Randomized controlled trial · Source language: English
Time saved on lesson preparation, and conditions for continued use
In a UK comparative trial, teachers in the Aila group spent about 49 minutes less per week on lesson preparation than the comparison group. The fit between the feature that builds a lesson plan from scratch and teachers' day-to-day preparation also became an issue.
- Who:
- Teachers of Years 3–6 in primary schools in England
- Scope:
- 464 teachers and 108 schools assigned / main analysis 416 teachers and 106 schools / United Kingdom
- Source published:
- 2026-10-05
- Period observed:
- Main trial: 2025-09-27 to 12-05 (10 weeks)
- Editorial check:
- 2026-10-23
Only the source ID is saved in this browser. Nothing syncs across devices.
What was confirmed
- Preparation time in the Aila group was about 24% shorter than the comparison group. The average difference based on weekly records was about 49 minutes.
- Even in the Aila group, use was about 7% of an average week's lessons and declined over the period. Some said there was little need to build lesson plans from scratch and that fixing generated output also took effort.
Who, and in what situation
Tried the generative AI "Aila", which builds lesson plans, for 10 weeks and compared preparation time and materials.
What they needed
Reducing the preparation burden while making materials that suit their own class.
What they tried
Assigned at random by school and recorded weekly. Both groups could use other generative AI, but were asked to refrain from looking for new materials on Oak's site.
What this source lets you read
It seems good to look at time savings and continued use separately, and to check the step of fixing existing materials.
What to check next
In your own work, is there more building from scratch or more fixing of what already exists?
Limits of this source
- Time is teachers' self-records. Material ratings are of the final versions teachers edited; they are not results measuring AI's unedited output or pupils' attainment.
- The main time-saving assessment is 10 weeks. There is a follow-up survey in the next term (January–March 2026), but the response rate among assigned teachers was 48%, and longer-term retention is unconfirmed.
Read the primary source
Links use the original title or a HAKOMIRO source description. Japanese originals retain their published wording.
Aila Teacher Choices Trial — evaluation overview (opens in new tab) ↗
Education Endowment Foundation /
The independent evaluator is NFER.
Aila lesson-planning trial — evaluation report (PDF) (opens in new tab) ↗
NFER / Education Endowment Foundation /
The numbers are based on the participant flow in the report, not the mixed school counts on the official summary page.