Grow with AI

How it is designed

The conditions in which learning happens, declared in every Unit, and the position that guides how AI is used in the room.

Choose the look:
See the styles full size →
How it is designed

The five aspects of the Experience Layer

Besides what is learned, every Unit declares the conditions in which it is learned. There are five aspects, running across the whole program. A Smoother design position, authored by Carlos Miranda Levy. What follows is what each one can say about itself after the verification round of 16 September 2026, not a word more:

0′ 15′ 30′ 45′ Wonder opens Hook sustains Play in attempt 1 Disruption halfway through Horizon closes 0′ 15′ 30′ 45′ Wonder opens Hook sustains Play in attempt 1 Disruption halfway Horizon closes
The Experience Layer, across one session. The minutes are the ones Unit 01 declares: Wonder opens, the Hook is named early and sustains the rest, Play lives in the first attempt, the Disruption arrives halfway through and the Horizon closes. It is what is declared, evidence of intention and not of effect; no aspect is scored.

Wonder

The first gap in the ordinary that makes you look up.

Original, a design position, with no convergences: no study shows that a designed opening produces measurable learning beyond its first minutes in a secondary-school classroom. That an opener achieves anything later is a design position, not a finding.

Hook

The named reason this person has to keep working once the wonder fades.

The best evidenced of the five, and with conditions: relevance and purpose interventions have moved interest and grades in secondary school mostly among those who expected to fail, and one trial at the same age found no change at all. It is an equity lever, never a universal accelerator.

Play

Voluntary, low-stakes, rule-bound activity whose difficulty is the fun.

Original, a design position, with no convergences from play research with 14- to 18-year-olds. What is verified, in adults, is that material unrelated to the concept costs learning; hence the rule: the wonder must be about the concept, never beside it.

Disruption

A planned change of conditions, delivered live, that invalidates part of the plan and forces a new decision.

A declared experiment, with a stopping rule written by the Learning Facilitator before it is delivered: one per Learning Experience, bounded, brief and followed by consolidation. There is no controlled study of such a change with 14- to 18-year-olds; harm is neither documented nor ruled out, which is why it runs with a stopping rule and is measured locally.

Horizon

The concrete, reachable picture of who the learner can become by having done this.

A value the class holds, not a lever it pulls; it becomes a lever only when tied to a concrete next action. The operative variable of any role model is reachability, not excellence.

What this is, and what it is not

  • The Experience Layer is a Smoother design position, authored by Carlos Miranda Levy: conviction and practice, not validated pedagogy. It sits in the same register as the Guiding Position “The Almighty Gym” and the CEMI Impact Arc.
  • It is never scored. No aspect goes into a rubric, a grade or a progression decision.
  • It is declared, then measured locally. What is declared is evidence of intention, never of effect: the effect is watched by the Learning Facilitator, group by group.
The position

“The Almighty Gym”

The whole program sits under a design position by Carlos Miranda Levy: we have been handed an almighty gym, a machine that can do almost anything, and the work is to make it function as a cognitive gym, that is, so that the learner does the cognitive work instead of delegating it.

Hence its corollary: Smoother does not mean “frictionless”. Unproductive friction is removed, and productive cognitive friction is kept, sometimes increased. Writing the prompt by hand before touching a device is exactly that.

The machine that does it for you You ask “make me this” The machine thinks, decides and produces the piece A piece that never went through you the work was delegated The gym that makes you stronger You write the prompt by hand, before the device The machine produces the piece, projected You review it against explicit criteria you did the work again where the cognitive work happens The machine that does it for you You ask “make me this” The machine thinks, decides and produces the piece A piece that never went through you the work was delegated The gym that makes you stronger You write the prompt by hand, before the device The machine produces the piece, projected You review it against explicit criteria you did the work again where the cognitive work happens
What changes between the two paths is who does the work. In the first, the machine does it and the piece goes through no one; in the second, the person writes the prompt by hand, reviews what came out against explicit criteria and tries again. The machine is the same. It is a design position by Carlos Miranda Levy, not a finding.

Our full perspective →

Comprehensive AI learning designed for educators, by educators. From awareness to mastery.