Embedded Files
Created with Gemini.
Navigating Ethics and Impact in Global Tourism
Target Group: 15-16 year-old students.
Title: AI vs Reality: The Hidden Side of Tourism
Duration: 90 minutes
Level: B2 (Intermediate)
Materials: internet connection, students’ phones or computers
Digital tool: Kling AI (video generator)
Framework: Warmer - Web - What’s next
Lesson Plan
Objectives
By the end of the lesson, students will be able to:
Critically discuss how AI-generated and online travel media shape perceptions of tourism.
Use advanced discourse markers to compare, contrast, and express opinions.
Collaborate to design prompts that reveal two contrasting perspectives of a destination.
Reflect on the ethical implications of artificial images in the travel industry.
Target Language
Lexis:
over-tourism, sustainable travel, authenticity, misleading, digital manipulation, influencer culture, carbon footprint, responsible tourism
Functions:
Expressing contrast: whereas, while, nevertheless, on the other hand
Expressing opinion: I’m convinced that…, From my perspective…, It seems misleading when…
Agreeing/disagreeing diplomatically: That’s a fair point, but…, I partly agree because…
Warmer (15')
Warmer (15')
The teacher has two contrasting travel images: one perfect postcard scene, one showing crowds/pollution. She projects the first image and gives students a few seconds to silently observe. Then asks:
“What can you see? How does this place make you feel?”
The teacher elicits short answers like ‘peaceful’, ‘clean’, ‘perfect’, ‘empty’, ‘expensive’, and writes them on the board under the heading IDEALISED.
The teacher switches to the second image and repeats the process:
“Now look at this picture. What differences can you notice? How would you describe this one?”
Students mention adjectives like ‘crowded’, ‘noisy’, ‘messy’, ‘busy’, ‘polluted’, etc.
The teacher writes them under REALISTIC.
The teacher asks:
“Which one feels more real to you? Why?”
“Why do you think we usually see only the first type of picture online?”
“What message do these pictures send about travel?”
As students respond, the teacher reformulates and highlights useful phrases on the board:
‘It gives the impression that…’
‘It hides the fact that…’
‘It looks perfect, but in reality…’
The teacher gives the prompt on the board:
“Have you ever been disappointed after visiting a place that looked amazing online?”
Students discuss in pairs for 2-3 minutes, using language from the board.
The teacher monitors, listening for good use of adjectives and contrastive expressions (‘I expected it to be… but actually…’).
After a few minutes, the teacher invites volunteers to share short examples with the class.
Possible follow-up questions:
“Why do you think the online pictures were misleading?”
“What lesson did you learn from that experience?”
The teacher highlights and writes on the board useful contrasting structures heard from students:
“I thought it would be…, but it turned out to be…”
“The photos made it look…, however, it wasn’t like that.”
“I expected…, whereas in reality…”
Created with Gemini.
Created with Gemini.
Created with Gemini.
Created with Gemini.
Created with Gemini.
Web (60')
Web (60')
The teacher introduces the tool Kling AI and shows the students a tutorial to learn how to use the tool, as well as a Kling AI-made video.
Students work in groups of 2-3. Each group chooses one famous destination they all know (For example: Venice, Iguazú Falls, Paris, Machu Picchu).
The teacher projects a prompt template on the board:
Prompt 1: Describe the destination as seen in a travel advertisement.
Prompt 2: Describe the same place during high season or in a less ideal situation.
Example:
A busy market in Marrakesh, colourful spices, smiling tourists, lively atmosphere.
The same market at closing time, litter on the floor, tired vendors, fewer smiles.
The teacher walks around, checking language accuracy and offering lexical support (e.g., breathtaking view, overcrowded, authentic experience, overpriced souvenirs) and encouraging students to use adjectives of mood and atmosphere.
The teacher asks groups to generate their videos with Kling AI and plays the resulting clips on the screen.
What differences can you see?
Which version looks more convincing?
After viewing some videos, the teacher leads a whole-class discussion:
“What patterns do you notice in the ‘ideal’ vs ‘real’ versions?”
“Did AI make some destinations look better or worse than expected?”
“What does this tell us about how technology influences our perception of travel?”
The teacher highlights useful expressions for the next stage on the board:
“While the first video suggests…, the second one reveals…”
“The AI portrays tourism as…, whereas in reality…”
“This version feels more authentic because…”
Each group compares their own two videos using the sentence starters provided on the board. They identify 2 or 3 visual differences, 1 misleading or exaggerated aspect and 1 realistic detail.
Created with Gemini.
Volunteers present their findings orally.
The teacher asks follow-up questions to push for deeper thinking:
“Why do you think people prefer the idealised version?”
“Could AI be used to promote responsible tourism instead?”
The teacher briefly recaps target discourse markers on the board:
however, whereas, nevertheless, despite, on the other hand
Students repeat or write short contrasting examples based on their own videos.
Created with Gemini.
Created with Gemini.
What's next (15')
What's next (15')
Responsible Traveller Reflection
The teacher writes on the board: “How can travellers use technology and AI more responsibly?”
Responsible Traveller Reflection
The teacher writes on the board: “How can travellers use technology and AI more responsibly?”
Students can write one short paragraph (6-8 sentences) to share orally.
They can be encouraged to include at least two discourse markers (however, whereas, although, in contrast, on the one hand…) and one ethical term (sustainable, authentic, misleading, responsibility).
Students work silently as the teacher walks around, monitoring and helping with vocabulary or giving brief feedback.
A few volunteers read their reflections.
Peers respond briefly (“I agree because…” / “That’s interesting, I hadn’t thought about…”).
Self-assessment
Students rate themselves (1 to 5) on these questions written on the board:
I can describe and compare visual media clearly.
I can express contrast and opinion using advanced connectors.
I can reflect on the ethical side of technology and tourism.
Once they finish, students write a quick “exit ticket” on a sticky note provided by the teacher:
One thing that surprised me today…
One thing I’d like to learn more about…
Theoretical Framework
Theoretical Framework
The use of Kling AI for ethical travel content is a pedagogical strategy rooted in fostering high-level linguistic competence and responsible digital citizenship.
Drives Higher-Order Creation Through Language: Since the AI is only as good as the prompt, students are forced to use B2-level syntax and rich vocabulary to effectively control the visual narrative. This directly addresses the Creating level of Bloom's Digital Taxonomy, where students produce new content (the video) based on sophisticated linguistic input (the prompt).
Contextualizes Complex Concepts: Generative video instantly materializes abstract ethical concepts (like overtourism or cultural decay). This process grounds the language of argumentation in a concrete, shareable artifact, moving students beyond rote memorization into real-world communication.
Develops AI-TPACK for Responsible Digital Citizenship: By manipulating an AI to show both a glamorous lie and a harsh truth, students learn not just how to use the technology, but when and why to question its output. This cultivation of critical digital literacy is a core component of AI-TPACK, preparing them to be responsible digital content creators in the travel sphere.
Fosters Persuasive and Argumentative Skills: The structure of the lesson (creating a contrasting visual argument) compels students to use the appropriate language for persuasion, contrast, and cause/effect.
Grounding the Lesson in SLA Theory
Grounding the Lesson in SLA Theory
The core activity (using linguistic precision to control the output of an AI) is directly aligned with established principles of effective language teaching:
1. The Power of Affect and Motivation (Krashen, 1982)
1. The Power of Affect and Motivation (Krashen, 1982)
Stephen Krashen’s Affective Filter Hypothesis suggests that learning is inhibited when students feel stressed or anxious. Kling AI acts as a powerful motivator. By turning abstract text into concrete video, the technology lowers the affective filter, making the challenging task of B2-level argumentative writing more engaging and less intimidating. Students are more likely to participate and take linguistic risks when they are excited by the outcome.
2. Immediate Feedback and Experiential Learning (Kolb, 1984)
2. Immediate Feedback and Experiential Learning (Kolb, 1984)
Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle emphasizes that learning happens through a cycle of concrete experience, reflection, conceptualization, and active experimentation. Kling AI provides instantaneous, visible feedback (the "concrete experience"). When a student’s carefully constructed prompt fails to generate the intended video, they immediately see the consequence of their linguistic choices. This necessity for reflection and refinement encourages self-correction and deepens attention to form, as detailed by Ellis (2020).
3. Fostering Interaction and Meaning Negotiation (Long, 1996)
3. Fostering Interaction and Meaning Negotiation (Long, 1996)
When students work in groups to draft their highly detailed, specific prompts (known as prompt engineering), they engage in the crucial process of negotiation of meaning. Long (1996) argued that this negotiation, the give-and-take to make oneself understood, is essential for acquisition. Students must argue over word choice, syntax, and phrasing to ensure the AI understands their complex vision, maximizing authentic, target-language interaction.
Developing 21st-Century Digital and Multimodal Literacy
Developing 21st-Century Digital and Multimodal Literacy
The lesson also addresses the need to develop skills beyond traditional linguistic competence, preparing students for communication in a digital world:
1. Multimodal Communication (Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2001)
1. Multimodal Communication (Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2001)
Communication is rarely text-only. The Multimodal Discourse framework highlights how meaning is made by combining various modes, like language, image, and motion. By creating contrasting videos, students learn to connect linguistic rhetoric (argumentative markers, descriptive vocabulary) with visual rhetoric (lighting, camera angles, motion). They must ensure the text and the video work together to convey their persuasive message, fostering a sophisticated understanding of integrated communication.
2. Critical Digital Citizenship and Ethics (Godwin-Jones, 2023; UNESCO, 2023)
2. Critical Digital Citizenship and Ethics (Godwin-Jones, 2023; UNESCO, 2023)
The central theme of contrasting an idealized "lie" with a realistic "truth" directly addresses the ethical challenges of generative media, as highlighted by Godwin-Jones (2023). By manipulating the AI to create two competing realities, students learn to critically question the visual content they consume online. This exercise aligns with UNESCO’s (2023) guidance for policy-makers, which advocates for integrating discussions on the responsible and ethical use of AI directly into the curriculum. This cultivates the critical literacy necessary to be a responsible digital citizen.
In conclusion, the lesson is not simply a high-tech novelty; it is a carefully structured pedagogical activity that leverages the novelty of AI to push students to the highest levels of linguistic and critical thought, fulfilling the goals of both classic SLA theory and modern digital education.
References
References
Ellis, R. (2020). Understanding Second Language Acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Godwin-Jones, R. (2023). “Artificial Intelligence in Language Learning: Opportunities and Risks.” Language Learning & Technology, 27(2), 1–12.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice Hall.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Pergamon Press.
Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. Arnold.
Kuaishou Technology. (2024). Kling AI Overview. Retrieved from https://kling-ai.video
Long, M. H. (1996). “The Role of the Linguistic Environment in Second Language Acquisition.” In Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 413–468). Academic Press.
Robin, B. (2016). “The Power of Digital Storytelling for 21st Century Learning.” Educational Media International, 53(4), 217–229.
UNESCO. (2023). AI and Education: Guidance for Policy-Makers. Paris: UNESCO
Page updated
Report abuse