# QSFS Activity and Scenario Pack **Pilot draft v0.1 • October 2026 • For school review** Audience: teachers of Years 7–10 (proposed, Victoria), with teacher-selected depth. Primary adaptation is planned later. These activities have not been evaluated; no learning or wellbeing outcomes are claimed. All scenarios, products, people and data are fictional teaching material. Learning about a technology does not require adopting it. A reasoned decision to adapt, defer or reject can be a successful learning outcome. No student accounts, generative AI, personal devices or home internet are required. --- ## 1. Activity design card (complete before offering any activity) 1. **Student learning:** one observable capability and an independent check of it. 2. **Meaningful choice:** question, example, contribution mode or decision students can influence. State which decisions adults retain and why. 3. **Exclusion risks:** reading/language demand, sensory/motor barriers, unfamiliar mathematics, prior technical advantage, device/cost/connectivity requirements and public-speaking pressure. 4. **Accessible equivalent:** same intellectual objective and recognition through print, accessible digital text, oral explanation, diagram, tactile model or supported response. Accommodation does not mean easier thinking or lower marks. 5. **Authorship:** students make an initial attempt and explain their reasoning. Identify permitted assistance. Assess individual transfer without generative AI, while retaining agreed accessibility supports. 6. **Participation safety:** predictable steps; fictional examples; no forced personal disclosure; permission to use an equivalent task or seek the designated adult’s help. 7. **Stop/revise:** a specific sign that the activity, tool or pacing should change, plus a named responsible adult (role). No compulsory student generative-AI accounts, paid subscriptions, home internet, personal phones or disclosure of family technology resources. Do not require students to tell the class why they choose an alternative. **Blank card (copy for each activity):** | Field | Your entry | |---|---| | Observable capability | | | Independent check | | | Student choice / adult-retained decisions | | | Exclusion risks | | | Accessible equivalent | | | Permitted assistance | | | Participation safety | | | Stop sign and responsible role | | --- ## 2. Five domain activity cards ### A. Quantum Literacy — claim, model, limitation - **Gain:** explain why a model is useful yet incomplete, and distinguish a conditional future claim from an established fact. - **Task:** teacher supplies three short quantum claims and a physical probability/information activity (e.g. 20 coin tosses). Students annotate one claim using a checked source excerpt and identify where the classroom analogy fails. - **Sample claims:** (1) “Quantum computers are faster at every task.” (2) “A qubit is just a spinning coin.” (3) “A sufficiently capable future quantum computer could weaken some of today’s public-key methods.” (Claim 3 is a conditional statement consistent with ASD guidance; 1 and 2 are misleading.) - **Voice:** choose the claim and explanatory format; submit an unanswered question for the next lesson. - **Risk/equivalent:** language and probability demands; glossary, worked example, physical objects and oral or diagram response. No simulator or account needed. - **Check:** independently correct a new misleading statement and give a reason. Assess scientific meaning, not confidence or vocabulary display. - **Stop:** repeated misconception that the toy activity literally models a qubit; pause, correct the model and change the explanation before proceeding. ### B. Quantum-Safe Security — information over time - **Gain:** distinguish useful life (how long a record serves a purpose), retention obligation (how long it must be kept, if an applicable requirement exists) and protection need (which protections matter, and for how long); route a concern to an appropriate owner. - **Task:** provisionally rank fictional records by how long protection might matter, marking missing assessments rather than assuming a confidentiality period; distinguish a student’s classroom decision from an adult/system decision. - **Fictional records:** sports carnival timetable (public, changes weekly); one-time canteen order code (useless after today); fictional town library loan list (used for several months; confidentiality period not assessed); fictional research archive with private interview notes (the fictional organisation plans to keep it 25 years; useful life and confidentiality period not assessed); fictional club’s announcement (public but must be genuine). - **Missing assessment:** keeping the archive for 25 years does not by itself establish how long confidentiality is needed. Ask the authorised owner why the notes remain useful, whether any retention obligation applies, and how long disclosure could cause harm. The 25-year storage plan is a fictional choice, not an invented legal retention requirement. Public records may still need integrity, authenticity and availability. - **Voice:** groups choose which fictional service to examine and may dispute the assumed information lifetime. - **Risk/equivalent:** fear or personal disclosures; records unrelated to students’ health, identity or families. Printed sorting cards and supported reading. - **Check:** justify a new fictional example and state one limit to the recommendation. No operational cryptography, real passwords or school inventories. - **Stop:** real account data or a disclosure appears — stop collecting it, do not copy it into any evaluation, and follow the school’s reporting route. ### C. Emerging Technology Futures — should our fictional learning hub use this tool? - **Gain:** distinguish vendor claims from evidence, compare alternatives and justify adopt/adapt/defer/reject. - **Task:** the complete scenario in section 3. Students examine prepared printed outputs rather than use a live AI service. - **Voice:** choose the decision and propose additional evidence; there is no preferred pro-technology answer. - **Risk/equivalent:** prior AI experience or device ownership could dominate; everyone receives the same short print/accessible pack and thinking time. - **Check:** individual recommendation, then a new evidence card and independent revision. - **Stop:** students mainly copy the tool answer or a polished group response; remove that support, reteach checking and assess a fresh task with agreed accommodations. ### D. STEM Pathways and Careers — more than one route - **Gain:** distinguish a role, a skill and a training pathway; identify an achievable next exploration. - **Task:** match interests and transferable skills to multiple quantum-era roles — education, design, technical, ethical and policy work. Verify claims with current careers staff/resources before use. - **Fictional learners:** *Ari* likes drawing and explaining; *Sam* enjoys puzzles and maths; *Lee* likes debating fairness; *Noor* likes fixing things and building. - **Voice:** students may use an invented learner, reject all proposed roles or remain undecided. - **Risk/equivalent:** no questions about finances, family expectations or career certainty. Print and accessible text cards. - **Check:** explain two plausible routes for a fictional learner and what further information is needed. - **Stop:** gender/cultural stereotypes or unsupported job guarantees arise; correct the resource and reopen choices rather than grade aspiration. ### E. Responsible Innovation — whose decision counts? - **Gain:** identify affected people, weigh a trade-off and recommend an accountable decision/review process. - **Task:** revisit the fictional hub proposal with stakeholder cards and a fixed budget. A low-tech alternative has genuine strengths and limitations. - **Stakeholder cards:** visitor who uses a screen reader; volunteer facilitator with limited hours; hub manager with one budget; school group teacher; visitor without home internet; supplier representative. Students add a missing stakeholder. - **Voice:** question the decision criteria. Adults later show which real pilot design suggestions they accepted, declined or need to investigate. - **Risk/equivalent:** individual silent preparation, small-group options and private written/oral contributions. No student must represent a demographic group. - **Check:** individual justification recognises one competing consideration and what evidence would change the conclusion. - **Stop:** personal targeting, discriminatory assumptions or pressure to reveal experiences; pause, follow classroom/safeguarding routines and offer the equivalent scenario. --- ## 3. Complete student-led scenario: adopt, adapt, defer or reject > **All data below are deliberately fictional teaching materials, not product or research findings.** The “AI explainer” is not a real product. ### Situation A community learning hub is preparing a quantum-futures exhibition. A supplier offers an AI explainer that generates answers about quantum computing and future careers. The hub has funds for **one** improvement: the tool plus training, **or** updated accessible exhibits plus facilitator time. Its objective: visitors can explain one quantum claim, recognise uncertainty and ask informed questions. ### Evidence cards (print one set per student) 1. **Supplier claim:** “Faster, more personalised explanations.” No independent learning study supplied. 2. **Sample A (tool output):** “Quantum computers are faster than normal computers at every task, so they will replace them.” — engaging but incorrect. 3. **Sample B (tool output):** “Before I answer, compare these two explanations of a qubit. Which one says what is uncertain?” — a hint that prompts comparison. 4. **Access card:** the proposed interface lacks a tested screen-reader pathway; accessible print exhibits already exist. A paid home version is advertised but is not part of the learning design. 5. **Data card:** retention and model-training use are unspecified. No identifiable information is needed for the exhibition activity. 6. **Learning card:** polished answers were collected, but no independent explanation task was used. Learning benefit is therefore unestablished. 7. **Human alternative:** revised printed exhibit, educator-led questioning and a take-away glossary. Constraints: facilitator time and fewer immediately available explanations. ### Directions (sequence) 1. **Individually** explain the exhibition’s learning goal and write an initial recommendation. 2. **In groups**, identify missing evidence and whose experience is absent. Choose a role — researcher, questioner, accessibility reviewer or recorder — or work independently. 3. Choose **adopt, adapt, defer or reject** and justify it across learning, access, privacy, fairness and workload. “Adopt” is not defensible merely because a tool is new. “Reject” still needs evidence and an alternative plan. 4. **Changed fact:** the supplier now offers an accessible, account-free demonstration with no personal data collection, but still no independent learning evidence. Decide whether this changes your view; you may keep it. 5. **Individual transfer:** apply your reasoning to a different fictional exhibit tool (below), without the group answer or AI assistance. Agreed literacy/accessibility supports stay. 6. **Teacher response:** the teacher identifies one student suggestion that changes the real pilot materials and one decision outside student authority, with a reason. ### Individual transfer task A fictional art gallery is offered a “talking portrait” kiosk that answers visitor questions about artists. Card set: the supplier says visitors “love it”; a sample answer gives a wrong date for a painting; it requires visitors to scan a QR code with their own phone; an audio guide already exists; no information on what visitors learned. Recommend adopt, adapt, defer or reject, give two pieces of evidence, one unknown, and what would change your mind. ### Rubric (0–2 per criterion, total 8) | Criterion | 0 | 1 | 2 | |---|---|---|---| | Educational purpose | Not identified | Named vaguely | Clearly linked to what visitors should learn | | Evidence / claim / unknown | Not distinguished | Partly distinguished | Clearly separates supplier claim, evidence and unknown | | Inclusion and competing consideration | Absent | One mentioned without reasoning | Reasons about access/inclusion and weighs a competing factor | | Decision and revision condition | No decision or reason | Decision with weak justification | Justified decision plus a condition that would change it | **A supported, well-reasoned rejection can receive full marks.** This draft rubric requires piloting and moderation; it is not a validated measure of agency or wellbeing. ### Original fictional model responses — not actual student work - **Adapt (8/8):** “Our goal is for visitors to explain one quantum claim, recognise uncertainty and ask informed questions. ‘Faster, more personalised’ is the supplier’s claim, not evidence of learning. Sample A is wrong; Sample B invites comparison, but we do not know whether visitors learn independently. Adapt: use Sample-B-style prompts in the existing accessible print exhibits, without a live tool. This includes visitors who cannot use the untested screen-reader interface or a home device. Facilitator time limits how many questions we can answer, but accessible questioning serves the goal better than quick unchecked answers. I would reconsider a live tool if an independent comparison showed better explanations, with tested accessible access and clear data-use limits.” - **Breakdown:** educational purpose **2** — explicit visitor learning goal; evidence / claim / unknown **2** — supplier claim separated from samples and missing independent learning evidence; inclusion and competing consideration **2** — access is reasoned against speed and facilitator capacity; decision and revision condition **2** — justified print adaptation with evidence/access/data conditions. **2+2+2+2 = 8/8.** - **Reject (8/8):** “Visitors should explain one quantum claim, recognise uncertainty and ask informed questions. Reject the live tool for now: the supplier promises speed, but Sample A is incorrect and the learning card has no independent explanation check, so benefit remains unknown. The untested screen-reader pathway excludes some visitors; data use is also unclear. Spend on accessible exhibits, facilitator time and a glossary instead. Fewer instant explanations and limited staff time are real drawbacks, but an accessible opportunity to question and explain is more important to our learning goal. The changed fact addresses access and data, not the missing learning evidence, so I keep my decision. I would reconsider if an independent learning comparison favoured the tool while accessible access and clear data limits remained in place.” - **Breakdown:** educational purpose **2** — explicit visitor learning goal; evidence / claim / unknown **2** — speed claim distinguished from incorrect output and missing learning evidence; inclusion and competing consideration **2** — exclusion weighed against staff time and fewer instant explanations; decision and revision condition **2** — justified rejection, response to changed fact and reconsideration conditions. **2+2+2+2 = 8/8.** - **Adopt (1/8):** “Adopt because AI is the future and it’s faster.” - **Breakdown:** educational purpose **0** — no visitor learning identified; evidence / claim / unknown **0** — repeats a claim without distinguishing evidence or unknowns; inclusion and competing consideration **0** — absent; decision and revision condition **1** — a decision with weak justification, no revision condition. **0+0+0+1 = 1/8.** No extra credit for enthusiasm or choosing adoption. ### Teacher guide - Defensible answers: adapt, defer or reject are commonly well supported; adopt can score highly only with evidence-based conditions (e.g. adopt the demonstration only after an independent learning check, with the printed exhibit retained). - After the changed fact: access and data concerns weaken; the learning concern remains. Reward students who notice which concern changed. - Keep thinking time individual first. Do not let the most experienced AI user set the answer. - If students copy the group answer in step 5, remove the group sheet and give the transfer task fresh. - Close the loop: report back “You raised… / We changed… / We could not change yet…”. Illustrative only until a real pilot occurs. --- Quantum-Safe Futures for Schools Framework (QSFS), founded by Michelle Magalona. Pilot draft v0.1 • October 2026 • For school review. Format: Markdown (.md).