientation | 8 min | Show Panel 1 only. Ask: “What emotion is the message trying to create? What action does it want immediately?” | Identify the emotional trigger and requested action without clicking anything. | I → P |
| 2 | Familiarisation | 10 min | Reveal all panels. Say: “Give each panel an action verb and retell the story using first, however, instead and finally.” | Sequence: react, inspect, verify, report/delete. | P |
| 3 | Red-flag hunt | 12 min | Display a fictional message card. Instruct: “Underline pressure, sender problems, suspicious requests and unsafe links. Explain each red flag.” | Annotate and justify in groups. | G |
| 4 | Language focus | 10 min | Model calm resistance: “I will not act through this link. I will contact the organisation independently.” Contrast with panic or accusation. | Transform impulsive responses into safe, precise language. | P |
| 5 | Verification route | 13 min | Ask groups to build a route that does not use the message: pause, preserve, locate official contact, verify, report. | Arrange action cards and defend the safest order. | G |
| 6 | Incident role-play | 14 min | Assign recipient, cautious friend, official support person and reporter. Require one warning, two verification questions and one factual report. | Role-play without sharing any real personal data. | G |
| 7 | Productive stage | 16 min | Say: “Complete the bubbles with Excitement → Doubt → Independent check → Report/delete. Explain which social-engineering tactic was used.” | Perform and deliver a safety advisory. | G → C |
| 8 | Reflection | 7 min | Exit prompt: “Urgency is a signal to…; an official-looking message must still be…” | Complete and submit. | I |
Student instruction: Complete the speech bubbles with an excited reaction, a calm warning, an independent verification step and a factual report. Never include a real password, code, account number or clickable link.
Each worksheet below is collapsed by default. Open a worksheet to complete it.
| Signal | What you notice | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Sender identity | ||
| Urgency or threat | ||
| Reward or emotional hook | ||
| Request for data/code/money | ||
| Link or attachment |
| Step | Safe action | Unsafe alternative to avoid |
|---|---|---|
| 1 – Pause | ||
| 2 – Locate | ||
| 3 – Confirm | ||
| 4 – Report |
| When/where received | What it requested | Red flags | Action taken |
|---|---|---|---|
Perform a four-panel response and then give a 60-second safety advisory explaining the emotional hook, two red flags, the independent check and the safe final action.
- Reflection: Complete “The message looked convincing because…; it became suspicious when…”.
- Homework: Analyse a teacher-created fictional message in 140–170 words. Identify four red flags, give a safe verification route and write a short factual report.
Differentiation and Inclusion
Provide colour-coded red-flag cards and a completed first verification step.
Require sender, request, urgency and verification analysis.
Ask students to compare phishing by email, message and voice call while identifying the same underlying persuasion tactics.
- A logo, familiar name or professional design does not confirm the sender.
- Legitimate organisations should not require disclosure of passwords or one-time codes through unsolicited messages.
- Verification must use a channel located independently of the suspicious message.
- Students should refuse and report calmly rather than act under pressure, even if the message appears urgent or official.
What Does This App Know? Privacy and Permission Choices
Convenient services may request more access than their function requires. This lesson practises asking why data are needed, negotiating minimum access and explaining a privacy decision.
| Grade / level | Grade 10 • CEFR B1+–B2 |
| Duration | 90 minutes (2 × 45) |
| Theme | App permissions, personal data and privacy choices |
| Language focus | Asking purpose; explaining necessity; granting, limiting and refusing access |
| Media-literacy focus | Data minimisation, function–permission fit, settings and informed choice |
| Final product | A permissions-dialogue comic and a class privacy checklist |
- Students will match an app function with permissions that may be necessary or excessive.
- Students will ask why, when and for how long data access is requested.
- Students will distinguish required, optional and unnecessary access in a fictional case.
- Students will explain a privacy setting using proportionate language.
- Students will create a practical minimum-access checklist.
Lesson Architecture
Detailed Procedure
Stage duration in minutes across the 90-minute lesson (hover a segment for detail).
| # | Stage | Time | Teacher's actions / instructions | Students' actions | Interaction |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Orientation | 8 min | Show Panel 1. Ask: “Which permissions are visible? Which appear connected to a study app’s main function?” | Describe icons and make cautious necessity judgments. | I → P |
| 2 | Familiarisation | 10 min | Reveal the sequence. Instruct: “Summarise each panel with request, question, compare and decide.” | Sequence and retell. | P |
| 3 | Function–permission match | 12 min | Give fictional app cards. Say: “Match function to permission. Mark always, while using, ask each time or deny.” | Negotiate permission levels and reasons. | G |
| 4 | Language focus | 10 min | Model: “The camera is necessary for scanning, but contacts are unrelated to the stated function.” | Use necessity, relevance and proportionality language. | P |
| 5 | Data journey | 13 min | Draw Collect → Use → Store → Share → Delete. Ask one question at every stage. | Complete a fictional data journey and identify uncertainty. | G |
| 6 | Settings conference | 13 min | Assign app designer, student user, privacy advocate and teacher. Require a reason for every permission. | Negotiate a minimum-access configuration. | G |
| 7 | Productive stage | 17 min | Say: “Complete the bubbles with Request → Question → Compare → Minimum-access decision. Create a five-point checklist.” | Perform and present checklist. | G → C |
| 8 | Reflection | 7 min | Exit prompt: “Convenient does not automatically mean…; before allowing access, I will ask…” | Complete individually. | I |
Student instruction: Complete the bubbles with a permission request, a question about purpose, a comparison of settings and a minimum-access decision. Use only the fictional app shown in the comic; do not reveal personal settings.
Each worksheet below is collapsed by default. Open a worksheet to complete it.
| Permission | Possible function | Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Camera | Scan a worksheet | Required / optional / unrelated | |
| Microphone | Record pronunciation | Required / optional / unrelated | |
| Contacts | Invite friends | Required / optional / unrelated | |
| Location | Show local events | Required / optional / unrelated | |
| Photos/files | Upload selected work | Required / optional / unrelated |
| Collect | Use | Store | Share | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| What is collected? | Why is it used? | How long/where? | With whom? | How can it be removed? |
| Permission | Setting chosen | Condition | Review date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Camera | |||
| Microphone | |||
| Contacts | |||
| Location |
Create and present a privacy checklist: purpose, necessity, access level, data journey and review/delete option. Defend one permission you allowed and one you refused.
- Reflection: Complete “Data minimisation means…; my decision may change if…”.
- Homework: Evaluate a fictional app-permission screen supplied by the teacher. Write a 150-word recommendation with at least three purpose questions and four setting decisions.
Differentiation and Inclusion
Use icon cards and a three-colour required/optional/unrelated scale.
Require function–permission reasoning and minimum-access settings.
Ask students to analyse the trade-off between privacy, accessibility and useful personalisation without treating privacy as an all-or-nothing choice.
- Permission decisions depend on a feature’s stated function and the level/duration of access.
- “Allow all” is not the default ethical choice; neither is automatic rejection when access is genuinely needed.
- Strong privacy reasoning asks about collection, purpose, storage, sharing and deletion.
- No student should display a personal phone, account or settings page.
Viral Wellness Advice: Evidence, Limits and Safe Communication
Anecdotes and dramatic promises can look persuasive without reliable evidence or appropriate limits. This lesson practises questioning claims, comparing evidence and recommending safe next steps without diagnosing.
| Grade / level | Grade 10 • CEFR B1+–B2 |
| Duration | 90 minutes (2 × 45) |
| Theme | Health misinformation and responsible online advice |
| Language focus | Questioning claims; hedging; comparing evidence; recommending professional help |
| Media-literacy focus | Anecdotes, absolute promises, expertise, evidence and omitted risks |
| Final product | A fact-check dialogue and a cautious health-information card |
- Students will distinguish personal testimony from generalisable evidence.
- Students will identify absolute, urgent or miracle-style health claims.
- Students will evaluate source expertise, evidence and limitations.
- Students will use hedging and avoid diagnosing or prescribing.
- Students will recommend safe information-seeking and professional support.
Lesson Architecture
Detailed Procedure
Stage duration in minutes across the 90-minute lesson (hover a segment for detail).
| # | Stage | Time | Teacher's actions / instructions | Students' actions | Interaction |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Orientation | 8 min | Show the first scene. Ask: “What promise attracts attention? Which words or visuals may create false certainty?” | Identify promise, emotion and authority cues. | I → P |
| 2 | Familiarisation | 10 min | Reveal the full comic. Say: “Retell the process as claim, doubt, check, consult and communicate.” | Sequence and summarise neutrally. | P |
| 3 | Claim anatomy | 12 min | Provide fictional wellness claims. Ask students to mark population, outcome, time frame, conditions and evidence. | Identify missing specifics and overstatement. | G |
| 4 | Evidence ladder | 12 min | Rank influencer testimony, comments, small study summary, public-health guidance and individual professional advice. | Rank with qualifications rather than simple good/bad labels. | G |
| 5 | Language focus | 10 min | Discuss what each can and cannot establish. Replace “This cures…” with “The available source suggests…; however…”. Model: “For personal concerns, consult a qualified professional.” | Rewrite unsafe certainty and advice. | P |
| 6 | Source comparison | 13 min | Give two fictional source cards. Require author/expertise, evidence, date, purpose and limitations. | Compare and reach a cautious conclusion. | P |
| 7 | Productive stage | 18 min | Say: “Complete the bubbles with Attraction → Question → Evidence check/professional consultation → Cautious information card.” | Perform and explain why their final wording is safer. | G → C |
| 8 | Reflection | 7 min | Exit prompt: “A personal story can show… but cannot prove…” | Complete and submit. | I |
Student instruction: Complete the bubbles with an initial reaction, a question about evidence, a comparison with a trusted health source or qualified professional, and a cautious final message. Do not diagnose, prescribe or make personal treatment recommendations.
Each worksheet below is collapsed by default. Open a worksheet to complete it.
| Element | What the post says | What is missing |
|---|---|---|
| Who/population? | ||
| What outcome? | ||
| How quickly? | ||
| Under what conditions? | ||
| What evidence? | ||
| Risks/limitations? |
| Check | Source A | Source B |
|---|---|---|
| Author/expertise | ||
| Purpose/commercial interest | ||
| Evidence cited | ||
| Date/context | ||
| Limitations stated |
| Claim assessed | What evidence suggests | Important limit | Safe next step |
|---|---|---|---|
Create a cautious information card with four parts: claim, evidence, limit and safe next step. Present it without diagnosing, prescribing or promising results.
- Reflection: Complete “The post used certainty to…; responsible health communication should…”.
- Homework: Fact-check a fictional wellness post in 150–180 words. Analyse the claim, source, evidence, omission and write a safe revised message.
Differentiation and Inclusion
Provide a partially completed evidence chart and sentence frames for hedging language.
Require a source comparison, evidence-bound conclusion and a safe information card.
Ask students to identify how commercial interest or algorithmic popularity might shape which claims circulate widely.
- A personal testimony can be genuine but is not generalisable evidence on its own.
- Absolute promises (“cures”, “instantly”, “guaranteed”) are a signal to slow down, not proof of effectiveness.
- Responsible communication hedges appropriately and refers personal concerns to a qualified professional.
- Students must not diagnose, prescribe or give personalised treatment advice at any point in the activity.
Who Gets to Be the Expert? Representation, Stereotypes and AI Bias
Repeated or missing representations can normalise unequal roles and shape expectations. This lesson practises describing patterns, challenging generalisations and redesigning inclusive media.
| Grade / level | Grade 10 • CEFR B1+–B2 |
| Duration | 90 minutes (2 × 45) |
| Theme | Representation, occupational stereotypes and AI-generated media |
| Language focus | Describing patterns; comparing representation; challenging generalisations; proposing revision |
| Media-literacy focus | Visibility, omission, dataset patterns, prompt framing and inclusive design |
| Final product | A bias-audit comic and an inclusive careers poster rationale |
- Students will describe repeated representation patterns without insulting individuals.
- Students will distinguish a media pattern from evidence about real-world ability.
- Students will identify who is visible, missing or confined to limited roles.
- Students will test how prompts and source material can influence outputs.
- Students will redesign a balanced and contextually relevant media product.
Lesson Architecture
Detailed Procedure
Stage duration in minutes across the 90-minute lesson (hover a segment for detail).
| # | Stage | Time | Teacher's actions / instructions | Students' actions | Interaction |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Orientation | 8 min | Show Panel 1. Ask: “Who appears in each role? What pattern can you observe before explaining why it happened?” | Record visible pattern and missing representation separately. | I → P |
| 2 | Familiarisation | 10 min | Reveal all panels. Instruct: “Retell the story using generate, notice, test, compare and redesign.” | Sequence and summarise. | P |
| 3 | Representation audit | 12 min | Give a fictional image set. Ask students to count visibility, role variety, status and voice. | Complete audit without assuming token inclusion equals fairness. | G |
| 4 | Language focus | 10 min | Contrast “Women are…” with “In this sample, women are represented as…”. | Repair stereotyping and overgeneralisation; practise evidence-bound wording. | P |
| 5 | Prompt test | 13 min | Provide three fictional prompt versions. Ask: “Which details broaden or restrict representation? What remains outside our control?” | Predict and compare possible outputs. | G |
| 6 | Cause discussion | 12 min | Introduce data patterns, design choices, popularity signals and user prompts as possible influences. Emphasise that one output cannot reveal the whole system. | Build qualified explanations and identify uncertainty. | G |
| 7 | Productive stage | 18 min | Say: “Complete the bubbles with Pattern → Challenge → Test → Inclusive redesign. Explain three design choices.” | Perform and present redesigned careers poster. | G → C |
| 8 | Reflection | 7 min | Exit prompt: “Representation matters because…; inclusion is more than…” | Complete and submit. | I |
Student instruction: Complete the bubbles with a neutral observation of the pattern, a challenge to the implied stereotype, a prompt or sample test, and an inclusive redesign decision. Avoid making general claims about any gender or group.
Each worksheet below is collapsed by default. Open a worksheet to complete it.
| Dimension | Observed pattern | Who/what is missing? |
|---|---|---|
| Visibility | ||
| Role variety | ||
| Leadership/expertise | ||
| Voice/action | ||
| Cultural context |
| Overgeneralised claim | Evidence-bound revision |
|---|---|
| “Men are natural leaders.” | In this image set, __. |
| “Women do not choose engineering.” | The sample underrepresents __. |
| “AI is always biased.” | This output shows __. |
| “One diverse image solves the problem.” | More balanced representation also requires __. |
| Audience | Roles represented | Agency/voice | Uzbek context | Design rationale |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Create an inclusive careers poster and a 90-second rationale explaining the original pattern, one limitation of the audit and three meaningful redesign choices.
- Reflection: Complete “A stereotype simplifies…; an inclusive design should…”.
- Homework: Analyse a fictional careers poster in 150–180 words. Identify two patterns, one omission, one possible influence and propose a balanced redesign.
Differentiation and Inclusion
Use a fictional image set and sentence frames that refer to “this sample”.
Require an evidence-bound audit, qualified explanation and reasoned redesign.
Ask students to distinguish numerical visibility from meaningful agency, status and diversity within roles.
- A representation pattern is evidence about the media sample, not proof about a group’s abilities or preferences.
- Bias may arise from multiple interacting influences; avoid claiming an exact technical cause without evidence.
- Inclusive design should broaden role variety, expertise, agency and cultural relevance.
- The goal is critical redesign, not blaming or embarrassing classmates.
Darsni yakunlash
Ism va familiyangizni kiriting, so'ng natijangizni yuborish uchun tugmani bosing.
Helpful or Hallucinated? Using AI Without Losing Your Voice
| Grade / level | Grade 10 • CEFR B1+–B2 |
| Duration | 90 minutes (2 × 45) |
| Theme | Generative AI, source verification and academic integrity |
| Language focus | Questioning accuracy; reporting findings; paraphrasing; acknowledging assistance |
| Media-literacy focus | Authority cues, hallucinated information, provenance and transparency |
| Final product | A verified comic dialogue and an AI-use transparency statement |
- Students will distinguish a fluent answer from a verified answer.
- Students will ask precise follow-up questions and request traceable evidence.
- Students will verify a cited fact through independent sources.
- Students will explain the difference between assistance, collaboration and substitution.
- Students will produce an original response and transparently document AI support.
Lesson Architecture
Detailed Procedure
Stage duration in minutes across the 90-minute lesson (hover a segment for detail).
| # | Stage | Time | Teacher's actions / instructions | Students' actions | Interaction |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Orientation | 8 min | Show Panel 1 only. “The answer looks confident. What features create authority? What information is still missing?” | List two authority cues and two unanswered questions. | I → P |
| 2 | Familiarisation | 10 min | Reveal all panels. “Give each panel a verb: ask, notice, check, revise, disclose. Retell the sequence with linking expressions.” | Sequence and orally summarise the investigation. | P |
| 3 | Expressive dialogue | 8 min | Model one overconfident line and one cautious line. Ask students to show certainty through stress and intonation. | Practise and explain how delivery affects trust. | T ↔ C |
| 4 | Media commentary | 14 min | Introduce the FLUENT ≠ FACTUAL principle. “Can the claim be traced? Does the source exist? Do independent sources agree?” | Apply the AI Answer Audit to a fictional response. | G |
| 5 | Integrity continuum | 12 min | Place scenarios from acceptable support to unacceptable substitution. “Defend your position using purpose, process and authorship.” | Rank scenarios, negotiate and revise positions. | G |
| 6 | Textual repair | 13 min | Give a paragraph containing an invented reference and copied phrasing. Instruct students to remove unsupported material, paraphrase and add a disclosure. | Repair the text and justify each change. | P |
| 7 | Productive stage | 17 min | “Complete the bubbles. Include one challenge, one verification action, one authorship decision and one transparent disclosure.” | Write, rehearse, perform and answer a peer question. | G → C |
| 8 | Reflection | 8 min | Exit prompt: “AI may support my learning when...; it replaces my learning when...” | Write a two-part principle and one future action. | I |
Four panels: a student receives a confident AI-assisted claim, challenges it, plans a verification, and makes a final decision that preserves student authorship.
Student instruction: Study the four panels. Complete the speech bubbles with a confident AI-assisted claim, a student’s challenge, a verification plan, and a final decision that preserves student authorship. Include a short transparency statement.
Figure note: Original AI-generated educational comic created for this lesson. The empty speech bubbles are intentional and support student-generated language.
Complete each worksheet with your group after watching the comic.
Worksheet A — AI Answer Audit
| Audit question | Finding | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| What factual claims are made? | ||
| Can every quotation or reference be traced? | ||
| Does the answer separate fact from interpretation? | ||
| Do independent reliable sources agree? | ||
| What remains uncertain? |
Worksheet B — Assistance or Substitution?
| Action | Support / borderline / substitution | Why? |
|---|---|---|
| Brainstorming possible headings | ||
| Asking for feedback on your own draft | ||
| Submitting an AI-written essay unchanged | ||
| Checking vocabulary, then choosing words yourself | ||
| Using an invented citation without checking |
Worksheet C — Transparent AI Use
| Purpose | Human contribution | Verification | Disclosure |
|---|---|---|---|
Create and perform a four-part dialogue: Trust → Doubt → Verification → Transparent revision. Then present a 40-word AI-use statement that truthfully distinguishes machine assistance from student authorship.
- Reflection: Complete “The most convincing feature was... but the strongest evidence was...”.
- Homework: Audit one fictional AI response supplied by the teacher. Write a 150-word correction with two traceable sources and a 30–50-word transparency statement.
Differentiation and Inclusion
Provide the audit questions and a source-comparison template; allow notes during performance.
Require verification, paraphrasing and transparent disclosure.
Ask students to develop a class policy distinguishing brainstorming, feedback, editing and ghostwriting.
- Fluent language is not proof of factual accuracy.
- Invented or untraceable citations must be removed, not cosmetically reformatted.
- Acceptable AI support depends on task purpose, teacher rules, human authorship and honest disclosure.
- A strong transparency statement names the tool's function and the student's independent contribution.
Don't Just Scroll: From Bystander to Upstander
| Grade / level | Grade 10 • CEFR B1+–B2 |
| Duration | 90 minutes (2 × 45) |
| Theme | Cyberbullying, empathy and safe intervention |
| Language focus | Supportive responses; refusal; factual reporting; advice and requests |
| Media-literacy focus | Amplification, screenshots, context, reporting channels and digital footprints |
| Final product | An upstander comic and a safe-response briefing |
- Students will recognise how online reactions and forwarding can amplify harm.
- Students will use empathetic language without blaming the targeted person.
- Students will distinguish public confrontation from safe, effective intervention.
- Students will document essential facts and request support from a trusted adult.
- Students will create a realistic four-step upstander response.
Lesson Architecture
Detailed Procedure
Stage duration in minutes across the 90-minute lesson (hover a segment for detail).
| # | Stage | Time | Teacher's actions / instructions | Students' actions | Interaction |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Orientation | 8 min | Display Panel 1. “What can you observe without repeating or describing the hurtful content? Who has power to change what happens next?” | Identify roles: target, initiator, bystander, upstander and trusted adult. | I → P |
| 2 | Familiarisation | 10 min | Reveal the comic. “Retell the story without blaming the targeted student. Use first, instead of, then and finally.” | Sequence and produce a neutral retelling. | P |
| 3 | Impact commentary | 12 min | Draw an amplification chain: create → react → forward → wider audience. Ask where the chain can be interrupted. | Map actions and identify safe interruption points. | G |
| 4 | Language focus | 12 min | Contrast unhelpful lines (“Ignore it”) with supportive lines (“This is not your fault; I'm here; let's get help”). | Rewrite dismissive, blaming or aggressive messages. | P |
| 5 | Decision carousel | 14 min | Give four response options: forward, publicly attack, privately support, document/report. Ask groups to evaluate safety, empathy and likely impact. | Rotate, discuss and rank actions. | G |
| 6 | Reporting practice | 12 min | Model a factual report: what happened, where, when, evidence preserved, immediate safety concern, requested help. | Role-play student and trusted adult; avoid speculation. | P |
| 7 | Productive stage | 15 min | “Complete the bubbles with Pause—Support—Save—Report. Every line must be safe, respectful and realistic.” | Create, perform and explain one rejected unsafe option. | G → C |
| 8 | Reflection | 7 min | “What can an upstander control, and what requires adult/platform support?” | Complete a two-column exit ticket. | I |
Four panels: students witness a harmful post, then privately support the target, request adult help, and set a respectful group norm.
Student instruction: Complete the speech bubbles with an upstander response. Do not repeat the harmful post. Include a supportive private message, a factual request for adult help, and a respectful group norm.
Figure note: Original AI-generated educational comic created for this lesson. The empty speech bubbles are intentional and support student-generated language.
Complete each worksheet with your group after watching the comic.
Worksheet A — The Amplification Chain
| Action | Possible impact | Safer alternative |
|---|---|---|
| React with a laughing emoji | ||
| Forward “just to show a friend” | ||
| Argue aggressively in public | ||
| Send private support | ||
| Preserve evidence and report |
Worksheet B — Empathy Language Repair
| Unhelpful response | Supportive response |
|---|---|
| “Just ignore it.” | |
| “Why did you post that photo?” | |
| “I'll insult them back for you.” | |
| “It's only a joke.” |
Worksheet C — Safe Report Builder
| What happened? | Where/when? | Evidence safely preserved | Help requested |
|---|---|---|---|
Create a four-panel upstander protocol: Notice → Pause → Support → Report/Repair. Perform it, then deliver a 60-second safety briefing explaining why public retaliation or forwarding may increase harm.
- Reflection: Finish “Being an upstander does not mean...; it means...”.
- Homework: Write a 140–170-word advice message titled “What to Do When a Group Chat Turns Harmful”. Include empathy, evidence preservation, reporting and one safety limitation.
Differentiation and Inclusion
Use role cards and sentence starters; allow students to discuss a fictional case rather than personal experience.
Require empathetic language, factual reporting and a realistic action sequence.
Ask students to design a confidential school reporting flow and identify where adult responsibility begins.
- Do not advise students to confront an aggressor when doing so may increase risk.
- Evidence should be preserved safely and shared only with appropriate support channels.
- The target is not responsible for stopping the harm alone.
- A complete response combines non-amplification, private support, reporting and follow-up.
Who Chose This Feed? Algorithms and Information Bubbles
| Grade / level | Grade 10 • CEFR B1+–B2 |
| Duration | 90 minutes (2 × 45) |
| Theme | Recommendation systems, information diversity and digital well-being |
| Language focus | Comparing patterns; cause and effect; qualifying generalisations; proposing habits |
| Media-literacy focus | Personalisation, engagement signals, omission and viewpoint diversity |
| Final product | A feed-investigation comic and a balanced information plan |
- Students will describe patterns and omissions in a recommendation feed.
- Students will explain how user behaviour may influence future recommendations.
- Students will compare viewpoints without assuming that all sources are equally credible.
- Students will use qualified language when discussing algorithmic effects.
- Students will design a practical, diverse and healthy information routine.
Lesson Architecture
Detailed Procedure
Stage duration in minutes across the 90-minute lesson (hover a segment for detail).
| # | Stage | Time | Teacher's actions / instructions | Students' actions | Interaction |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Orientation | 8 min | Show Panel 1. “What repeats? What is absent? How might repetition affect the viewer's sense of what is normal or popular?” | Record visible patterns and cautious inferences. | I → P |
| 2 | Familiarisation | 10 min | Reveal the sequence. “Name the investigation step in each panel and retell the process.” | Sequence: notice, compare, search, adjust. | P |
| 3 | Feed comparison | 12 min | Provide three fictional feeds for the same topic. “Compare topic, tone, source type and viewpoint. Do not rank by popularity alone.” | Identify similarities, differences and omissions. | G |
| 4 | Cause–effect language | 10 min | Model qualified chains: “If a user repeatedly watches..., the system may recommend...” Avoid deterministic claims. | Build and revise cause–effect statements. | P |
| 5 | Media commentary | 14 min | Introduce User signals → System selection → Repeated exposure → User response. Ask where agency and uncertainty exist. | Annotate the loop and challenge oversimplifications. | G |
| 6 | Perspective search | 14 min | Give a controversial but age-appropriate school issue. Require two credible differing perspectives and one shared fact. | Search provided source cards and prepare a comparison. | G |
| 7 | Productive stage | 15 min | “Complete the bubbles. Include one observation, one hypothesis about recommendations, one contrasting source and one balanced habit.” | Perform the investigation and present an information-diet plan. | G → C |
| 8 | Reflection | 7 min | Exit prompt: “My feed shows me...; it may not show me...; I can respond by...” | Write and share one action. | I |
Four panels: a student notices a repeated pattern in their feed, compares it with a classmate's feed, investigates personalisation, and plans a more balanced information routine.
Student instruction: Complete the speech bubbles with a pattern observation, a comparison between classmates' feeds, a cautious explanation of personalisation, and a practical plan for viewpoint diversity and healthy use.
Figure note: Original AI-generated educational comic created for this lesson. The empty speech bubbles are intentional and support student-generated language.
Complete each worksheet with your group after watching the comic.
Worksheet A — Feed Pattern Audit
| Feature | What appears repeatedly? | What may be missing? |
|---|---|---|
| Topic | ||
| Tone/emotion | ||
| Source type | ||
| Viewpoint | ||
| Credibility signals |
Worksheet B — Recommendation Loop
| User signal | Possible system response | Possible user effect |
|---|---|---|
| Watch/like/share/search... | ||
| Pause or hide content... | ||
| Actively seek a new source... |
Worksheet C — Balanced Information Diet
| Habit | Frequency | Purpose | Credibility check |
|---|---|---|---|
| Follow an original/official source | |||
| Read a credible contrasting analysis | |||
| Pause before reacting/sharing | |||
| Review settings and screen time |
Create a four-panel feed investigation and present a three-part information plan: diversify sources, verify credibility and manage attention. Explain one limitation: users cannot fully infer an algorithm from a single feed.
- Reflection: Complete “Personalised does not necessarily mean...; a balanced feed requires...”.
- Homework: Keep a private one-day feed diary without recording personal account details. Categorise ten recommended items by topic, tone and source type, then write a 120–150-word reflection on patterns and omissions.
Differentiation and Inclusion
Use printed fictional feeds so no student must reveal a personal account; provide comparison sentence frames.
Require evidence of pattern, a qualified explanation and a realistic action plan.
Ask students to distinguish viewpoint diversity from false balance and develop criteria for excluding demonstrably unreliable content.
- A recommendation pattern can be observed, but its exact cause usually cannot be known from the interface alone.
- Popularity, repetition and personalisation are not credibility indicators.
- A balanced information routine combines diverse perspectives with consistent quality checks.
- Avoid asking students to expose personal search histories or feeds.
Green Claim or Greenwashing? Decoding Influencer Advertising
| Grade / level | Grade 10 • CEFR B1+–B2 |
| Duration | 90 minutes (2 × 45) |
| Theme | Influencer advertising, environmental claims and consumer decisions |
| Language focus | Analysing claims; requesting evidence; qualifying language; ethical persuasion |
| Media-literacy focus | Sponsorship, visual framing, vague claims, omission and greenwashing |
| Final product | A fact-checked comic and a transparent ethical advertisement |
- Students will identify commercial purpose and possible sponsorship cues.
- Students will distinguish a specific verifiable environmental claim from vague “green” language.
- Students will analyse how colour, nature imagery and influencer credibility shape meaning.
- Students will request evidence and identify omitted lifecycle information.
- Students will redesign an advertisement with accurate wording and transparent disclosure.
Lesson Architecture
Detailed Procedure
Stage duration in minutes across the 90-minute lesson (hover a segment for detail).
| # | Stage | Time | Teacher's actions / instructions | Students' actions | Interaction |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Orientation | 8 min | Display Panel 1. “Before reading any claim, how do colour, lighting, personality and setting make the product feel environmentally friendly?” | Describe visual persuasion and predict purpose/audience. | I → P |
| 2 | Familiarisation | 10 min | Reveal all panels. “Retell the story using attraction, doubt, investigation and redesign.” | Sequence and summarise. | P |
| 3 | Claim hunt | 12 min | Give fictional phrases: eco-friendly, natural, recyclable cap, made with 30% recycled material, zero impact. Ask students to classify specificity and testability. | Sort claims and justify classifications. | G |
| 4 | Visual commentary | 12 min | “What does the image emphasise? What is outside the frame? Does the packaging tell a different story?” | Analyse framing, omission and contradiction. | P |
| 5 | Evidence ladder | 13 min | Rank evidence from influencer opinion to independent certification and lifecycle data. Discuss relevance and limitations. | Rank, challenge and explain what evidence matches each claim. | G |
| 6 | Disclosure dialogue | 10 min | Model clear sponsorship language. Contrast transparent disclosure with vague phrases such as “thanks to my friends at...”. | Rewrite hidden or unclear advertising disclosures. | P |
| 7 | Productive stage | 18 min | “Complete the bubbles and redesign the final advertisement. Include a qualified claim, evidence cue, disclosure and realistic action.” | Create, pitch and defend the redesign. | G → C |
| 8 | Reflection | 7 min | Exit prompt: “One visual cue that attracted me was...; one evidence question that protected me was...” | Complete and submit. | I |
Four panels: an influencer promotes a product as eco-friendly, a viewer questions the vague claim, investigates evidence and sponsorship, then a transparent redesigned advertisement appears.
Student instruction: Complete the speech bubbles with an attractive initial reaction, a challenge to a vague green claim, an investigation of evidence and sponsorship, and a transparent, proportionate final advertisement.
Figure note: Original AI-generated educational comic created for this lesson. The empty speech bubbles are intentional and support student-generated language.
Complete each worksheet with your group after watching the comic.
Worksheet A — Green Claim Test
| Claim | Specific? | Verifiable? | Evidence needed |
|---|---|---|---|
| “Eco-friendly” | Yes / No | Yes / No | |
| “Made with 30% recycled material” | Yes / No | Yes / No | |
| “Zero impact” | Yes / No | Yes / No | |
| “The cap is recyclable where facilities exist” | Yes / No | Yes / No |
Worksheet B — Inside and Outside the Frame
| Emphasised in the image | Omitted question | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Nature colours / smiling influencer | How was the product manufactured? | |
| Reusable product | How often must it be used to reduce impact? | |
| Small product close-up | How much packaging and transport are involved? | |
| Positive testimonial | Is this sponsored? What evidence is independent? |
Worksheet C — Ethical Advertisement Builder
| Audience | Qualified claim | Evidence cue | Disclosure | Call to action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Redesign the final advertisement using four rules: disclose the commercial relationship, state one specific qualified claim, point to relevant evidence and avoid implying that one purchase solves a complex environmental problem.
- Reflection: Complete “The advertisement wanted me to feel...; the evidence allowed me to conclude...”.
- Homework: Create a one-page fact-check of a fictional green advertisement. Analyse one visual technique, two claims, evidence quality, sponsorship transparency and a revised ethical version.
Differentiation and Inclusion
Provide claim cards and a vocabulary bank; allow a paper poster instead of digital design.
Require visual analysis, claim verification and transparent disclosure.
Ask students to distinguish product-level evidence from company-wide sustainability claims and explain why the difference matters.
- Vague terms such as green, natural and eco-friendly are weak unless defined and supported.
- A specific claim may still be misleading if it omits important conditions or exaggerates its significance.
- Nature imagery and influencer likability are persuasive cues, not environmental evidence.
- An ethical redesign clearly separates verified fact, limitation, opinion and commercial relationship.
Integrated Assessment Toolkit
| Criterion | 4 — Excellent | 3 — Proficient | 2 — Developing | 1 — Beginning |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Communicative clarity | Message is coherent, fluent and audience-appropriate; interaction is responsive. | Message is mostly clear; minor gaps do not prevent communication. | Message is partly clear; interaction relies on support. | Message is difficult to follow or incomplete. |
| Language resources | Uses varied, accurate functional language and topic vocabulary. | Uses adequate language with some errors. | Uses limited/repetitive language; frequent errors. | Uses minimal language; errors often block meaning. |
| Evidence and verification | Selects relevant evidence, explains checks and acknowledges limits. | Uses relevant evidence and some verification. | Mentions evidence but reasoning is weak or incomplete. | Makes unsupported claims or ignores verification. |
| Media analysis | Insightfully explains source, purpose, audience, framing and representation. | Explains most key media features. | Identifies some features with limited explanation. | Treats the message uncritically or inaccurately. |
| Ethical creation | Creates a transparent, respectful, proportionate and responsible message. | Message is generally responsible with minor issues. | Some ethical risks remain unresolved. | Message misleads, pressures or misrepresents. |
| Collaboration and reflection | Shares roles fairly, responds constructively and identifies meaningful learning. | Collaborates effectively and reflects adequately. | Uneven participation or superficial reflection. | Limited collaboration and reflection. |
- Notice: “One media or language choice I noticed was...”
- Question: “What evidence supports...?” or “How might the audience interpret...?”
- Praise: “This was effective because...”
- Suggest: “To make the message clearer/more ethical, you could...”
| Communicative reflection | Media-literacy reflection |
|---|---|
| One phrase I used successfully today was... | One clue that changed my interpretation was... |
| I made my explanation clearer by... | The source/purpose/audience mattered because... |
| Next time I will respond to a partner by... | Before sharing similar content, I will... |
| One claim I can now qualify more accurately is... | One limit of my evidence is... |
- Use fictional or low-risk examples. Avoid asking students to expose private messages, humiliating images or personally sensitive experiences.
- Do not require students to create real public posts. Classroom prototypes, paper comics or private drafts are sufficient.
- Establish a norm: critique the message and verification process, not the person who initially believed or shared it.
- When discussing manipulated media, avoid turning visual anomalies into a guaranteed “deepfake detector”. Teach that technical clues must be combined with provenance and corroboration.
- Allow alternatives for students who do not wish to be photographed, recorded or perform publicly.
- If digital tools are unavailable, print the comics and use sticky notes over the speech bubbles. Every lesson remains fully functional offline.
Each plan may be taught as one 90-minute block or divided into two 45-minute lessons. A logical split is after the media commentary/textual analysis stage; begin the second lesson with a two-minute retrieval review.
Appendix — Reusable Blank Planning Template
| Grade / level | |
| Duration | |
| Comic / theme | |
| Language focus | |
| Media-literacy focus | |
| Final product |
| Stage | Time | Teacher instruction | Student action | Evidence of learning |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Orientation | ||||
| Familiarisation | ||||
| Commentary | ||||
| Textual analysis | ||||
| Communicative task | ||||
| Productive stage | ||||
| Reflection |
| Source | Purpose | Audience | Representation | Evidence / omission |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Function | Target phrases |
|---|---|
| Asking / responding | |
| Explaining evidence | |
| Qualifying a claim | |
| Negotiating meaning | |
| Reflecting |
Grade 11 — All Lessons
Twelve 90-minute lessons covering AI source verification, algorithmic feeds, greenwashing, biometric privacy, voice-cloning scams, digital wellbeing, location privacy, dark patterns, synthetic influencers, climate data literacy, in-game spending and emergency verification.
Choose a lesson
Each lesson opens on its own page with tabs for every part.
AI Answered — But Is the Source Real?
| Grade / level | Grade 11 • CEFR B1+ |
| Duration | 90 minutes |
| Current topic | Generative AI and fabricated citations |
| Language focus | Reporting sources; modals of possibility; polite questions |
| Final product | Source Detective poster + 60-second fact-check dialogue |
- Students check whether an AI-generated source is real and whether it supports the claim.
- Students tell the difference between a confident answer and checked evidence.
- Students explain clearly how AI was used in their work.
Lesson Architecture
Detailed Procedure
Stage duration in minutes across the 90-minute lesson (hover a segment for detail).
| # | Stage | Time | Teacher and student activities |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Orient | 8 min | Show Panel 1 of the comic: “What makes the answer look trustworthy?” |
| 2 | Detect | 12 min | Learners predict signs of a fabricated citation while recognising that suspicion is not proof. |
| 3 | Verify | 20 min | Library/database check: title–author–date–DOI–claim. |
| 4 | Language | 12 min | The source claims... / I could not verify... / This may be fabricated... |
| 5 | Dialogue | 18 min | Assign the roles of researcher, verifier, editor and ethics adviser. |
| 6 | Create | 12 min | CREATE TASK — SOURCE DETECTIVE POSTER: make a one-page poster with four boxes: AI claim, real source, evidence found and final decision. Add a 60-second dialogue between a researcher and a source detective. |
| 7 | Reflect | 8 min | One check I will never skip... |
A student asks an AI assistant a question and receives a confident answer with a citation; two students investigate whether the cited source is real.
Student task: complete the blank speech bubbles. Include one observation, one evidence question, one respectful challenge and one responsible decision.
Complete each worksheet with your group after watching the comic.
Worksheet A — Media analysis
| Step | Question | Response |
|---|---|---|
| Claim | What did the AI assert? | |
| Trace | Can the cited work be found? | |
| Match | Does the source support the claim? | |
| Disclose | How was AI used? |
Worksheet B — Evidence and uncertainty
| Known | Inferred | Still uncertain | Next check |
|---|---|---|---|
Worksheet C — Communicative production
- Use at least three B1+ functional phrases from the language bank.
- Separate what is known, inferred and still uncertain.
- Every speaker must ask or answer an evidence question.
- End with a realistic, ethical action.
Language Support Bank
| Function | Useful language |
|---|---|
| Requesting evidence | What evidence supports that? / Can we trace this to the original? |
| Hedging | This may mean... / The evidence does not clearly show... |
| Respectful challenge | I understand your point, but... / It could also mean... |
| Responsible conclusion | After checking the evidence... / The safest next step is... |
In groups, complete the comic and create the Source Detective poster. Use at least three phrases from the language bank. Present a 60-second fact-check dialogue in which one speaker asks for a source and another explains the evidence.
- Reflection: One assumption we changed after checking evidence was...
- Homework: Write 160–190 words explaining the media problem, the strongest and weakest evidence, one useful language choice, and a responsible recommendation.
Differentiation and Inclusion
Provide a phrase bank, role cards and rehearsal time.
Require a complete evidence-based dialogue and product.
Create an alternative version for an opposing stakeholder.
- Strong responses distinguish observation from interpretation and avoid absolute claims without evidence.
- Accept different conclusions when students explain the evidence, limitation and ethical consequence.
- Media quality is judged by clear sources, careful checking and fair claims — not by confidence or attractive design alone.
Is My Feed Choosing for Me?
| Grade / level | Grade 11 • CEFR B1+ |
| Duration | 90 minutes |
| Current topic | Recommendation algorithms, filter bubbles and echo chambers |
| Language focus | Comparing viewpoints; because/so/however; cautious opinions |
| Final product | Feed Makeover board + two-minute advice briefing |
- Students compare how two feeds show the same event differently.
- Students explain the difference between a recommended, popular and trustworthy post.
- Students agree on simple steps for seeing a wider range of sources.
Lesson Architecture
Detailed Procedure
Stage duration in minutes across the 90-minute lesson (hover a segment for detail).
| # | Stage | Time | Teacher and student activities |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hook | 7 min | “Why might two people see different realities online?” |
| 2 | Map | 13 min | Map the sequence: input → recommendation → attention → more input. |
| 3 | Compare | 18 min | Compare two feeds for source range, emotion, omission and repetition. |
| 4 | Language | 12 min | Whereas... / This may be amplified because... / We cannot infer... |
| 5 | Fishbowl | 20 min | Represent the perspectives of a platform, user, journalist and educator. |
| 6 | Create | 12 min | CREATE TASK — FEED MAKEOVER: arrange six sample content cards into a more balanced feed. Add three “Try this” advice cards and present the new feed in two minutes. |
| 7 | Exit | 8 min | One deliberate click I will make... |
A split-screen comic showing two different social media feeds shaped by the same event; students discuss why the feeds look different.
Student task: complete the blank speech bubbles. Include one observation, one evidence question, one respectful challenge and one responsible decision.
Complete each worksheet with your group after watching the comic.
Worksheet A — Media analysis
| Step | Question | Response |
|---|---|---|
| Signal | What did the user watch/like? | |
| Pattern | What became more frequent? | |
| Missing | Which viewpoints are absent? | |
| Reset | What deliberate action broadens the feed? |
Worksheet B — Evidence and uncertainty
| Known | Inferred | Still uncertain | Next check |
|---|---|---|---|
Worksheet C — Communicative production
- Use at least three B1+ functional phrases from the language bank.
- Separate what is known, inferred and still uncertain.
- Every speaker must ask or answer an evidence question.
- End with a realistic, ethical action.
Language Support Bank
| Function | Useful language |
|---|---|
| Requesting evidence | What evidence supports that? / Can we trace this to the original? |
| Hedging | This may mean... / The evidence does not clearly show... |
| Respectful challenge | I understand your point, but... / It could also mean... |
| Responsible conclusion | After checking the evidence... / The safest next step is... |
In groups, complete the comic and build a Feed Makeover board from six sample content cards. Add three advice cards, then give a two-minute briefing on how the new feed offers more varied viewpoints.
- Reflection: One assumption we changed after checking evidence was...
- Homework: Write 160–190 words explaining the media problem, the strongest and weakest evidence, one useful language choice, and a responsible recommendation.
Differentiation and Inclusion
Provide a phrase bank, role cards and rehearsal time.
Require a complete evidence-based dialogue and product.
Create an alternative version for an opposing stakeholder.
- Strong responses distinguish observation from interpretation and avoid absolute claims without evidence.
- Accept different conclusions when students explain the evidence, limitation and ethical consequence.
- Media quality is judged by clear sources, careful checking and fair claims — not by confidence or attractive design alone.
Does “Eco” Count as Evidence?
| Grade / level | Grade 11 • CEFR B1+ |
| Duration | 90 minutes |
| Current topic | Influencer promotion, native advertising and greenwashing |
| Language focus | Simple persuasive language; evidence questions; careful claims |
| Final product | Green Claim Court verdict + short product review |
- Students separate “green-looking” design from claims that can be checked.
- Students identify why an influencer is promoting a product and whether it is an advertisement.
- Students rewrite an exaggerated claim so it is clear, fair and supported by evidence.
Lesson Architecture
Detailed Procedure
Stage duration in minutes across the 90-minute lesson (hover a segment for detail).
| # | Stage | Time | Teacher and student activities |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hook | 8 min | “Which details create an eco-friendly impression?” |
| 2 | Decode | 14 min | Colour, nature imagery, vague labels, omission, influencer trust. |
| 3 | Evidence | 18 min | Request evidence about materials, durability, repair, labour and transport. |
| 4 | Language | 12 min | The ad implies... / Evidence is limited to... / A more accurate claim is... |
| 5 | Negotiation | 18 min | Assign the roles of influencer, brand representative, consumer and fact-checker. |
| 6 | Create | 12 min | CREATE TASK — GREEN CLAIM COURT: use evidence cards to put one advertising claim “on trial”. Give a TRUE, UNCLEAR or MISLEADING verdict and record a 45-second fair review. |
| 7 | Reflect | 8 min | The claim became fairer when... |
An influencer promotes a product using nature imagery and green packaging; two students question the evidence behind the eco claims.
Student task: complete the blank speech bubbles. Include one observation, one evidence question, one respectful challenge and one responsible decision.
Complete each worksheet with your group after watching the comic.
Worksheet A — Media analysis
| Step | Question | Response |
|---|---|---|
| Impression | What makes it look “green”? | |
| Claim | What exactly is promised? | |
| Evidence | Is it specific and independently checkable? | |
| Rewrite | Write a qualified claim. |
Worksheet B — Evidence and uncertainty
| Known | Inferred | Still uncertain | Next check |
|---|---|---|---|
Worksheet C — Communicative production
- Use at least three B1+ functional phrases from the language bank.
- Separate what is known, inferred and still uncertain.
- Every speaker must ask or answer an evidence question.
- End with a realistic, ethical action.
Language Support Bank
| Function | Useful language |
|---|---|
| Requesting evidence | What evidence supports that? / Can we trace this to the original? |
| Hedging | This may mean... / The evidence does not clearly show... |
| Respectful challenge | I understand your point, but... / It could also mean... |
| Responsible conclusion | After checking the evidence... / The safest next step is... |
In groups, complete the comic and hold a Green Claim Court. Study the evidence cards, choose TRUE, UNCLEAR or MISLEADING, and perform a 45-second product review that includes a clear advertising disclosure.
- Reflection: One assumption we changed after checking evidence was...
- Homework: Write 160–190 words explaining the media problem, the strongest and weakest evidence, one useful language choice, and a responsible recommendation.
Differentiation and Inclusion
Provide a phrase bank, role cards and rehearsal time.
Require a complete evidence-based dialogue and product.
Create an alternative version for an opposing stakeholder.
- Strong responses distinguish observation from interpretation and avoid absolute claims without evidence.
- Accept different conclusions when students explain the evidence, limitation and ethical consequence.
- Media quality is judged by clear sources, careful checking and fair claims — not by confidence or attractive design alone.
My Face Is Not a Password
| Grade / level | Grade 11 • CEFR B1+ |
| Duration | 90 minutes |
| Current topic | Biometric check-in, consent and data privacy |
| Language focus | Advantages and risks; first conditional; making suggestions |
| Final product | Privacy Choice Board + town-hall proposal |
- Students explain in simple terms how face data is different from a password.
- Students discuss benefits and risks related to convenience, safety, consent and data storage.
- Students suggest a safer choice that collects less personal data.
Lesson Architecture
Detailed Procedure
Stage duration in minutes across the 90-minute lesson (hover a segment for detail).
| # | Stage | Time | Teacher and student activities |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Scenario | 8 min | “What problem does the kiosk solve — and create?” |
| 2 | Stakeholders | 12 min | Identify the interests of students, the institution, vendor, parents and visitors. |
| 3 | Data map | 18 min | Map the data journey: collect → store → access → share → delete. |
| 4 | Language | 12 min | If data were leaked... / The benefit would outweigh the risk only if... |
| 5 | Council | 20 min | Hold a privacy-impact meeting on consent and alternatives. |
| 6 | Create | 12 min | CREATE TASK — PRIVACY CHOICE BOARD: compare face scan, ID card and manual check-in. Give each option a benefit, a risk and a safety rule, then present the group's choice at a mini town hall. |
| 7 | Exit | 8 min | One non-negotiable safeguard... |
A school entrance kiosk offers a face-scan check-in; students discuss the benefits and privacy risks of biometric data compared to an ID card.
Student task: complete the blank speech bubbles. Include one observation, one evidence question, one respectful challenge and one responsible decision.
Complete each worksheet with your group after watching the comic.
Worksheet A — Media analysis
| Step | Question | Response |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose | Why is data collected? | |
| Control | Can a student refuse without penalty? | |
| Retention | When is the biometric template deleted? | |
| Alternative | What less intrusive option works? |
Worksheet B — Evidence and uncertainty
| Known | Inferred | Still uncertain | Next check |
|---|---|---|---|
Worksheet C — Communicative production
- Use at least three B1+ functional phrases from the language bank.
- Separate what is known, inferred and still uncertain.
- Every speaker must ask or answer an evidence question.
- End with a realistic, ethical action.
Language Support Bank
| Function | Useful language |
|---|---|
| Requesting evidence | What evidence supports that? / Can we trace this to the original? |
| Hedging | This may mean... / The evidence does not clearly show... |
| Respectful challenge | I understand your point, but... / It could also mean... |
| Responsible conclusion | After checking the evidence... / The safest next step is... |
In groups, complete the comic and design a Privacy Choice Board. Compare three check-in methods, then hold a mini town hall and explain which option your group recommends and why.
- Reflection: One assumption we changed after checking evidence was...
- Homework: Write 160–190 words explaining the media problem, the strongest and weakest evidence, one useful language choice, and a responsible recommendation.
Differentiation and Inclusion
Provide a phrase bank, role cards and rehearsal time.
Require a complete evidence-based dialogue and product.
Create an alternative version for an opposing stakeholder.
- Strong responses distinguish observation from interpretation and avoid absolute claims without evidence.
- Accept different conclusions when students explain the evidence, limitation and ethical consequence.
- Media quality is judged by clear sources, careful checking and fair claims — not by confidence or attractive design alone.
Is That Really Your Voice?
| Grade / level | Grade 11 • CEFR B1+ |
| Duration | 90 minutes |
| Current topic | AI voice cloning, urgency and scam prevention |
| Language focus | Requests for confirmation; modals of possibility; sequencing |
| Final product | Family Voice-Safety Protocol + emergency role-play |
Current Context for the Teacher
AI tools can imitate voices from short audio samples. A familiar voice is not proof of identity, especially when a message creates urgency, secrecy or pressure to send money.
- Students will identify urgency, secrecy and payment pressure in a suspicious voice message.
- Students will use a trusted second channel to confirm identity.
- Students will ask neutral verification questions and avoid sharing clues.
- Students will create a practical family safe-word protocol.
Lesson Architecture
Detailed Procedure
Stage duration in minutes across the 90-minute lesson (hover a segment for detail).
| # | Stage | Time | Teacher and student activity |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Orient | 8 min | Show Panel 1 only. Learners record emotion, visible facts and two unanswered questions. |
| 2 | Listen & infer | 10 min | Read two short voice-message transcripts with different intonation; separate content from emotional effect. |
| 3 | Risk signals | 14 min | Groups sort clue cards: urgency, secrecy, new payment method, changed number, personal detail. |
| 4 | Verification | 15 min | Practise “pause — call back — safe word — report” using role cards. |
| 5 | Language | 10 min | Model confirmation questions and cautious conclusions. |
| 6 | Create | 23 min | Design a Voice-Safety Protocol and perform a 90-second emergency call-back role-play. |
| 7 | Reflect | 10 min | Write one action for the first 30 seconds after a suspicious call. |
A student receives an urgent phone call that sounds like a family member's cloned voice asking for money in a metro concourse.
Student instruction: study the panels and complete the blank speech bubbles with one observation, one question, one check, one respectful response and one responsible decision.
Complete each worksheet with your group after watching the comic.
Worksheet A — Observe, Infer, Check
| Lens | Guiding question | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Pressure | What action is demanded, and how quickly? | |
| Identity | What proves — or does not prove — who is speaking? | |
| Channel | Which trusted number or person can confirm the story? | |
| Action | What should happen before money or data is shared? |
Worksheet B — Evidence Ladder
| Strong evidence | Useful but limited | Opinion / unknown |
|---|---|---|
Worksheet C — Language Support Bank
| Function | Useful language |
|---|---|
| Confirming | I need to check this first. / I will call you back on your usual number. |
| Possibility | The voice may be real, but the message could be fake. |
| Neutral question | What did we agree to use as our family check? |
| Decision | We should pause, verify and report the message. |
Create a four-step family Voice-Safety Protocol card. Add a safe-word rule, a trusted callback channel, a payment rule and a reporting step. Perform two endings: an unsafe reaction and a safer reaction.
Product Checklist
- Our product has a clear audience and purpose.
- We separate fact, inference and uncertainty.
- We use at least three B1+ phrases from the language bank.
- Every member contributes.
- Our final action is realistic, safe and respectful.
- Reflection: One idea we changed after checking evidence was...
- Homework: Write a 140–160-word advice message: “How to respond to an urgent voice message.”
Differentiation and Inclusion
Provide phrase cards, a model first sentence and rehearsal time.
Require the full comic dialogue, worksheet and final product.
Add a second source, stakeholder or audience and explain how the product changes.
- Strong responses separate visible detail from interpretation.
- Accept different decisions when evidence and limitations are explained.
- Do not reward confidence alone; reward checking, clarity and ethical reasoning.
Scrolling or Choosing?
| Grade / level | Grade 11 • CEFR B1+ |
| Duration | 90 minutes |
| Current topic | Doomscrolling, sleep and digital wellbeing |
| Language focus | Frequency; cause and effect; giving balanced advice |
| Final product | Notification Makeover + seven-day wellbeing experiment |
Current Context for the Teacher
Digital use can support learning and connection, but design features and distressing content may keep users online longer than planned. The useful question is not only “How much screen time?” but also “What content, when, why and with what effect?”
- Students will describe a digital habit without blaming the user.
- Students will connect time, content and mood using because, so and as a result.
- Students will compare helpful and harmful features of a feed.
- Students will design a realistic wellbeing experiment.
Lesson Architecture
Detailed Procedure
Stage duration in minutes across the 90-minute lesson (hover a segment for detail).
| # | Stage | Time | Teacher and student activity |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mood check | 7 min | Use four emotion cards after Panel 1; learners justify one choice. |
| 2 | Timeline | 12 min | Build a 24-hour timeline: trigger, scrolling, lost time, next-day effect. |
| 3 | Feature audit | 14 min | Identify autoplay, endless feed, notifications and emotional headlines. |
| 4 | Mini survey | 12 min | Pairs compare habits without sharing private content. |
| 5 | Language | 10 min | Practise frequency phrases and advice with should/could. |
| 6 | Create | 25 min | Redesign notifications and plan a seven-day experiment with one measurable goal. |
| 7 | Reflect | 10 min | Predict one obstacle and one support. |
A student scrolls an endless feed on a rooftop garden at night, notifications pulling attention away from sleep.
Student instruction: study the panels and complete the blank speech bubbles with one observation, one question, one check, one respectful response and one responsible decision.
Complete each worksheet with your group after watching the comic.
Worksheet A — Observe, Infer, Check
| Lens | Guiding question | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Trigger | What starts the scrolling session? | |
| Design | Which feature makes stopping difficult? | |
| Effect | How does the habit affect sleep, mood or attention? | |
| Balance | What small change is realistic for this user? |
Worksheet B — Evidence Ladder
| Strong evidence | Useful but limited | Opinion / unknown |
|---|---|---|
Worksheet C — Language Support Bank
| Function | Useful language |
|---|---|
| Frequency | I often... / I tend to... when... |
| Cause/effect | Because the feed never ends,... / As a result,... |
| Advice | You could turn off... / It may help to... |
| Balance | The app is useful for..., but I need to... |
Create a Notification Makeover with KEEP, LIMIT and TURN OFF columns. Plan a seven-day test with one goal, one measurement and one backup plan. Present the plan as a supportive coach, not a critic.
Product Checklist
- Our product has a clear audience and purpose.
- We separate fact, inference and uncertainty.
- We use at least three B1+ phrases from the language bank.
- Every member contributes.
- Our final action is realistic, safe and respectful.
- Reflection: One idea we changed after checking evidence was...
- Homework: Keep a private three-day habit log and write a 130–150-word reflection without naming personal accounts.
Differentiation and Inclusion
Provide phrase cards, a model first sentence and rehearsal time.
Require the full comic dialogue, worksheet and final product.
Add a second source, stakeholder or audience and explain how the product changes.
- Strong responses separate visible detail from interpretation.
- Accept different decisions when evidence and limitations are explained.
- Do not reward confidence alone; reward checking, clarity and ethical reasoning.
Who Can See My Route?
| Grade / level | Grade 11 • CEFR B1+ |
| Duration | 90 minutes |
| Current topic | Live location, audience and data trails |
| Language focus | Permission; time limits; first conditional |
| Final product | Safer Festival Meeting Map + consent dialogue |
Current Context for the Teacher
Live location can help friends meet and improve safety, but audience, duration and repeated routes matter. A location shared with the wrong group or for too long may reveal routines and private places.
- Students will distinguish one-time location from continuous tracking.
- Students will ask specific permission before sharing another person's location.
- Students will set audience and time limits.
- Students will design a safer meeting plan without constant tracking.
Lesson Architecture
Detailed Procedure
Stage duration in minutes across the 90-minute lesson (hover a segment for detail).
| # | Stage | Time | Teacher and student activity |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Map reveal | 8 min | Show the festival panel; identify who has the phone and who may be visible. |
| 2 | Data trail | 12 min | Place route cards in order and infer what a stranger could learn. |
| 3 | Audience ladder | 12 min | Rank private friend, group chat, public post and unknown follower. |
| 4 | Consent repair | 13 min | Rewrite vague requests as specific permission questions. |
| 5 | If/then | 10 min | Use first conditional to explain possible consequences. |
| 6 | Create | 25 min | Build a safer festival meeting map with zones, check-in times and emergency steps. |
| 7 | Exit | 10 min | Complete: “Location sharing is useful only when...” |
Friends at a river festival check a live location map on a phone, discussing who can see their route.
Student instruction: study the panels and complete the blank speech bubbles with one observation, one question, one check, one respectful response and one responsible decision.
Complete each worksheet with your group after watching the comic.
Worksheet A — Observe, Infer, Check
| Lens | Guiding question | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Audience | Exactly who can see the location? | |
| Duration | Is it shared once, for one hour or continuously? | |
| Inference | What routine or private place might be revealed? | |
| Alternative | Can a meeting point or check-in time solve the problem? |
Worksheet B — Evidence Ladder
| Strong evidence | Useful but limited | Opinion / unknown |
|---|---|---|
Worksheet C — Language Support Bank
| Function | Useful language |
|---|---|
| Permission | May I share our location with this group for one hour? |
| Condition | If we get separated, we will meet at... |
| Limit | Please stop sharing when... |
| Alternative | Instead of live tracking, we can... |
Design a Safer Festival Meeting Map with two meeting points, three check-in times, one emergency contact and a rule for ending location sharing. Role-play a consent conversation before activating the plan.
Product Checklist
- Our product has a clear audience and purpose.
- We separate fact, inference and uncertainty.
- We use at least three B1+ phrases from the language bank.
- Every member contributes.
- Our final action is realistic, safe and respectful.
- Reflection: One idea we changed after checking evidence was...
- Homework: Write 140–160 words comparing live location with scheduled check-ins.
Differentiation and Inclusion
Provide phrase cards, a model first sentence and rehearsal time.
Require the full comic dialogue, worksheet and final product.
Add a second source, stakeholder or audience and explain how the product changes.
- Strong responses separate visible detail from interpretation.
- Accept different decisions when evidence and limitations are explained.
- Do not reward confidence alone; reward checking, clarity and ethical reasoning.
The Price Changed at Checkout
| Grade / level | Grade 11 • CEFR B1+ |
| Duration | 90 minutes |
| Current topic | Dark patterns, hidden costs and online choice |
| Language focus | Comparatives; price language; polite complaint |
| Final product | Fair Checkout Prototype + consumer briefing |
Current Context for the Teacher
Online interfaces may use countdown pressure, preselected extras, hidden fees or difficult cancellation steps. These “dark patterns” can influence choices without giving users clear and equal options.
- Students will identify pressure, hidden costs and preselected choices.
- Students will calculate and compare advertised and final prices.
- Students will explain how design directs attention.
- Students will redesign a clearer and fairer checkout.
Lesson Architecture
Detailed Procedure
Stage duration in minutes across the 90-minute lesson (hover a segment for detail).
| # | Stage | Time | Teacher and student activity |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | First price | 7 min | Learners predict the total from Panel 1. |
| 2 | Checkout trail | 15 min | Reveal fee cards one at a time; update the total after each card. |
| 3 | Design lens | 13 min | Compare size, colour, position and wording of two buttons. |
| 4 | Consumer talk | 10 min | Practise asking for a full price and cancellation rule. |
| 5 | Fairness test | 10 min | Use Clear–Equal–Reversible criteria. |
| 6 | Create | 25 min | Create a fair checkout prototype and a 60-second consumer briefing. |
| 7 | Reflect | 10 min | Name one screen detail you will check next time. |
A shopper in a futuristic mall watches the checkout total rise as hidden fees and preselected extras appear one by one.
Student instruction: study the panels and complete the blank speech bubbles with one observation, one question, one check, one respectful response and one responsible decision.
Complete each worksheet with your group after watching the comic.
Worksheet A — Observe, Infer, Check
| Lens | Guiding question | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Advertised | What price or benefit is shown first? | |
| Added | Which fees, extras or subscriptions appear later? | |
| Choice | Are “yes” and “no” options equally clear? | |
| Exit | Can the user cancel or go back easily? |
Worksheet B — Evidence Ladder
| Strong evidence | Useful but limited | Opinion / unknown |
|---|---|---|
Worksheet C — Language Support Bank
| Function | Useful language |
|---|---|
| Comparing | The final price is higher than... |
| Clarifying | Does this include all required fees? |
| Refusing | No, thank you. I do not want the extra service. |
| Complaint | The option was not clear because... |
Create two checkout screens: a manipulative version and a fair version. Label three changes and explain how each change improves informed choice. Finish with a consumer checklist.
Product Checklist
- Our product has a clear audience and purpose.
- We separate fact, inference and uncertainty.
- We use at least three B1+ phrases from the language bank.
- Every member contributes.
- Our final action is realistic, safe and respectful.
- Reflection: One idea we changed after checking evidence was...
- Homework: Write a 130–150-word review of a fictional checkout experience.
Differentiation and Inclusion
Provide phrase cards, a model first sentence and rehearsal time.
Require the full comic dialogue, worksheet and final product.
Add a second source, stakeholder or audience and explain how the product changes.
- Strong responses separate visible detail from interpretation.
- Accept different decisions when evidence and limitations are explained.
- Do not reward confidence alone; reward checking, clarity and ethical reasoning.
Is This Influencer Real?
| Grade / level | Grade 11 • CEFR B1+ |
| Duration | 90 minutes |
| Current topic | Synthetic influencers, ownership and sponsored content |
| Language focus | Describing evidence; reporting; disclosure language |
| Final product | Transparency Profile + balanced sponsored review |
Current Context for the Teacher
Some online personalities are partly or fully computer-generated. Their appearance may be fictional, but the companies, creators, advertising goals and audience effects are real. Transparency requires knowing who controls the account and what is being promoted.
- Students will notice clues without treating appearance as proof.
- Students will ask who creates, controls and benefits from an account.
- Students will identify sponsored content and missing disclosure.
- Students will create a transparent profile and balanced review.
Lesson Architecture
Detailed Procedure
Stage duration in minutes across the 90-minute lesson (hover a segment for detail).
| # | Stage | Time | Teacher and student activity |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | First impression | 8 min | Panel 1: list visual impressions, then mark which are facts. |
| 2 | Clue lab | 12 min | Inspect consistency, biography, interaction and production clues. |
| 3 | Ownership map | 15 min | Connect avatar, creative team, company, advertiser and audience. |
| 4 | Disclosure test | 10 min | Compare clear and unclear sponsorship statements. |
| 5 | Interview | 12 min | Role-play questions to a creative director. |
| 6 | Create | 23 min | Produce a Transparency Profile and a balanced sponsored review. |
| 7 | Reflect | 10 min | Complete: “A digital person can still influence...” |
In a fashion studio, a team creates a synthetic influencer while two students ask who controls the account and who benefits from it.
Student instruction: study the panels and complete the blank speech bubbles with one observation, one question, one check, one respectful response and one responsible decision.
Complete each worksheet with your group after watching the comic.
Worksheet A — Observe, Infer, Check
| Lens | Guiding question | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Identity | Is the figure human, virtual or mixed? What is known? | |
| Control | Who writes posts and approves partnerships? | |
| Benefit | Who receives money, attention or data? | |
| Disclosure | Can the audience easily see that this is advertising? |
Worksheet B — Evidence Ladder
| Strong evidence | Useful but limited | Opinion / unknown |
|---|---|---|
Worksheet C — Language Support Bank
| Function | Useful language |
|---|---|
| Evidence | One clue is..., but this does not prove... |
| Reporting | The creative team explains that... |
| Disclosure | This content is sponsored by... |
| Balance | The product may help..., although... |
Build a Transparency Profile showing identity status, controller, commercial partner, target audience and evidence. Record a 60-second sponsored review with a clear disclosure, one benefit and one limitation.
Product Checklist
- Our product has a clear audience and purpose.
- We separate fact, inference and uncertainty.
- We use at least three B1+ phrases from the language bank.
- Every member contributes.
- Our final action is realistic, safe and respectful.
- Reflection: One idea we changed after checking evidence was...
- Homework: Write 150–170 words: “Why virtual influencers still need real accountability.”
Differentiation and Inclusion
Provide phrase cards, a model first sentence and rehearsal time.
Require the full comic dialogue, worksheet and final product.
Add a second source, stakeholder or audience and explain how the product changes.
- Strong responses separate visible detail from interpretation.
- Accept different decisions when evidence and limitations are explained.
- Do not reward confidence alone; reward checking, clarity and ethical reasoning.
Weather Is Not Climate
| Grade / level | Grade 11 • CEFR B1+ |
| Duration | 90 minutes |
| Current topic | Climate misinformation and reading data responsibly |
| Language focus | Trends; contrast; cautious conclusions |
| Final product | Weather-vs-Climate Data Story + myth correction |
Current Context for the Teacher
A single hot, cold or rainy day cannot prove or disprove a long-term climate trend. Responsible communication checks time scale, place, source and whether a graph shows weather, climate or a selected fragment.
- Students will distinguish a daily weather event from a long-term trend.
- Students will read a simple graph for period, place and direction.
- Students will identify cherry-picked data.
- Students will write a careful correction without exaggeration.
Lesson Architecture
Detailed Procedure
Stage duration in minutes across the 90-minute lesson (hover a segment for detail).
| # | Stage | Time | Teacher and student activity |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claim | 8 min | React to a fictional post using agree/unsure/disagree cards. |
| 2 | Time scale | 12 min | Sort day, season, decade and long-term climate cards. |
| 3 | Graph walk | 15 min | Read title, axes, period, place and overall trend. |
| 4 | Cherry-pick | 12 min | Compare a short segment with the full graph. |
| 5 | Language | 10 min | Practise rises, falls, remains and however. |
| 6 | Create | 23 min | Create a Weather-vs-Climate Data Story and myth correction. |
| 7 | Exit | 10 min | Write one question to ask before sharing a climate graph. |
In a botanical garden, students compare a single cold day with a long-term temperature graph to check a viral climate claim.
Student instruction: study the panels and complete the blank speech bubbles with one observation, one question, one check, one respectful response and one responsible decision.
Complete each worksheet with your group after watching the comic.
Worksheet A — Observe, Infer, Check
| Lens | Guiding question | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Time | What period does the claim or graph cover? | |
| Place | Is the evidence local, regional or global? | |
| Pattern | Is this one event or a repeated long-term trend? | |
| Source | Who collected the data, and can it be checked? |
Worksheet B — Evidence Ladder
| Strong evidence | Useful but limited | Opinion / unknown |
|---|---|---|
Worksheet C — Language Support Bank
| Function | Useful language |
|---|---|
| Trend | The graph shows a gradual rise in... |
| Contrast | This week was cooler; however, the long-term trend... |
| Caution | One event does not prove... |
| Correction | A more accurate statement is... |
Turn four evidence cards into a Weather-vs-Climate Data Story: observation, time scale, source and careful conclusion. Add a “myth correction” caption that avoids insulting the original poster.
Product Checklist
- Our product has a clear audience and purpose.
- We separate fact, inference and uncertainty.
- We use at least three B1+ phrases from the language bank.
- Every member contributes.
- Our final action is realistic, safe and respectful.
- Reflection: One idea we changed after checking evidence was...
- Homework: Write a 140–160-word explanation of why time scale matters in climate claims.
Differentiation and Inclusion
Provide phrase cards, a model first sentence and rehearsal time.
Require the full comic dialogue, worksheet and final product.
Add a second source, stakeholder or audience and explain how the product changes.
- Strong responses separate visible detail from interpretation.
- Accept different decisions when evidence and limitations are explained.
- Do not reward confidence alone; reward checking, clarity and ethical reasoning.
How Much Does a “Free” Game Cost?
| Grade / level | Grade 11 • CEFR B1+ |
| Duration | 90 minutes |
| Current topic | Microtransactions, loot boxes and virtual currency |
| Language focus | Real cost; probability; setting limits |
| Final product | Fair Game Economy + player protection pitch |
Current Context for the Teacher
Games can offer creativity and social connection, but virtual coins, random rewards and limited-time offers may hide real cost or encourage repeated spending. Players need clear prices, probability information and realistic limits.
- Students will convert virtual currency into a real-money cost.
- Students will distinguish a guaranteed item from a chance-based reward.
- Students will explain how time pressure affects choice.
- Students will design a fairer reward and spending system.
Lesson Architecture
Detailed Procedure
Stage duration in minutes across the 90-minute lesson (hover a segment for detail).
| # | Stage | Time | Teacher and student activity |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Game moment | 7 min | Panel 1: identify excitement and social pressure. |
| 2 | Currency converter | 15 min | Convert fictional coins into three real prices. |
| 3 | Chance line | 13 min | Place guaranteed, likely, unlikely and unknown rewards. |
| 4 | Pressure audit | 10 min | Identify limited-time and “almost won” messages. |
| 5 | Budget talk | 10 min | Practise limits and refusal language. |
| 6 | Create | 25 min | Design a Fair Game Economy and pitch player protections. |
| 7 | Reflect | 10 min | Complete: “A free game may still cost...” |
In an esports arena, a player is tempted by a limited-time loot box offer while friends debate the real cost of virtual currency.
Student instruction: study the panels and complete the blank speech bubbles with one observation, one question, one check, one respectful response and one responsible decision.
Complete each worksheet with your group after watching the comic.
Worksheet A — Observe, Infer, Check
| Lens | Guiding question | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Cost | What is the real price of the virtual currency? | |
| Chance | Is the reward guaranteed? Is the probability clear? | |
| Pressure | Does the offer make the player decide quickly? | |
| Control | Can the player set a limit or disable purchases? |
Worksheet B — Evidence Ladder
| Strong evidence | Useful but limited | Opinion / unknown |
|---|---|---|
Worksheet C — Language Support Bank
| Function | Useful language |
|---|---|
| Cost | Five hundred coins cost... in real money. |
| Probability | The reward is possible, but it is not guaranteed. |
| Limit | I will set a weekly limit of... |
| Design | A fair system should show... |
Create a Fair Game Economy with direct prices, visible probabilities, a spending limit and a non-paid reward route. Present a two-minute pitch from the player, parent and designer viewpoints.
Product Checklist
- Our product has a clear audience and purpose.
- We separate fact, inference and uncertainty.
- We use at least three B1+ phrases from the language bank.
- Every member contributes.
- Our final action is realistic, safe and respectful.
- Reflection: One idea we changed after checking evidence was...
- Homework: Write 130–150 words comparing a fair reward with a chance-based reward.
Differentiation and Inclusion
Provide phrase cards, a model first sentence and rehearsal time.
Require the full comic dialogue, worksheet and final product.
Add a second source, stakeholder or audience and explain how the product changes.
- Strong responses separate visible detail from interpretation.
- Accept different decisions when evidence and limitations are explained.
- Do not reward confidence alone; reward checking, clarity and ethical reasoning.
Verify Before You Evacuate
| Grade / level | Grade 11 • CEFR B1+ |
| Duration | 90 minutes |
| Current topic | Emergency information, location and calm communication |
| Language focus | Time and place details; instructions; correcting rumours |
| Final product | Verified Emergency Update + information chain |
Current Context for the Teacher
During an emergency, old images, wrong locations and unofficial messages may spread quickly. Verification should be fast but careful: check time, place, source, official confirmation and whether the instruction still applies.
- Students will identify time, place, source and instruction in an emergency message.
- Students will compare conflicting updates without increasing panic.
- Students will confirm information through reliable local channels.
- Students will create a calm, short and actionable update.
Lesson Architecture
Detailed Procedure
Stage duration in minutes across the 90-minute lesson (hover a segment for detail).
| # | Stage | Time | Teacher and student activity |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Conflicting alerts | 8 min | Show Panels 1–2; underline what differs. |
| 2 | T-P-S-I check | 15 min | Time–Place–Source–Instruction grid. |
| 3 | Image context | 10 min | Match old and current weather images to dates and locations. |
| 4 | Channel map | 12 min | Rank official alert, local radio, eyewitness, repost and anonymous chat. |
| 5 | Correction | 10 min | Practise calm rumour correction. |
| 6 | Create | 25 min | Produce a Verified Emergency Update and relay it through an information chain. |
| 7 | Debrief | 10 min | Identify where meaning changed in the chain. |
At a mountain shelter, hikers compare conflicting emergency alerts on their phones and check time, place and source before acting.
Student instruction: study the panels and complete the blank speech bubbles with one observation, one question, one check, one respectful response and one responsible decision.
Complete each worksheet with your group after watching the comic.
Worksheet A — Observe, Infer, Check
| Lens | Guiding question | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Time | When was the message created or updated? | |
| Place | Which exact area does it refer to? | |
| Source | Who issued it, and can another channel confirm it? | |
| Instruction | What should people do now? |
Worksheet B — Evidence Ladder
| Strong evidence | Useful but limited | Opinion / unknown |
|---|---|---|
Worksheet C — Language Support Bank
| Function | Useful language |
|---|---|
| Checking | This update was posted at... and refers to... |
| Correction | The earlier message is out of date. The current advice is... |
| Instruction | Please move to... / Avoid... until... |
| Calm tone | We are checking the information. Do not forward it yet. |
Write a 50-word Verified Emergency Update containing time, exact place, source and action. Pass it through a four-person information chain, compare the final version and repair any lost detail.
Product Checklist
- Our product has a clear audience and purpose.
- We separate fact, inference and uncertainty.
- We use at least three B1+ phrases from the language bank.
- Every member contributes.
- Our final action is realistic, safe and respectful.
- Reflection: One idea we changed after checking evidence was...
- Homework: Write a 140–160-word guide: “How to share emergency information without spreading panic.”
Differentiation and Inclusion
Provide phrase cards, a model first sentence and rehearsal time.
Require the full comic dialogue, worksheet and final product.
Add a second source, stakeholder or audience and explain how the product changes.
- Strong responses separate visible detail from interpretation.
- Accept different decisions when evidence and limitations are explained.
- Do not reward confidence alone; reward checking, clarity and ethical reasoning.
Darsni yakunlash
Ism va familiyangizni kiriting, so'ng natijangizni yuborish uchun tugmani bosing.