Trainer companion

Objective: the programme solves teaching problems, not AI curiosity.

"This programme is not about asking AI to do a teacher's job. It is about helping teachers work with their own trusted material, create useful resources faster and review those resources responsibly before classroom use."

"Attendance alone does not mean certification. Certification shows that the teacher can apply the process independently."

Activity: teachers complete the baseline on Module 1 (class, subject, topic, difficulty, time-consuming resource). Ask 2–3 teachers: what takes the most preparation time? Where would Telugu support help?

Board: Start with a teaching need, not with a feature.

Demo (Water Cycle notebook): interface tour (title, Sources, Chat, Studio, sharing, output language — skip everything else) → basic model → ask "What are the five most important ideas in these sources?" → open a citation → select/deselect sources → show one pre-generated Studio artifact. Do not generate anything long live.

"This is the most important habit in today's programme. Do not only read the answer. Open the evidence."

Guided practice: create + name notebook, add shared source, ask, open citation. Walk around asking: Can you show me the source? The citation? What evidence supports this answer?

Common problems: wrong Google account (check profile icon before more work) · lost upload (completed? second notebook?) · reading without citing (for certification, showing the answer is not enough).

Teach CLEAR, then the three-way comparison: poor photo → clear photo → searchable PDF, same validation question each time ("Identify the page title, headings, definitions, examples and diagrams"). Discuss what was missed or misread.

Exercise: each teacher adds one of their own sources and completes the validation record (type, reliability, what was recognised, what needs caution).

Critique question: "Would adding ten more sources improve this notebook, or make its purpose less clear?" Land on: intentional selection beats volume.

Catch up teachers who are behind: logins, failed uploads, charging.

Teach CLASS, then the live weak-to-strong ladder on kinetic energy (all four prompts are on Module 4 with copy buttons). Show refinement: initial output → one weakness → new instruction → improved output → citation check.

"Prompting is not about finding one magical sentence. It is a conversation of instruction, review and refinement."

Exercise: the prompt ladder on their own topic — four versions, generate the last, identify one weakness, refine once. Pairs may discuss; each teacher saves individual evidence.

Common trap: requesting everything at once → "Select one immediate classroom need. Good work is specific and reviewable."

Display the workflow map (need → output). Six rapid demos, ~4 minutes each: LKG/UKG picture vocabulary · Classes 1–2 bilingual story · Classes 3–5 three-level worksheet · Classes 6–8 explanation + diagnostic · Classes 9–10 revision + flashcards · one pre-generated Studio artifact.

Studio realities to state: customise before generating; video can take 30+ minutes; some video formats are English-only; outputs can contain inaccuracies; free-tier daily limits are real. Use pre-generated backups — never wait for a long artifact live.

"Do not choose video because video is exciting. Choose video when movement, sequence or visual comparison improves understanding."

Mini-task: each teacher picks one small output and answers the four artifact questions before generating.

Teachers confirm access to their final-assignment notebook. You open the Telugu demonstration notebook.

Demo: the same concept three ways — English → direct Telugu → customised classroom Telugu (prompts on Module 6). Compare naturalness, textbook terminology, retained English terms, formality, meaning, numbers/units.

"Fluent-looking Telugu is not proof of correct or natural Telugu. Language teachers and subject teachers remain the final reviewers."

Exercise: one Telugu/bilingual output each, marking: accepted phrase, changed phrase, retained English term, item needing subject-teacher review.

Teach VERIFY, then hand out the deliberately flawed worksheet (contains: one factual weakness, one unclear instruction, one question above grade, one unnatural Telugu phrase, one unsupported statement, one privacy concern). Groups discuss; individuals complete the review sheet.

Responsible use: the do-not-upload list. Data minimisation even where the platform offers protections.

"The resource is attractive and the Telugu sounds fluent, but the teacher did not verify it. Should it pass?" — required answer: No.

Explain the assignment (requirements on Module 8 and Certification). State the individual-work rule and the same-chapter differentiation rule.

"You may sit together, exchange ideas and help solve technical problems. However, each teacher must create and submit an individual notebook and individual evidence."

Before anyone leaves: notebook created and named, one source added, objective written, artifact selected, first prompt drafted. Announce the submission channel and the three-day deadline clearly.

"Your certificate will not show that you watched a NotebookLM demonstration. It will show that you built, reviewed and explained a classroom resource independently."