Open safely
Use a class-safe public link or local static file. A public URL is optional.
Screen 1 of 110:00-0:05
Your final job is to defend what the evidence supports.
By the end of Meeting 1, you will rehearse one bounded demonstration, answer a difficult question, and prepare a revision target for the showcase.
COURSE-OWNED SYNTHETIC DOSSIER
Study Sprint: a deterministic static prototype turns a fictional study task and duration into Prepare, Focus, and Reflect steps.
Evidence available: a course-supplied demonstration record, one build decision, one source trail, one security retest, an AI-use disclosure, and a known limitation. It does not claim to improve grades.
Your defense job
Show what the artifact demonstrates, where the evidence comes from, what remains under human control, and what is still unknown.
Opening decision: What is one claim your artifact can demonstrate without claiming more than the evidence shows?
Why this leads forwardChoose a route that lets you show equivalent evidence safely.
5 MIN
Screen 2 of 110:05-0:11
The artifact may travel by link, file, image, text, or course case.
The evidence target stays constant even when the presentation format changes.
Show a trace
Use class-safe screenshots, a projected walkthrough, or a short recording. Video is never required.
Defend in another mode
Use captions, prepared text, augmentative and alternative communication (AAC), LMS text, or an approved accessible equivalent.
Reconstruct evidence
Use the linked Study Sprint record when a prior app or packet is unavailable.
Write: “My route is ___; it will make ___ visible; it cannot show ___.” Request an alternate or private route before or during class without explaining a diagnosis or personal reason.
Why this leads forwardEvery route uses the same six-part defense arc.
6 MIN
Screen 3 of 110:11-0:18
Build the defense in six visible moves.
Reveal one move at a time. The completed sequence becomes the rehearsal record and presentation plan.
After all six moves are visible: point to the move that would be hardest to defend if a reviewer asked “What supports that?” Explain what evidence is missing.
Why this leads forwardThe running Study Sprint case makes every move concrete.
7 MIN
Screen 4 of 110:18-0:24
Study Sprint has evidence, not a success story.
A defensible presentation separates the artifact record from claims about real-world outcomes.
COURSE-OWNED SYNTHETIC DOSSIER
Study Sprint: a deterministic static prototype turns a fictional study task and duration into Prepare, Focus, and Reflect steps.
Evidence available: a course-supplied demonstration record, one build decision, one source trail, one security retest, an AI-use disclosure, and a known limitation. It does not claim to improve grades.
Your defense job
Show what the artifact demonstrates, where the evidence comes from, what remains under human control, and what is still unknown.
Rehearsal rule: for each claim, say whether the support is a supplied record, your own observation, a source, or a human decision. Then name what the same evidence cannot establish.
Why this leads forwardRound 1 calibrates the capability claim.
6 MIN
Screen 5 of 110:24-0:30
Round 1 of 3: Make the capability claim smaller.
The Study Sprint prototype generates Prepare, Focus, and Reflect steps from fictional input.
Which opening claim fits the available evidence?
Choose one answer; that click commits your judgment and reveals its rationale. Then revise the rehearsal record.
Record: claim, evidence route, and one word you removed to avoid overclaiming.
Why this leads forwardRound 2 chooses evidence that actually supports the claim.
6 MIN
Screen 6 of 110:30-0:36
Round 2 of 3: Match evidence to the claim.
Your claim is: “The prototype displays fictional HTML-like task text literally after the rendering fix.”
Which evidence is strongest for that exact claim?
Choose one answer; that click commits your judgment and reveals its rationale. Then revise the rehearsal record.
Record: what the reviewer will see and what that evidence still does not establish.
Why this leads forwardRound 3 practices an honest response when evidence is missing.
6 MIN
Screen 7 of 110:36-0:42
Round 3 of 3: Answer “Does it make students learn better?”
The artifact record shows a planning interaction. It contains no learning-outcome study.
Write the first two sentences you would say. Then add one appropriate next test without pretending the test has already happened.
1 · COMMITWrite one answer and point to the evidence behind it.
2 · CHALLENGEName the strongest question, counterexample, or missing evidence.
3 · REVISEChange the claim, boundary, or next test.
Working alone? Write the strongest reviewer question before revising. Speaking is not required.
Course clarification
“I do not know whether it improves learning. This prototype demonstrates a planning interaction, not an outcome study. A next step would be a separately approved usability or learning evaluation with appropriate participants, measures, privacy protections, and institutional requirements.” The correct defense preserves uncertainty rather than filling it with confidence.
Why this leads forwardA transparent assistance disclosure shows how the artifact was produced and checked.
6 MIN
Screen 8 of 110:42-0:49
Document assistance as a chain of responsibility.
Disclosure is not a confession. It lets a reviewer see where ideas came from and where human judgment remained.
After the chain is visible, write four short lines. If no AI was used, state the no-AI route and name any human or course support that materially shaped the work.
Why this leads forwardQuestion handling uses the same answer-evidence-boundary discipline.
7 MIN
Screen 9 of 110:49-0:56
A good answer may end with “not established.”
Use three moves: answer the question, point to evidence, then state the boundary or next check.
Reviewer: “How do you know private information will never be exposed?” Draft a response that does not claim complete security.
1 · COMMITWrite one answer and point to the evidence behind it.
2 · CHALLENGEName the strongest question, counterexample, or missing evidence.
3 · REVISEChange the claim, boundary, or next test.
Working alone? Write the strongest reviewer question before revising. Speaking is not required.
Course clarification
“I cannot establish that private information will never be exposed. In the recorded cases, the prototype used fictional input, did not need private data, displayed text literally, and kept external actions behind review. Those checks cover named paths only. The next step is to test additional approved cases and stop sharing if real sensitive data appears.”
Why this leads forwardPeer feedback should identify the next evidence move, not rank the presenter.
7 MIN
Screen 10 of 110:56-1:02
Use Notice, Question, Next test.
Useful critique stays attached to the work, its goal, and visible evidence.
Try it: write one Notice, one Question, and one Next test for Study Sprint. Avoid personality judgments, vague praise, redesign demands, private questions, or claims that polish proves quality. A fixed dossier comment, structured self-review, or instructor review provides equivalent evidence when a peer is unavailable.
Open the printable Peer Feedback Cards — one card per round, Notice / Question / Next test. Do not put reviewer names in submitted evidence.
Adapted for this course from the optional Stanford d.school feedback activity, which emphasizes critique practice, separating person from work, and attention to the work's goal.
Why this leads forwardThe close turns all rehearsal evidence into one transfer record.
6 MIN
Screen 11 of 111:02-1:08
Leave with one complete defense and one revision target.
Use the account-free studio to draft the packet, or choose paper, projected transcript, LMS text, or another approved route. If assigned, submit one final format only.
Purpose, demonstration, process, claim evidence, control, limitation, and next step.
One honest answer with evidence and a boundary.
One Notice, Question, and Next test record.
One claim, explanation, control, or test to change before Meeting 2.
Why this leads forwardMeeting 2 uses four timed showcase rounds and ends with a private reflection.
6 MIN
Screen 1 of 110:00-0:05
Demonstrate the work. Keep the person and private context protected.
Today uses four timed showcase rounds. Every route evaluates the same evidence defense, and every presenter controls what is made public.
Class-safe artifact, fallback, or supplied record.
Claim, evidence, decision, control, limit, and next step.
Questions about the work and evidence, not personal history.
No credentials, private screens, chats, records, peer identities, or restricted files.
Why this leads forwardThe instructor chooses the route from class size and access needs.
5 MIN
Screen 2 of 110:05-0:10
Four rounds, one evidence standard, several formats.
The instructor announces one primary mode. Students may use an approved equivalent route without losing credit.
Up to 4 projects
One project per 10-minute round.
Most class sizes
Each member presents once while roles rotate. In a pod of 3, Round 4 becomes a second review, revision, access, or instructor-check round.
High enrollment
Four 10-minute station cycles with the same feedback card.
Access or absence
Recorded, projected, written, augmentative and alternative communication (AAC), LMS, or scheduled review using the same evidence fields.
Minimum viable fallback: when enrollment exceeds four presenters per group, use parallel pods or stations. Do not shorten anyone below an equivalent evidence defense. A student may request an alternate or private route without explaining a diagnosis.
Why this leads forwardThree reviewer roles keep every question tied to evidence and boundaries.
5 MIN
Screen 3 of 110:10-0:15
Rotate three roles; keep feedback about the work.
In a group of four, the fourth person is timekeeper and accessibility observer, then rotates into a core role next round.
CLASS-SAFE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
Before Round 1: write your first role and the one evidence question you are responsible for. In a group of three, combine time/access with a reviewer role.
Why this leads forwardEach round repeats the same visible sequence.
5 MIN
Screen 4 of 110:15-0:25
Round 1 of 4: Defend, question, respond, transfer.
Future presenters prepare privately. The current presenter controls the artifact and may switch to a fallback at any time.
Round 1 evidence: presenter records the route and question answered; reviewers record one visible observation and one bounded next test. Do not submit a peer name.
Why this leads forwardRotate roles and begin Round 2 of 4.
10 MIN
Screen 5 of 110:25-0:35
Round 2 of 4: Defend, question, respond, transfer.
Future presenters prepare privately. The current presenter controls the artifact and may switch to a fallback at any time.
Round 2 evidence: presenter records the route and question answered; reviewers record one visible observation and one bounded next test. Do not submit a peer name.
Why this leads forwardRotate roles and begin Round 3 of 4.
10 MIN
Screen 6 of 110:35-0:45
Round 3 of 4: Defend, question, respond, transfer.
Future presenters prepare privately. The current presenter controls the artifact and may switch to a fallback at any time.
Round 3 evidence: presenter records the route and question answered; reviewers record one visible observation and one bounded next test. Do not submit a peer name.
Why this leads forwardRotate roles and begin Round 4 of 4.
10 MIN
Screen 7 of 110:45-0:55
Round 4 of 4: Defend, question, respond, transfer.
Future presenters prepare privately. The current presenter controls the artifact and may switch to a fallback at any time.
Round 4 evidence: presenter records the route and question answered; reviewers record one visible observation and one bounded next test. Do not submit a peer name.
Why this leads forwardAfter Round 4, calibrate the feedback before revising.
10 MIN
Screen 8 of 110:55-0:59
Feedback is input, not authority.
A presenter decides what to accept only after checking the goal, evidence, scope, and risk.
Choose one feedback item. Should you accept it, test it, defer it, or reject it? State the evidence and tradeoff.
1 · COMMITWrite one answer and point to the evidence behind it.
2 · CHALLENGEName the strongest question, counterexample, or missing evidence.
3 · REVISEChange the claim, boundary, or next test.
Working alone? Write the strongest reviewer question before revising. Speaking is not required.
Course clarification
Accept a change when it improves the stated goal and is supported by visible evidence. Test it when the result is uncertain. Defer it when it is useful but outside the current scope. Reject it when it conflicts with the user need, privacy boundary, evidence, or available authority. Popular feedback is not automatically correct.
Why this leads forwardMake one bounded revision, not a last-minute redesign.
4 MIN
Screen 9 of 110:59-1:03
Revise one claim, explanation, control, or next test.
The final change should improve the evidence defense without hiding uncertainty or expanding the project unexpectedly.
Revise now: choose one claim, explanation, control, or next test. Record the before statement, anonymous feedback, evidence check, and after statement—or justify why no change is warranted.
Why this leads forwardThe final packet preserves observable evidence; private reflection remains separate.
4 MIN
Screen 10 of 111:03-1:06
Submit one route only if the LMS assigns it.
The observable record contains the defense and revision. It does not require a private journal, peer identity, public URL, full AI chat, or personal career plan.
Purpose, route, demonstration, process decision.
Claim/source status and security/human-control record.
Assistance, checks, responsibility, and no-secrets statement.
Anonymous feedback summary, response, limitation, and next step.
Why this leads forwardThe final two minutes belong to a private course reflection and close.
3 MIN
Screen 11 of 111:06-1:08
End with capability and responsibility in the same sentence.
Private prompt: What can you now build, verify, bound, or explain that you could not do before, and what responsibility still remains with you?
HUMAN
RESPONSIBILITY
RESPONSIBILITY
Private reflection: complete this sentence: “I can now ___, and I remain responsible for ___.” This reflection is not automatically submitted. If the LMS assigns it, the LMS must state what evidence is required and an approved private or accessible alternative remains available.
Why this leads forwardUse the final 12 minutes for access completion, private reflection, and submission questions.
2 MIN