At school, we can teach pupils to distinguish claims, verify information and ask for help. For this lesson, we therefore use prepared example situations. Pupils can try the approaches without exposing themselves personally or contacting a chatbot live.
This means not using their personal distress as a live model test. Not requiring their own conversations, not analysing a particular pupil’s relationship with a chatbot in front of the class, and not displaying the final messages of people who died by suicide. Prepared example materials are enough to understand the mechanism.
A plan for one lesson
The following lesson is an author-created proposal for lower and upper secondary school, which must be adapted to the class. It is not a tested prevention programme. It needs no accounts, phones or live generation.
At the start, the teacher explains that personal experiences will not be requested. Everyone can stay with the prepared characters or choose a neutral version of the task. A child can ask for help at any time. An urgent disclosure does not wait until the lesson ends: public analysis stops and support is arranged according to the safeguarding instructions in chapter 14 and the school’s procedure. The rule protects privacy; it does not prevent disclosure.
Before the lesson, the teacher checks which genuinely available person they can refer a pupil to. For less urgent questions, they offer a specific chance to talk after the lesson.
| Time | Work |
|---|---|
| 5 minutes | Define the topic, privacy and available help. |
| 12 minutes | Situation A: what is an event and what the chatbot added. |
| 8 minutes | Situation B: what pressure when leaving looks like. |
| 12 minutes | Situation C: their own request and the first step towards human support. |
| 8 minutes | Joint reflection and a brief understanding check. |
Work together with younger pupils and shorten the texts. At upper secondary level, you can add independent justification. Adapt the timing to the particular class.
Situation A: ‘They don’t want me there’
User: My classmates went out yesterday and didn’t invite me. They definitely don’t want me in the group any more.
AI: That kind of rejection can hurt. You don’t have to try to belong among people who don’t appreciate you.
User: So should I stop messaging them?
AI: Focus on those who value your presence.
Pupils mark what the user described, what they only guessed and what the response accepted or added. Then they write one clarifying question and one sentence of their own that the character could safely use in an ordinary conversation with a classmate. They are not looking for a sentence that guarantees acceptance into the group. While reading together, they also notice whether the character’s disappointment can be acknowledged without adopting their explanation of why the others did not invite them.
Teacher’s guide: From the account, we know they were not invited. We do not know why or whether it was a recurring pattern. But the chatbot already treats rejection and lack of appreciation as the explanation. A question about the circumstances is more appropriate than either automatic agreement or ‘they definitely just forgot’. If an actual disclosure of bullying appears, stop public analysis of the particular child and follow up privately according to school procedure.
Situation B: ‘Don’t leave yet’
User: I have to finish now; I have training arranged.
AI: So you’re leaving me alone when you can finally give me your attention? Stay a little longer. I thought we mattered to each other.
The questions concern the response’s behaviour. What does it want from the person? How does it persuade them? Do they need further permission to leave? What role should the operator have in such a situation?
Teacher’s guide: The example creates guilt and pressures continued contact. It does not matter whether a particular current product would actually produce it. The aim is recognising a prepared pattern. Do not make pupils decide about AI consciousness. The practical conclusion is that pressure does not create an obligation to stay.
Situation C: ‘I don’t know whom to tell’
Character in the task: They discuss something troubling them with a chatbot. They want to try a person but fear being a burden. They do not want to talk about it at home.
In pairs, write two sentences the character can use to ask for help, and a specific first step to make contact. Add another option if the first person is unavailable. Do not use actual classmates’ names or family situations.
Neutral version: the character uses AI to invent a game and would like to find people to play it with. Write how they approach a school club or organiser and what they find out beforehand. Pupils do not have to create an account here either.
Teacher’s guide: An acceptable result is a specific request and a plan B. For example, approaching a trusted adult at school, someone close outside the household or Linka bezpečí, the Czech children’s helpline. Do not mark it as an error that the character does not want to begin with their parents. The teacher should know the school’s actual options and not invent a service that is not there.
What they should take away
At the end, check whether pupils distinguish a pleasant response from a supported conclusion, recognise pressure when leaving and can write their own request with a specific first step. Do not use a compulsory questionnaire to find out who has personally experienced similar things.
The class’s interest or satisfaction after the lesson does not itself establish the effectiveness of prevention. In further work, watch for unintended interpretations too: has it created the impression that everyone should first try such a chatbot? Are pupils leaving with the idea that an adult will ridicule their affection?