3.2 Progression Levels and Operators

EveryThe competence18 incore competencies of the DUAL.AI.TEACHer framework isare relatively abstract and provide an overarching structure of the competence field. To facilitate self-assessment or assessment by others and to chart individual competency development, the each of the core competencies are operationalized through observable learning objectives.objectives, Thesedifferntiated learning objectives are described aton three progression levels.

The levels build on one of the most widely used models in education: the revised Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Krathwohl, 2002). Its core idea is simple: Cognitive processes develop from remembering and understanding, through applying and analysing, to evaluating and creating. What changes from level to level is therefore not the content or topic, but the cognitive depth of thinking and acting a teacher can demonstrate with it.

This cognitive depth is reflected in the wording of the learning objectives. Each objective is built around a verb (an operator) taken directly from the taxonomy (e.g. recognise, implement, critique). The operator tells you what a teacher at that level is expected to do, and makes the learning objective concrete and observable.

At Level 1, Orientational Awareness, teachers orient themselves: they recognise and recall key AI concepts and tools and build a basic understanding – they can give examples, classify tools, and summarise opportunities and risks in their own words.

At Level 2, Analytic Implementation, teachers move into informed action: they explain and compare, apply AI purposefully in their own teaching, and analyze what works, for whom, and under which conditions – including the limits and assumptions of the tools they use.

At Level 3, Critical Leadership, teachers shape practice beyond their own classroom: they evaluate AI systems and practices against pedagogical and ethical criteria, design and develop new approaches, and take a leading role in their professional community.

The levels progressively build on each other. Each higher level draws on the cognitive processes of the levels below it. However, following Krathwhohl (2002), this is a hierarchy of increasing complexity rather than a set of strictly separated stages. Neighbouring categories may overlap, and the boundaries between levels are fluid rather than sharp. 

The following table showsdepicts the threeprogression levels atand athe glance.according operators.