ISTE Live 2026 — Session Submission

For: Nadia Selim (nselim@iste.org) Slot: Wed Jul 1, 9:00–10:30 AM, AI Pavilion, ISTE Live (San Antonio) Status: ✅ Final v2 (post-Josh feedback) — ready to send to Nadia Source riff: Lake Forest 2.5-hour AI Literacy Workshop (Apr 1, 2026, Stanford), with Christine Bywater

---

Final Submission

Session title

AI Flash Lab: Design, Build, Advocate

Session description (~140 words, 150-word limit)

Every educator seems to be asking the same question right now: what’s worth chipping away at — and where do humans and AI each fit in getting there? AI Flash Lab is an active 90-minute workshop built around three roles: Designer — name a real challenge you’re trying to tackle; Builder — try building something to address it, with or without AI; Advocate — share what you made with the people in the room. Learner- and research-centered, the format treats “this is the wrong tool for the job” as a valid finding, not a failure. You’ll leave with an early-stage idea you’ve actually built, a network of fellow designers, and a way of asking the AI question that travels back to your own context. Designed for K–12 educators, instructional coaches, school librarians, and district leaders. Bring a laptop and a challenge you’re working on.

Presenters

Name	Email
Reuben Thiessen	reubent@stanford.edu
Josh Weiss	josh.weiss@stanford.edu

---

v1 → v2 revisions (Josh feedback, Apr 29)

Josh’s notes:

1. Cut design jargon — “problem statement” and “prototype” — write for a librarian-level audience.
2. Cut “colleagues” — too workplace-coded for ISTE.
3. The opening question was wrong — it’s not “should I use more or less AI?” It’s about identifying something worth chipping away at AND balancing how humans and AI each get you there.

Changes applied:

• Opening question reframed to Josh’s two-part shape.
• “problem statement” → “name a real challenge you’re trying to tackle”
• “prototype a quick solution” → “try building something to address it” + “early-stage idea you’ve actually built” on the takeaway side.
• “students or colleagues face” → “you’re trying to tackle” (no workplace assumption).
• Audience now names “school librarians” (Josh’s readability test).
• “co-designers” → “fellow designers” — Reuben kept this as the aspirational note: they came as educators and leave seeing themselves as designers.
• Designer / Builder / Advocate roles preserved — they’re the workshop’s bones, not jargon.

---

v1 drafting history (kept for reference)

Title alternates considered

• AI Flash Lab: Design, Build, Advocate — Hands-On AI Decisions for Educators (early recommendation, simplified to the final)
• AI Flash Lab: A 90-Minute Practice for Asking Better AI Questions
• AI Flash Lab: When Should We Use AI in Schools, and How Much?

Riff notes from Lake Forest

• Kept: problem-first framing, three-phase Design/Build/Advocate cycle, “wrong tool for the job” as a valid outcome.
• Dropped/compressed: the Tinkery walkthrough warm-up (no equivalent at ISTE), the Christine-led district-context bridge, the take-home facilitator toolkit (that’s the IP we’re licensing to ISTE under the authorized-provider model — conference attendees experience Flash Lab, they don’t walk away with the delivery kit).
• Tightened for ISTE: explicit audience, invitational ask (“bring a laptop and a problem you’re working on”), kept tool-agnostic so the description ages well.
• Voice fixes Reuben caught during drafting: dropped corporate jargon (“integration calls,” “framework”), killed an AI-tagline em-dash flourish, swapped “real challenge” (read as a dare) for “problem you’re working on,” pulled in language directly from the designkit.stanford.edu site copy (“active workshop,” “immerses you in three roles,” “AI-assisted tools,” “learner- and research-centered,” “early-stage prototype,” “network of co-designers”), added “(or not!)” to Builder to reinforce the “wrong tool” stance earlier in the loop.