Monitoring AI Use by Primary School Students

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to address oral Question Nos 2 to 5 on today’s Order Paper together?

Please proceed.

Thank you, Sir. My response will also address related oral and written Parliamentary Questions scheduled for the Sitting on and after 7 May.

Sir, artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly accessible, not just on the Internet but also embedded in hardware and even toys. General purpose AI is also easily available online. It is therefore important for students, even younger ones, to develop overall awareness of AI in daily life, have guided discussions on its benefits and risks, and be ready to use AI. AI is going to cause disruption and create opportunity, and we want to prepare our children well and equip them with the knowledge and skills to meet this new world.

The Ministry of Education's (MOE’s) approach is simple, but deliberate – for every student to learn about AI, learn to use AI, learn with AI and most importantly, learn beyond AI. These are what we call the "Four Learns".

Theoretical knowledge alone is not sufficient. Our students also need well-designed and supervised hands-on experiences, through the use of educational AI tools guided by teachers. This spiral approach, as students progress through different levels in school, prepares them to harness AI to benefit their learning, critically evaluate AI output and guard against risks such as cognitive offloading.

We want to develop AI literacy in our students in a calibrated and purposeful way. Our approach is informed by research on how children learn and develop, and what is helpful at each stage of growth. Technology, including AI, is used only when it supports educational objectives and students’ development. This has guided us when introducing AI in our schools.

From Primary 1 to 3, physical, tactile, hands-on learning is prioritised as students build foundational knowledge and develop cognitive and social skills. But students learn about the basics of AI – so, AI literacy – so that they are aware of its presence in their daily lives, but schools will not assign any work that requires them to use AI directly.

From Primary 4, our students would have developed foundational literacy, numeracy and basic foundational knowledge of AI in their daily lives. Research also shows that at around this age, they would have developed some executive functioning skills – like planning, task initiation and ability to evaluate their own thinking – to begin to use simple digital tools to support their learning. We will therefore let them use educational AI tools under teacher supervision.

Students in Primary 4 to 6 will only use AI tools in school that are specifically designed for education. And they will only do so under teacher supervision. This includes the AI-enabled tools that we have introduced into the Singapore Student Learning Space (SLS) which are specially designed to help our children and students learn. These tools have in-built safety guardrails.

For example, Primary 4 students in an English Language class can use the AI Learning Assistant (LEA) in SLS for composition writing in class. Using the prompts provided by their teacher, our students can get ideas on how to "show not tell", a technique where students enhance their writing through details on actions and emotions to help readers better experience the narrative, and refine their drafts based on personalised feedback from the LEA.

In this case, the LEA supports students to iteratively improve their writing with more engaging content and vivid language, to strengthen their writing skills.

The LEA gives every student an individual AI writing coach that responds to our students in real-time, based on their specific drafts. As a guardrail, the LEA will redirect students back on track if they veer off-topic and ask irrelevant questions, or if they want to be spoon-fed with direct answers. Last year, my colleagues and I tried it out. We were in a class, there was a particular topic, and we deliberately tried to go off course and say "What is good in the canteen?" or "How can I use this topic for a party trick?" And they will tell us to say "No, this is not relevant. Please let's get back on topic. Let's learn about" this and that.

At the same time, our teachers can reinforce our students’ AI literacy during lesson consolidation by guiding them to form good learning habits when using AI. As students learn to use AI and learn with AI, they will also learn more about what AI is. They are taught how it works, how to be discerning about AI output and the importance of being responsible for the content that they create.

During Cyber Wellness lessons, students are taught to be discerning about AI output as it may contain errors or false information and the importance of being responsible for the content they create.

Prior to using AI tools in SLS, students go through the “Basic Module on AI and AI-enabled Features in SLS”, to teach them about the tools in SLS and how to use them for learning.

From Primary 4, students undergo the mandatory 10 hours "Code for Fun" programme – it is coding for fun, but it is mandatory. It is a programme which includes coding, computational thinking and introduction to AI, so that students appreciate AI’s benefits, risks and limitations, and understand how AI uses data to learn.

Under Code for Fun, primary schools can also opt for two additional "AI for Fun" modules, each five hours, that delve further into generative AI and computer vision respectively.

Schools will also teach students when they should not use AI, so that they do not take short cuts to get answers without actual learning.

We want to provide our students with a school environment where they can develop good learning habits and understand the importance of upholding academic integrity. For example, some secondary schools may design tasks which allow students to use AI. In these situations, students must state where they have used AI and cite the sources of information. This helps to prepare them for post-secondary education where they will be expected to use AI far more heavily, in anticipation of what their future workplace might look like.

However, if students pass off AI-generated content as their own, they will have to bear the consequences of academic dishonesty.

National exams continue to be proctored and use of AI is prohibited. If students use AI as a shortcut for their daily work instead of learning deeply, they will not be able to demonstrate the levels of mastery expected during the exams.

In cases where the use of AI is permitted in national exams, such as for coursework, Teacher Supervisors monitor students’ work such that AI use meets the objectives of the assessment.

Educational AI tools made available by MOE have in-built safety guardrails to protect learners’ interest, privacy and well-being. Besides the educational guardrails to ensure good learning,

Data from students’ use of MOE-built AI tools is anonymised and not used to train external AI models that power these tools.

When schools use commercial-off-the-shelf AI tools, they are required to check that the input data does not contain personal identifiable information and is in compliance with data management guidelines.

Our teachers play a central role in harnessing AI effectively for student learning, and we have been equipping them with the necessary knowledge and skills to do so. For instance, we provide opportunities for our teachers to learn about AI, including the ethical and pedagogical considerations of its use, and its associated risks and limitations. We also facilitate the sharing of good practices on AI use amongst our educators. These include workshops and networked learning communities led by our Master Teachers as well as online sharing platforms.

At MOE, we seek to keep up-to-date with international reports and how other systems are approaching the use of AI in education. We also fund projects that study how AI affects children’s development and learning. One example is the Singapore Longitudinal Early Development Study (SG-LEADS) by the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), which will start to collect data in 2027. This research seeks to understand Singapore children’s AI usage patterns and how their AI usage affects their learning and well-being outcomes.

But given how quickly AI is developing, we are also working with our schools to conduct short-term research to inform classroom practices in a timely manner.

We know that some parents have misgivings about exposing their children at an early age to AI. Many are already struggling with their children’s excessive screentime on smart phones and devices at home. Through the Parents Gateway and MOE’s social media platforms, we have been sharing with parents how schools use AI and how parents can support their children’s use of AI in their education journey. Some schools even meet parents at the start of the year or at different points in time, to engage them.

The recent post titled “We answer: How your primary school child is learning with AI” on MOE social media is one example. Schools also share with parents how AI tools may be used in teaching and learning at the school level and provide avenues for parents to share their views on the use of AI tools.

AI has been developing rapidly and is increasingly embedded into everyday systems around us. If we are not mindful, we may lose the consciousness in detecting the presence of, and influence that AI has in our decision making and ways of thinking, simply because it works so seamlessly. So, development of AI literacy is critical and must be timely.

Education systems across the world are responding to this differently. Some systems like China, UAE and the United Kingdom (UK) have introduced AI – AI literacy, AI use – from Primary 1. Others like India or states in Australia and the United States (US), start at similar ages to Singapore, or slightly later. MOE has chosen to take a calibrated approach informed by the learning sciences, emerging research and studies conducted by practitioners and academics and ongoing exchanges with various countries. Our approach is therefore a dynamic one. As AI develops and more research is done, we will continue to calibrate and adjust our approach to the use of AI in education.

Even as we prepare our students to be future ready, I want to assure parents and fellow Singaporeans that the use of AI in education seeks to be balanced and age-appropriate, and applied purposefully to support students' learning and development.

Indeed, the Member is right. We want to make sure that even as our children start to use AI tools for learning, or use AI tools for their schoolwork as they grow older, that it scaffolds and enhances cognitive development and metacognitive development, and not hobble it. So, independent learning, independent ability is an important part of AI in education.

And our approach is one that — I have brought this document for everybody to take a look. This is our approach to AI in education and we have, as a guiding principle, number one, students at the centre: "keeping student learning as the goal and maintaining student agency". And principle number two is pedagogy first, which means "good teaching and learning must come first, enabled by skillful use of AI". These are two broad concepts, the heuristics that guide us and beneath that there are guidelines, principles and quick guides that enable us to adjust and adapt the use of AI in the classroom, as well as on SLS.

With regard to students with special educational needs (SEN) and mental health, as I have said yesterday and previously, we have SEN officers in school. We have student school counsellors, we have teachers who are given basic foundational knowledge on how to support students with education needs. In the classroom as well as, under teacher supervision, the use of AI-enabled tools in SLS will continue to be under teachers' supervision, and for children with SEN, they will keep an eye out for them.

Likewise, for children coming from more vulnerable families – AI in education, AI in SLS, AI in MOE schools is not used for affective or social emotional issues or social emotional learning. We do not use our chatbots or AI tools to check on students' well-being, or to help them build up social emotional skills. That is the sole domain of our educators and our MOE staff. But we use it on the cognitive front to help our children. When it comes to children from more vulnerable families, if there are specific issues that may impact their use of AI in learning, then our schools will specifically support them and scaffold for them,

I think on the first point, we are ad idem. We want to make sure that in using AI tools, our children do not cognitively offload – and that is shorthand for saying that they rely on the AI as a crutch to deliver the answer, but not learn deeply, so they do not develop cognitively.

And that is why in my earlier reply, I mentioned that the MOE tools that are used in SLS are teacher-supervised and the tools are structured in a way that they do not allow children to ask for spoon-fed answers. For example, the LEA mathematics. You try the SLS Mathematics question, guided by LEA Mathematics, it will not spoon-feed you the answer. Whereas general purpose AI tools, will. But these are not used in the MOE space in SLS, and it will then remind you to say, "No, this approach is wrong". It will prompt you. Some say it is a Socratic style, but it prompts you so that it causes you to go back and revisit the principle you have learnt and it will not spoon-feed you. So, that is the key.

Of course, our concern for parents is that the children may use tools outside SLS at home, use general purpose tools to take shortcuts. And that is why the home-school partnership is so important. The partnership between parents and school, so that we both, parents and teachers, are educators of our children and can help guide our children in the use of AI for their homework.

In school, we will guide, we will have AI literacy, we will teach our students when to use AI and when not to use AI. In our teaching approaches through SLS, we have used the AI tools for an educative purpose, but we need to guard against children using general purpose AI tools outside this teaching environment, which may cause them to cognitively offload. So, that is a struggle that we all have to address as a whole of society approach; not just here in Singapore, but across the world.

The Member's second question is about the Swedish reversal, to reverse their digital stance and to take away all these devices that they have given to the children – I believe at the age of five. A couple of years ago, they gave it out at the age of five. And they are reversing that, going back to analog. Some people say it is going back to analog.

Our approach is blended. As I have said, we continue to have physical textbooks, we continue to have didactic teaching. We have a classroom phenomenon-based learning, experiential learning, learning journeys – very teacher-centric. And AI, as I said just now and I showed you that document, is a tool to enable learning.

And so for us, we are mindful that if we do not draw the distinction between general AI tools versus specifically designed learning tools, or educational AI, then it might cause us to take a wrong policy approach in Singapore and not use AI at all. I think that would be a mistake. Because of the changes that are happening in the world, we should make use of AI to help our students learn, because they are going to use it anyway. Whether you supervise them or not, they will use it. It is available on the Internet, in your search engines they are there. You cannot switch it off; in some instances, in your general search tools. And it is far better to start AI literacy young and start getting our kids to use AI for learning in a highly scaffolded teacher supervised and of course, parents supervised way, and then as they grow older, when they start using these tools independently, that they have the principles and foundation to be able to build on it. Because ultimately in higher learning and in the workplace, these tools will become ubiquitous. And so, we need to prepare our children well and not take an approach that lacks discrimination. So, that is key.

And third on opting out, it depends. If it is an SLS enabled tool and is used in classroom learning, it is part of teaching and learning. It is part of teachers' blended approach and I think that will enable our teachers to be able to help our children learn the cognitive aspects, the foundational knowledge more deeply. If there are specific tools that are externally brought in where there is a parental consent element that we will then bring to the parents, then we will not allow the children to use those AI tools.

But, so far, the use of AI in general teaching, blended approaches. It is like saying, I do not want my children to have a white board, I want a black board; I want print, but I do not want an overhead projector like in the past, or PowerPoint to be used. I think we must enable our teachers to be able to perform their role and this, of course, is subject to MOE guidance and good teaching or Singapore teaching practice.

I thank the Member. On his first point, he raised an example in The Straits Times article; and we will do better to make sure that in close partnership with our educators, we apply these AI usage principles and guidelines more effectively and consistently. Because some of these general purpose tools are not appropriate for children at particular age. There are terms of usage for the tool itself, not to mention our own requirements on the use of AI to scaffold learning, rather than impact it negatively. That is one.

Second, I think the Member mentioned that some AI tools have age restrictions and if a teacher wants to use the tool in classroom, but the child is below age, we need parental consent. If the tool has an age restriction, then we will not use it for children below that age. Simple as that.

Third, to let parents try out MOE's AI tools, like the Learning Feedback Assistant and so on. Let us take it back to see how we can do it in a meaningful way and scalable manner.

That is an argument or that is a point that is evergreen. It is not just about AI. It is about the children in less privileged backgrounds not having the same amount of scaffolding and support at home and outside school on a whole range of issues. We have different approaches to handling that – the MOE Opportunity Fund, we have ComLink, we have Gift-A-Family, we have many other schemes that involve deep partnership with the community.

And so, I mentioned in school how we have supervision or teacher-supervised usage of AI tools, and that applies to all the students, particularly younger ones. As they leave school and go home and start using some of these tools – because SLS can only be used in the classroom when it comes to AI tools – then, the risks of them using other tools that are free-for-use on the Internet and how do we ensure that outside the classroom, there is supervision and support?

So, the AI literacy that we build in all through a student's learning journey, guides them and helps to build in them that consciousness about appropriate AI usage. We hope, of course, that that is the best defence – that the child imbibes it, understands it, regardless of their socioeconomic status, they learn about it and then outside the school environment, and all through life, they are mindful of its appropriate usage.

But then for the younger ones in the community and at home, partnership with parents is important, regardless of background. But we endeavour to work closely with the community. And so, we have homework support in different community groups, we have self-help groups that come in to provide support for children over and beyond what is available in school; and many other groups that come in to support our children. So, that is a partnership we must tap on and continue to build, particularly when it comes to supporting them on appropriate AI use.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Last weekend, the People's Action Party's Women's Wing in the South West Community Development Council held a dialogue with more than 100 parents and residents on the use of AI in our children's education. And we were glad a few Members were able to join us. One sentiment that was surfaced echoes what the Minister has said – that before our children use AI, they need to understand what it is, its limitation as well as to have the maturity and judgement to handle it responsibly.

One of the most popular questions during that dialogue was what would be the best age for parents to talk about AI to their child. Given MOE's position that AI exposure in schools currently begins from Primary 4 under low exposure and close teacher supervision, my question to the Minister is whether MOE has been consulted or will consider providing recommendations to the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI), as it studies the AI nutrition label and online safeguards, particularly whether AI tools, especially standalone AI tools, should have age-based guidelines, safeguards or default protect protections that apply differently for younger children?

I think MDDI, the Ministry of Health (MOH) and MOE had given some recommendations and guidelines in 2025 on digital usage and use of technology at home and with children. Some of that will be a useful reference for all of us as parents and as a community.

But indeed, having that conversation early with your child about what AI is – because it can be embedded in your toys, online, it is available if the children have access to it at home and in the community. So, that conversation has to start early. In fact, while we start using AI for learning and allow our children to use AI tools in SLS under supervision from Primary 4, but for AI literacy from MOE's perspective, we start from Primary 1.

I just came back from China last week and previously, I went to Estonia to see their AI leap in action. And in China, for instance, they start at age six, AI literacy as well as basic awareness of its growing pervasiveness throughout, like in toys and other things, so that there is literacy and understanding, and it is done in an age-appropriate way.

And I think, as parents, I know it is a lot on our plate, but we want to be able to do our best for our children and guide them as they interact with all these things at home and in their toys and so on. So, I think that is a conversation that is best started as young as possible.

Certainly, at the primary school level and lower secondary, the use of AI tools are MOE-developed and used in the context of SLS. Of course, we have, through iCON for upper secondary school students, NotebookLM, which is available to upper secondary school students and for which we are monitoring its usage. But through the MOE-developed tools, we are mindful of its safety, its quality of output, its fitness for pedagogical use and of course, in making sure that we avoid infringements of IP and other IP rights.

But ultimately, because some of the more general purpose tools, or for that matter, educational AI tools that are outside the SLS, are trained on a wider universe of knowledge and information; that the AI literacy that is taught to our children all the way till when they are young adults and all the way through the institutes of higher learning, this element of prompting, prompt engineering or usage of the tool in a way that respects IP rights that does not cause offence and that does not infringe the law. All these are things that we need to build in as part of AI literacy all through life.