P1-S6 Cross-subject: a scheme-of-work AI literacy mapping template (six columns, three markers, two reviews a term)

• StageP1-S6
• SubjectCross-subject
• Learning strandfundamental operating principles of AI / human-AI communication and collaboration / reflection on the application of AI
• Official documentsBlueprint for Digital Education Development in Primary and Secondary Schools · AI Literacy Learning Framework for Primary and Secondary Schools · Guide to Using AI in Teaching in Primary and Secondary Schools · EDB Circular No. 156/2026 · EDB Circular No. 107/2026 · Primary Information and Innovation Technology curriculum framework (trial version)
• Time neededAbout 60 minutes to set the format up in a curriculum meeting; about 30 minutes per subject to fill the plan in September and about 30 minutes to check the actual in January

Six columns, three markers and two reviews a term: which unit, carried in which way, gives pupils a chance to apply a particular learning element — with the plan filled in September and only the actual and its teaching date checked in January. Learning-element names are written from the school's own copy of the framework, never pre-filled here.

• AudienceTeachers
• ThemeSchool planning

• EquipmentEditable Excel mapping table; the current scheme of work (paper or electronic); the school's own copy of the AI Literacy Learning Framework
• Version1.0
• Last updated2026-10-31

A mapping table is not there to prove “we taught AI”. It is there to answer one question: which unit, carried in which way, gives pupils a chance to apply a particular learning element?

What this solves

When a school builds AI literacy into its curriculum, it usually sticks at the same point: the policy document says “integrated organically”, and nobody can say where. Three situations keep coming back:

• Only one subject is doing it. Usually it is the IT panel or a handful of interested colleagues, and every other subject “has nothing to handle”. One subject ends up with a record, the rest of the school is blank at review time, and nobody treats the blank as a gap.
• The mapping table becomes form-filling. To produce a document, colleagues tick “yes” down the grid, and a year later nobody can say what pupils actually did — or which year group repeated the same learning element and which one covered nothing at all.
• The plan is written in September and never checked in January. The plan column looks good; whether it was taught and when lives in each teacher’s own scheme of work. At review the two documents do not agree.

This page does one thing: it gives a six-column table and two fixed checkpoints — September fills the plan only, January checks only the actual and the teaching date. It does not prescribe what to teach and it does not prescribe lesson time.

Three things to say plainly first:

1. The name “AI literacy mapping table” and the six-column format are a suggestion from this resource. The Education Bureau asks schools to integrate AI learning elements organically across learning areas, subjects and cross-curricular domains; it does not prescribe a table format. A school that already has its own mapping table does not need a second one.
2. Learning-element names are not pre-filled. They are always written by the school from its own copy of the AI Literacy Learning Framework. This page does not pre-fill, does not give examples and does not quote the framework, because one wrong name makes the whole review wrong — and the error is invisible on the table itself.
3. This page changes no subject’s curriculum content and no lesson allocation. It does not grade, rank or tie to teacher appraisal. The table records whether a unit carries an element, not whether a teacher taught well.

Planning objectives

By the end of this table a school will be able to:

1. Use six columns to put the year group, term, unit and the way it carries an element on one row, with no separate annex.
2. Use three markers (taught / chance to apply / not covered) so that at the end of term it can state what happened, rather than “broadly, it was all covered”.
3. Use two reviews to separate writing the plan from checking the actual: September fills the plan column, January checks only the actual mapping and the teaching date, and the two are never done in the same meeting.
4. Use the two learning elements per unit cap so that the table does not turn into a grid where every cell is full.
5. Give the review something to look at: which year group repeats an element and which is blank shows on one page.

The table is built on the values of nurture first, literacy first, application-oriented and AI for good, and on the three learning strands of AI literacy (the fundamental operating principles of AI, human-AI communication and collaboration, and reflection on the application of AI). It is a curriculum planning document rather than an administrative form because the question it answers is a curriculum question: over six years (or three), did pupils ever get to use what they were taught, rather than only hear about it? Critical discernment, timely and appropriate use, human-AI collaboration and technology for good look, at curriculum level, most concretely like this: every unit can say what it carries and in which way.

Planning steps

The file is an Excel mapping table: one sheet of the table, one sheet of the review notes. One curriculum lead should convene a meeting of about 60 minutes to set the format; subjects then fill their own rows.

Step 1: six columns, and only six

Four things worth saying about using it:

• There are only three options for how a unit carries an element; do not add a fourth. “Parent support”, “after-school club” and “competition” are none of the three; if something genuinely needs another route, note it in the remarks column rather than adding a fourth option, or the same table will mean different things in different panels.
• The learning-element column is never left blank. A unit that has not been decided yet says “to be decided” in column 4, with the panel that will decide it in the remarks; a blank cannot be told apart from a forgotten row at review.
• Copy the unit name. A renamed unit no longer matches next year’s scheme of work, and the review has to be redone.
• One row per unit. A unit with two elements writes both in the same cell, separated by a semicolon, rather than taking a second row.

Step 2: in September fill the plan only

September fills the plan, not the actual. Only these four things are done:

1. Every unit gets its year group and term, subject and unit name.
2. Column 4 gets the learning elements from the framework, no more than two.
3. Column 5 gets one way of carrying them.
4. Column 6 gets the “September plan”: which element this unit plans to carry and in which way. No teaching dates and no markers.

The September meeting does this one thing. It should not drift into how well anyone taught, because that turns a planning table into lesson observation.

Step 3: in January check only the actual and the date

The January review checks two things and changes nothing else:

1. The actual mapping: did this unit in the end carry the element it planned to carry? If not, then it did not.
2. The teaching date: units taught, or where pupils had a chance to apply, get their actual date.

January does not rewrite the element names in column 4 or the way of carrying in column 5. If something genuinely has to change, column 6 records what changed and why, and the original stays. Overwriting it hides the plan the school actually made.

Step 4: three markers, and one of them may not be left blank

In January every unit gets one marker in column 6:

“Not covered” may not be left blank, which is the most important of the three rules. A blank means “nobody knows”, and nobody knows cannot be acted on at review or reported to the school. Writing “not covered” at least leaves a position to follow up.

“Not covered” is not a record of failure; it is a decision. At review the school can move it into the next term, hand it to another unit, or record explicitly that this year does not cover it. All three are written in column 6 rather than left in a meeting.

Step 5: after the review, only three things

1. List every unit marked “not covered” and decide each one: move it, hand it to another unit, or record that this year does not cover it.
2. Mark the units that repeat the same learning element, and adjust one of them next year.
3. Mark any year group that carries no learning element at all — that is usually where the gap is, not a year group that “does not need it”.

When those three are done, save the table as a new version with a date. Keep the old version rather than overwriting it.

Step 6: the boundary with the school’s other documents

Each does its own part; none replaces another:

• The cross-subject AI coverage audit looks at which subject teaches which learning domain — subject level. This page looks at which unit, in which way — unit level. A school needs both, but they should not be merged into one table.
• The peer-observation protocol for an AI-integrated lesson looks at what happens in one lesson; this page only looks at whether a unit carries an element.
• The school AI-use policy template holds what is and is not allowed; this page handles no tools and no pupil behaviour.
• The whole-school AI risk register and incident process holds risks and incidents; this page records no incident at all.

Review checklist

Before the table is filed, check each line:

• □ There are six columns, with the names and order above, and no seventh column.
• □ Year group and term, subject and unit name are all filled, and unit names match the current scheme of work.
• □ Every learning element is written from the school’s own copy of the framework, with no invented names and no abbreviations.
• □ No unit carries more than two learning elements.
• □ Only one of the three ways of carrying is used; there is no fourth category.
• □ September filled only the plan, with no marker and no teaching date.
• □ January checked only the actual mapping and teaching date, and did not rewrite columns 4 and 5.
• □ Every unit has one marker in January — taught, chance to apply, or not covered — and none is blank.
• □ Every unit marked “not covered” has a decision: moved, handed on, or not covered this year, written in column 6.
• □ Nothing in the table grades, ranks or ties to teacher appraisal.
• □ No subject’s curriculum content or lesson allocation has been changed.
• □ No named commercial tool and no person’s name appears anywhere.
• □ The page and the file both say the six-column format is this resource’s suggestion and that the Bureau prescribes no table format.

Files

Scheme-of-work AI literacy mapping (Excel spreadsheet, editable)

Two sheets: the six-column table with three example rows (the learning-element cell left blank, one row for each of the three ways of carrying) and blank rows; and the review notes (September fills the plan, January checks the actual and the teaching date, with the post responsible and what not to do). The six columns, the three markers and the two reviews are fixed in the file; a school adds or removes rows.

Official documents

Every resource in this library is written to the AI Literacy Learning Framework for Primary and Secondary Schools and falls within the policy scope of the Blueprint for Digital Education Development in Primary and Secondary Schools.

This resource maps to:

• Blueprint for Digital Education Development in Primary and Secondary Schools (three-fold leaflet, p.2): asks schools to build digital and AI education strategy into the School Development Plan; the mapping table is the school-based record of what each year group, subject and unit carries, so the plan has something to be checked against.
• Supplement I: AI Literacy Learning Framework for Primary and Secondary Schools (p.1-4): sets out the three learning strands and progression across four learning stages; the element names in column 4 are always written from this framework. This page does not quote it and does not guess at the names of its learning focuses.
• Supplement I: AI Literacy Learning Framework for Primary and Secondary Schools (pp.1-6 to 1-10): cross-subject implementation and its progression; the six columns record, year group by year group, subject by subject and unit by unit, whether that progression reached the classroom.
• Supplement II: Guide to Using AI in Teaching in Primary and Secondary Schools (pp.2-2 to 2-5): starting from a teaching need, handling learning data, and the teacher’s professional gatekeeping; the table records the way of carrying and the element, never a tool and never a pupil’s personal data.
• EDB Circular No. 156/2026 (Appendix 1, section 2): integrate AI learning elements organically across learning areas, subjects and cross-curricular domains, and implement the learning framework in full; the three markers and two reviews turn “organic integration” into a record that can be checked.
• EDB Circular No. 107/2026 (paragraph 4): the self-evaluation cycle, and building digital education into the School Development Plan and/or the annual school plan; the two reviews a term join that same cycle.
• Primary Information and Innovation Technology curriculum framework (trial version) (AI component): it carries its own table mapping learning topics to the literacy framework, which is the same approach; primary schools can use it alongside. That framework is a primary-stage trial version; at secondary level the same vocabulary is used but there is no equivalent official framework.

Learning strand: fundamental operating principles of AI / human-AI communication and collaboration / reflection on the application of AI

Official documents page: https://www.edb.gov.hk/en/edu-system/primary-secondary/applicable-to-primary-secondary/it-in-edu/debp.html

This page is an independent Beets teaching resource, not an official EDB document. The name “AI literacy mapping table” and the six-column format are a suggestion from this resource; the Bureau asks for learning elements to be integrated organically and prescribes no table format. Learning-element names must be written from the school’s own copy of the framework, and this page neither pre-fills nor quotes them. This page changes no subject’s curriculum content or lesson allocation, and it does not grade, rank or tie to teacher appraisal. The AI component of the primary Information and Innovation Technology curriculum framework is a trial version, and there is no equivalent official framework at secondary level.

Feedback

If you have any comments or questions about this resource, or an idea for the next one, tell us on the feedback page.