IGNITE A shared vocabulary for AI use in English classrooms
The IGNITE Framework
The IGNITE Framework is a six-level model for AI use in secondary English classrooms, Grades 7 to 12, developed by George O'Toole, a retired Ontario Head of Department with over 35 years teaching.
The six levels describe the relationship between a student and an AI tool, from copying an answer to producing something neither could have made alone. It's aligned to Bloom's Taxonomy and the SAMR model created by Dr. Ruben Puentedura.
What Is AI-Resistant Assessment?
AI-Resistant assessment is designed so that an AI chatbot can't produce a passing submission on its own. It doesn't rely on detection software and it doesn't depend on banning anything. It works structurally, by asking for evidence a machine can't supply: process collected over time, thinking done in the room in front of you, and specificity that only a student who was present in class could produce.
There's a one-minute version. Paste your assignment instructions into a chatbot and ask whether you would give what comes back full marks, or close to it. If you would, the assignment isn't yet AI-Resistant. The Assignment Audit is the thorough version, and it names the fix rather than just the problem.
What Is AI-Intelligent Assessment?
AI-Intelligent assessment is the next question after resistance. Where AI-Resistant design asks what a machine can't do, AI-Intelligent design asks what a student can do better because AI exists, and how you would assess it. AI-Intelligent design permits AI use openly, requires students to declare and question their use of it, and marks the quality of that judgement as part of the process work.
AI-Resistant and AI-Intelligent aren't opposites and a department doesn't choose between them. Resistance protects the assessment of independent thinking. Intelligence develops the newer skill of working with a tool honestly and effectively. Most English courses need both, and The IGNITE Framework is the vocabulary that lets a department say which one a given task is doing.
AI can write a polished essay on any text. It can't reference a class discussion from last Tuesday, explain why a thesis changed between Draft 1 and Draft 2, or sit in your room and write for fifteen minutes while you watch and conference.
The Six Levels
| Level | Bloom's Taxonomy | SAMR | Student role |
|---|---|---|---|
| I: Imitation | Remember, Understand | Substitution | Passive Receiver |
| G: Guidance | Understand, Apply | Augmentation | Driver, Editor |
| N: Negotiation | Apply, Analyse | Augmentation + | Skeptic, Questioner |
| I: Integration | Analyse, Evaluate | Modification | Collaborator |
| T: Transformation | Evaluate, Create | Modification + | Strategist, Critic |
| E: Emergent | Create, highest order | Redefinition | Author, Visionary |
What Each Level Looks Like
- IImitationThe student copies AI output with little or no change. Gr. 7-8 floor, and the most common default at every level.
- GGuidanceAI use is teacher-controlled or modelled. The student directs and edits. Gr. 7-8 core, Gr. 9-10 entry.
- NNegotiationAI use is declared and interrogated. The student pushes back on what it produced. Gr. 9-10 core, Gr. 11-12 floor.
- IIntegrationAI is a regular tool within stated limits, used to develop the student's own ideas. Gr. 9-10 and Gr. 11-12 core.
- TTransformationCritical questioning produces work in a form that would not have existed otherwise. Gr. 11-12 core target.
- EEmergentThe student creates something original and meaningful that neither they nor the AI could have produced alone.
A note on Imitation. Imitation is the most common default at every grade level when AI is available and oversight is low. It's not a phase to pass through once. It's a permanent risk at every level, which is why every IGNITE resource is built to create conditions where Imitation can't survive contact with an in-person follow-up question.
Find Out Where Your Assignment Sits
The free Audit puts one task through eight questions and names the level it's actually asking for, and the first thing worth changing. Five minutes.
An occasional email, usually every week or two. Unsubscribe in one click. A personal address works better than a board one.
Which Levels Fit Which Grades
| Band | IGNITE range | Bloom's range | SAMR range | Key question |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grades 7 to 8 | Imitation through Guidance | Remember through Apply | Substitution through Augmentation | Did you produce this, or did you receive it? |
| Grades 9 to 10 | Guidance through Integration | Understand through Evaluate | Augmentation through Modification | Should I trust what AI produced here, and why? |
| Grades 11 to 12 | Negotiation through Emergent | Apply through Create | Augmentation through Redefinition | What does it mean to author something with AI's help? |
Each band shows the working range, not a ceiling on any individual student. The core target within it is Guidance at Grades 7 to 8, Integration at Grades 9 to 10, and Transformation at Grades 11 to 12, which is why the senior range runs one level beyond its target. A stretch of one level above a range is realistic in an enriched or accelerated class, so Transformation at Grades 9 to 10 is within reach where the group is ready for it.
The three columns are meant to be read across. The Bloom's and SAMR ranges in each row are exactly the ranges covered by the IGNITE levels named beside them, which is what lets you put a single row into a course outline and have it hold up when somebody checks it.
A note on the SAMR column. Dr. Ruben Puentedura's model has four levels: Substitution, Augmentation, Modification and Redefinition. The two marked with a plus, Augmentation + at Negotiation and Modification + at Transformation, are an IGNITE extension rather than part of SAMR itself. They mark the point where a level does everything the SAMR stage describes and adds declared, interrogated AI use on top. Say so if you present this to colleagues who know the model, and it will be read as precision rather than as an error.
The Four Pillars
Every level of the framework rests on the same four commitments. If an assignment is failing, it's almost always failing on one of these, and usually on the first two.
- 1Process Over ProductAssessment of how students think and work, not only what they hand in.
- 2In-Class CognitionThe thinking that matters happens in the room, in front of you, where AI cannot do the work.
- 3AI as a Tool, not a GhostwriterStudents are permitted to use AI honestly, name how they used it, and own what they produced.
- 4Meta-LiteracyStudents build awareness of their own thinking and of how AI shapes the text they read and write.
Accommodations, Absence, and Multilingual Learners
A framework resting on in-class cognition has an obvious question waiting for it in any department meeting, and it's worth answering before someone asks. What happens to the student with an Individual Education Plan, the student who was away for three weeks, and the student who is still building English?
The pillar is evidence produced where you can see it. It isn't evidence produced under time pressure, and the two get confused because timed writing is the most familiar way of doing it. A conference where you ask three questions and make notes is in-class cognition. A scribed response, or one recorded as audio, is in-class cognition. Writing done in class across three shorter sittings with extended time is in-class cognition. What doesn't bend is that you saw the thinking happen. Timed writing is one delivery of that principle and it suits the fewest students, so you may prefer to treat it as one option among several rather than as the default.
For a student who is often absent, the process weighting is the part that flexes. A missed checkpoint can be offered on return, or covered in a ten minute conference that reaches the same evidence, because the point of the checkpoint was never the artefact.
For a multilingual learner, AI used as language support is a legitimate use at the Guidance level, and the framework already has the language for it: permitted, declared, and the student owns what they produced. Naming it as Guidance is more useful than treating it as something to be quietly overlooked.
None of this changes what a student is expected to demonstrate. In Ontario terms, changing how a student demonstrates learning is an accommodation, and changing what they're expected to demonstrate is a modification. Everything above is the first of those.
One Practical Assessment Model: 40-40-20
The framework describes the levels. It doesn't dictate a mark breakdown. What follows is the weighting I use, offered as a working model rather than a rule, and every IGNITE resource is built on it. The principle underneath is the part that matters: distribute the marks so that no single take-home product, the one thing AI is most able to produce, dominates the grade.
| Component | Weight | Why it holds |
|---|---|---|
| Process work: brainstorming, drafts, checkpoints | 40% | Retrieval practice across several sessions, and a visible trail |
| In-class cognition: oral, timed writing, cold read | 40% | Live thinking. AI cannot be in the room |
| Final product: essay, presentation, submission | 20% | Still valued, no longer the sole measure |
This doesn't penalise a student who uses AI responsibly. It rewards the student who did the thinking at all three stages, which is what deep learning looks like. Adjust the split to suit your course if you wish. A department that moves to 30-40-30 and applies it consistently has still made the change that counts.
What the IGNITE Framework Is Not
Four things it makes no claim to be, because a framework that oversells itself is no use to you in a department meeting.
- 1It is not a detection toolIt won't tell you whether a particular student used AI, and nothing on this site will. It changes what you collect as evidence, so that the question comes up less often and can be settled by a conversation rather than by a percentage.
- 2It is not a banBlocking the tools moves the use out of sight rather than out of the course. The levels describe a classroom where AI is prohibited just as accurately as one where it's permitted.
- 3It is not the first work in this spaceThe AI Assessment Scale, developed by Dr. Mike Perkins, Dr. Leon Furze and colleagues, is the established prior work and it does its job well across subjects and sectors. The IGNITE Framework is deliberately narrower: secondary English, Grades 7 to 12, Ontario aligned, and it arrives with the classroom materials attached.
- 4It is not a promise of an AI-proof assignmentNo assignment is AI-proof, and the models improve every few months. What a well-designed task does is make the shortcut more work than the work, and keep enough of the evidence in the room that a shortcut shows.
Questions Teachers Ask
Is the IGNITE Framework a ladder students climb once?
No. Imitation isn't a stage students pass through and leave behind. It's the most common default at every grade level whenever AI is available and oversight is low, so it stays a live risk in Grade 12 as much as in Grade 7. The framework describes where a particular task sits, not where a student permanently lives.
How is this different from SAMR or Bloom's Taxonomy?
It's not a replacement for either. SAMR describes what the technology is doing to the task and Bloom's describes the thinking demanded. Neither was written with a machine that can produce the finished product in mind. The IGNITE Framework is current, and it creates a shared vocabulary for the relationship between the student and the AI. It maps onto both of the others, so a department can hold one holistic conversation instead of three separate ones.
Do I have to allow AI use to teach with this framework?
No. The IGNITE Framework describes what's happening whether you permit it or not. The levels describe a classroom where AI use is blocked as accurately as one where it's allowed. This framework helps most in naming, out loud and in the same words as your colleagues, what level a given assignment is asking for.
What grade range is it for?
Intermediate and Senior. Grades 7 to 12. The band targets differ. The core target is Guidance at Grades 7 to 8, Integration at Grades 9 to 10, and Transformation at Grades 11 to 12, and a stretch of one level above a band is realistic in an enriched or accelerated class rather than in a general course.
Can I use the framework outside English?
Teachers have reported using it in other subjects for assignment design and for conversations about ethical AI use. The IGNITE Framework was built specifically for secondary English and the examples are literary, so expect to modify the task-level details if you're using it cross-curricularly.
Start With One Assignment
Select the assignment you're most concerned students might complete using AI. Put it through the Audit. It takes five minutes, it's free, and the result names the one thing worth changing first.
Audit an AssignmentWhy Detectors Are the Wrong Tool
About the Author
George O'Toole is a retired Head of Department with over 35 years experience in secondary English classrooms, a former Educational Technology Coach, and a former instructor with the Queen's University Faculty of Education. He holds a Master of Education in Language and Literacy from the University of Toronto and writes from Whitby, Ontario.