AI-Assisted Incident Response
Quick-Start Guide for Educators
The Big Idea (Read This First)
This isn’t “students learn about cyberattacks.” It’s students experiencing how cybersecurity professionals actually work together during crises—with AI as a critical team member.
The shift:
| Old Framing | This Activity |
|---|---|
| Cybersecurity is individual heroics | Cybersecurity is coordinated teamwork |
| AI replaces human analysts | AI and humans have complementary strengths |
| Response means following procedures | Response requires judgment under pressure |
What students should discover (don’t tell them—let them find it):
- Different roles bring different essential perspectives
- AI excels at speed and pattern recognition; humans excel at context and judgment
- Real incidents require trade-offs with no perfect answers
- Time pressure changes how teams make decisions
The Scenario Framework
Teams respond to a realistic security incident, with each member taking a specific role. AI serves as the technical analyst partner, providing analysis that humans must interpret and act upon.
Core scenarios across grade bands:
- K-2: Computers won’t turn on (robot helper finds the problem)
- 3-5: Malware/pop-ups on classroom computers (investigation team)
- 6-8: Ransomware, data breach, or social media compromise
- 9-12: APT-level attack on enterprise with technical evidence
The Flow
| Phase | Time | What’s Happening | Your Role |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Initial Assessment | 10 min | Teams review evidence, assign roles, get AI analysis | Ensure all team members engage; help with role assignment |
| 2. Response Planning | 15 min | Teams analyze findings, develop response plan | Push for documented reasoning, not just decisions |
| 3. Response Execution | 15 min | Teams execute plan while handling complications | Inject complications at 5-min intervals |
| 4. After-Action Review | 10 min | Teams debrief, connect to careers | Focus on collaboration quality, not “right” answers |
Critical Facilitation Moves
During Phase 1 (Initial Assessment):
“Each role sees something different. Before you share with your team, make sure YOU understand what your role uniquely contributes.”
This matters because students need to experience the value of specialization before collaboration.
During Phase 2 (Response Planning):
“The AI gave you a recommendation. Before you follow it, ask: What does AI know? What doesn’t it know?”
Watch for: Students accepting AI recommendations without critical evaluation. Redirect: “What context might AI be missing here?”
During Phase 3 (Response Execution):
“Here’s a complication…” [inject new development]
Watch for: Teams freezing or abandoning their plan entirely. Redirect: “How does this change your priorities? What stays the same?”
During Phase 4 (After-Action Review):
“What could ONLY humans have contributed to this response? What could ONLY AI have contributed?”
This is the key learning moment—don’t rush it.
Materials Needed
Low-resource option: Use AI Response Cards as printed handouts. The teacher reads AI analysis aloud or teams draw cards. The roleplay and collaboration still deliver the same learning.
Role Assignments
For Grades 6-8 and 9-12 (4-5 roles):
| Role | Primary Responsibility | AI Partnership Focus |
|---|---|---|
| Incident Commander | Final decisions, coordination | Impact assessment, prioritization |
| SOC Analyst / Lead Analyst | Technical investigation | Pattern recognition, log analysis |
| Threat Intelligence | Attacker context, TTPs | Threat correlation, campaign mapping |
| Communications | Stakeholder messaging, documentation | Clear explanation generation |
| Evidence Coordinator (optional) | Chain of custody, forensics | Evidence organization |
For Grades 3-5 (4 roles):
| Role | Primary Responsibility |
|---|---|
| Detective | Looks at clues, notices patterns |
| AI Partner | Asks questions, shares AI responses |
| Recorder | Documents findings and decisions |
| Reporter | Presents team findings to class |
For Grades K-2 (3-4 roles, whole class):
| Role | What They Do |
|---|---|
| Detective | “What do you see?” |
| Thinker | “What might have caused this?” |
| Robot Helper | Teacher-voiced; “I can check things!” |
| Helper | “I’ll try that!” |
The Debrief Questions That Matter
- “What did your role contribute that others couldn’t?” (Specialization value)
- “Where did AI help? Where did it fall short?” (Partnership calibration)
- “What trade-offs did you make?” (No perfect answers)
- “What was hardest about working under time pressure?” (Real-world reality)
- “What NICE Framework careers do this work?” (Career connection)
If Things Go Wrong
| Problem | It’s Actually | Do This |
|---|---|---|
| One person dominates | Role boundaries unclear | “Each role needs to contribute. Detective, what did YOU notice?” |
| Team accepts AI blindly | Haven’t found AI limitations yet | “What can’t AI know about this situation? What context is it missing?” |
| Team ignores AI completely | Treating AI as optional | “You have an expert analyst available. Why not consult them?” |
| Team can’t decide | Afraid of wrong answer | “In real incidents, delayed decisions have costs too. What’s your best option now?” |
| Complications overwhelm team | Normal stress response | “Prioritize. What’s the ONE thing you need to address first?” |
Complication Injection Tips
Inject complications during Phase 3 to simulate real incident dynamics:
Timing: Every 5 minutes introduce one complication per team
Escalation: Start mild, increase pressure
Example sequence: 1. “Media has picked up the story—reporters are calling” 2. “New systems are showing signs of compromise” 3. “The CEO wants an update in 10 minutes” 4. “A parent group is organizing a meeting for tonight”
Purpose: Test adaptation without overwhelming. If a team is struggling, offer a simpler complication or pause.
Grade-Band Notes
| Grade Band | Version Name | Key Adaptations |
|---|---|---|
| K-2 | Fix It Team! | Whole class; teacher voices robot; focus on teamwork; 20-25 min |
| 3-5 | Computer Problem Solvers | 4-person teams; malware investigation; structured steps; 35-40 min |
| 6-8 | AI-Assisted Incident Response | Full team roles; scenario options; complications; 50-60 min |
| 9-12 | SOC Analyst Simulation | Technical evidence; MITRE ATT&CK; executive communications; 55-60 min |
From “True Teamwork: Building Human-AI Partnerships” — NICE K12 2025 Dr. Ryan Straight, University of Arizona • ryanstraight@arizona.edu