For faculty & teaching teamsFrom Prompt to Production
Pick a purpose. Make something small.
Use the collection as a menu
These are the twenty activities woven into the 70-slide talk. Some help define the work; others produce or review an artifact. You can begin with one relevant task and return for the next step when you have a draft worth examining.
THE ACTIVITY COLLECTION
One useful thing at a time.
Each prompt includes the inputs, expected artifact, and a way to review the result.
20 of 20 activities
Planning3 min · Slide 16
Define the win
Describe the learners, the learning outcome, and the evidence you want to see.
You’ll make: A three-line design brief Review question: Could another instructor use it?
Open the activity & prompt
Tool: Any chat or agent environment Bring: A teaching need and the COURSE_BRIEF.md example.
Turn this need into a three-line brief: learners and prior knowledge; one observable learning outcome; evidence students will produce. Example: first-year sustainability students compare two campus transport proposals and justify a recommendation using supplied data and one stated limitation. Flag missing context without inventing course policy. Save drafts/design-brief.md. Offer one stronger and one weaker example of evidence so I can compare.
Work through it
Describe learners and prior knowledge.
Replace 'understand' with an observable performance.
Decide what student work will reveal that performance.
Ask the agent to plan one small resource from your brief. Review the plan before asking it to build.
You’ll make: An editable build plan Review question: Does every step serve the outcome?
Open the activity & prompt
Tool: Cursor Plan Mode Bring: COURSE_BRIEF.md and APPROVED_READING.md.
Read COURSE_BRIEF.md and APPROVED_READING.md. Plan a five-minute campus transport learning activity as a self-contained local HTML file. Include one outcome, a short explanation, a decision using supplied evidence, and a reflection. First propose the content, files, and acceptance checks in drafts/build-plan.md. Do not implement yet. Identify unavailable dependencies and prefer a single HTML file with no external libraries.
Work through it
Choose Plan Mode and submit the prompt.
Read and edit the plan: scope, proposed files, and acceptance checks.
Choose Build once the plan matches the goal; inspect the resulting file.
Before you use it
The plan names a testable output.
The activity actually elicits the outcome.
The build has no unnecessary accounts or dependencies.
Give the agent a bounded task. Inspect its plan, files, and preview before accepting the result.
You’ll make: A reviewed first draft Review question: What evidence shows it works?
Open the activity & prompt
Tool: Antigravity Planning with artifact review Bring: A local workshop project, COURSE_BRIEF.md, and APPROVED_READING.md.
Read COURSE_BRIEF.md and APPROVED_READING.md. Plan a short student activity that compares two campus transport proposals. Produce an implementation plan with the student instructions, expected response, files, and verification steps. Wait for my review before implementation. After approval, build drafts/transport-activity.html and show a preview or walkthrough. State which checks you actually completed and which require me to test.
Work through it
Create a project and add the workshop folder; use Local Mode.
Use Planning and a Request Review policy for a review pause.
Comment on the plan, then inspect the built files and walk through the preview.
Write the course context, approved sources, constraints, and review criteria in one reusable file.
You’ll make: COURSE_BRIEF.md Review question: Are the requirements specific?
Open the activity & prompt
Tool: Cursor, Antigravity, or a text editor Bring: faculty-starter-kit/COURSE_BRIEF.md and the example inputs.
Read COURSE_BRIEF.md. Propose improvements to this reusable course-development brief. Include learners, prior knowledge, outcomes, teaching context, approved inputs, boundaries, output format, and review criteria. Preserve facts in the supplied files, mark unknowns as questions, and do not silently fill them in. Save a proposed revision as drafts/COURSE_BRIEF-proposed.md, leaving the original intact.
Work through it
Open the supplied brief and replace the example context with your course.
Add approved readings and explicit constraints.
Ask the agent to read the file at the start of each task.
Before you use it
Brief states audience, outcome, sources, deliverable, and review criteria.
Assign a researcher, writer, and critic different tasks. Give each role an output and a review criterion.
You’ll make: A three-role workflow Review question: Who checks the evidence?
Open the activity & prompt
Tool: Agent roles; subagents if available Bring: The course brief, approved reading, and one draft.
Use three explicitly assigned roles to improve this activity. Researcher: map each factual claim to a passage in APPROVED_READING.md and record limitations in drafts/source-ledger.md. Writer: create drafts/activity-v1.md from the brief and supported claims. Critic: compare that draft against the outcome, evidence, and learner context; write concrete issues to drafts/critique.md. Keep the outputs separate. Do not invent sources. I will review the findings before revision.
Work through it
Give all roles the same brief and approved sources.
Assign a separate output to each role.
Compare the critic's findings with the evidence yourself.
Before you use it
Role outputs have distinct purposes.
Critique points to specific passages or requirements.
Ask a critic to find three specific weaknesses. Revise the draft and explain what changed.
You’ll make: A stronger second version Review question: Can you see the improvement?
Open the activity & prompt
Tool: Any agent environment Bring: drafts/activity-v1.md plus the brief and critique; create a first draft if needed.
Read the course brief and drafts/activity-v1.md. Identify the three weaknesses that most affect learning or usability. For each, quote the relevant portion, explain the effect on learners, and propose a precise revision. Then produce drafts/activity-v2.md and drafts/change-log.md after I approve the changes. Preserve supported factual content and list any unresolved uncertainty.
Work through it
Compare the draft against three explicit criteria.
Choose changes that matter to learning.
Inspect version one and version two side by side.
Before you use it
Every change addresses a stated issue.
The outcome is preserved.
Revision has not introduced new unsupported claims.
Generate ten ways to teach one difficult concept. Vary the medium, participation, and classroom setting.
You’ll make: An idea menu Review question: Are the ideas meaningfully different?
Open the activity & prompt
Tool: Any chat or agent environment Bring: One difficult concept, such as correlation versus causation.
Generate ten substantially different activities for teaching correlation versus causation to first-year students. Include individual, pair, small-group, online, and classroom options. For each provide the student action, evidence of learning, approximate time, needed materials, and one access consideration. Avoid ten variations of a quiz. Use fictional examples and identify them as such in the instructor materials. Save drafts/idea-menu.md.
Work through it
Start with one concept and a clear learner level.
Ask for variation in student actions and settings.
Turn a vague outcome into observable student work. Try an explanation, an analysis, and a justified design.
You’ll make: Three outcome-and-task pairs Review question: What will students actually do?
Open the activity & prompt
Tool: Any chat or agent environment Bring: A vague outcome: 'Students understand campus sustainability.'
Replace 'Students understand campus sustainability' with three different outcome-and-task pairs: explain a tradeoff, analyze two proposals using evidence, and design a justified recommendation. Use the revised Bloom framework to name the cognitive process and relevant knowledge dimension for each. State the observable student product and criteria for success. Do not claim the verb alone establishes complexity or that Create is always the best choice. Save drafts/bloom-alignment.md.
Work through it
Name the student performance and the evidence it produces.
Design two ways students can demonstrate the same outcome. Use shared criteria and identify essential requirements.
You’ll make: Equivalent response options Review question: Are the expectations comparable?
Open the activity & prompt
Tool: Cursor Agent, Antigravity, or an approved chat tool Bring: COURSE_BRIEF.md and APPROVED_READING.md; preserve the full outcome, including comparison, two pieces of evidence, a tradeoff, and a limitation.
Read COURSE_BRIEF.md and APPROVED_READING.md. Design two response options for this outcome: 'Compare two campus transport proposals and justify a recommendation using at least two relevant pieces of supplied evidence, one tradeoff, and one limitation.' Option A is a short written recommendation. Option B is a narrated diagram with a text transcript. Specify a comparable scope, audience, evidence requirement, and expected effort for each; do not assume matching word counts guarantees equivalence. Create a shared criteria table for accuracy, use of evidence, reasoning, and treatment of the tradeoff and limitation. Distinguish essential outcome requirements from optional presentation choices. Explain whether either option would be inappropriate if the actual course outcome explicitly assesses academic writing or oral delivery. Save the instructions and common criteria to drafts/response-options.md. Flag conflicts with the course brief for instructor decision.
Work through it
State exactly what is being assessed and which communication skills, if any, are essential.
Generate the two response options and a single criteria table.
Check whether each option can reveal the same reasoning and evidence use.
Adjust scope and required supports, then explain the options to a colleague as if they were a student.
Before you use it
Both options expose the intended reasoning and evidence.
Criteria do not reward irrelevant production polish.
Essential disciplinary or communication requirements remain explicit.
Students have clear instructions and sufficient access to the required tools.
Both formats require two relevant evidence details, comparison, a tradeoff, and a limitation.
Record each source's title, author, year, link, and relevant passage. Open every source before using it.
You’ll make: A verified source ledger Review question: Can you trace every claim?
Open the activity & prompt
Tool: Cursor Agent or Antigravity, plus a browser or library reader Bring: Three participant-selected research sources verified from the actual literature. Place authorized copies or links in sources/. The starter kit does not supply research papers.
Build a source ledger for the real research materials I have provided in sources/. Use only those materials and their verified publication pages. For each source, record source_id, exact title, author or organization, year, DOI or stable URL, source type, the specific claim relevant to my question, page or section, a short supporting passage or faithful paraphrase, limitations, and verification status. Distinguish 'source exists', 'full text read', and 'claim checked'. If you cannot access a full text or confirm metadata, mark it unverified and state what I need to check; never complete missing bibliographic details from guesswork. Save drafts/source-ledger.csv and a concise drafts/source-checks.md. Do not treat APPROVED_READING.md in the starter kit as a published research study.
Work through it
Open each publication or source page and confirm that the source exists.
Read the relevant passage in context, checking whether it supports the intended claim.
Generate the ledger and inspect one row against the original page.
Correct metadata or overstatement, and keep inaccessible sources visibly unverified.
Before you use it
Titles, authors, years, and identifiers match the source.
The cited passage supports the precise claim and its scope.
Unverified or inaccessible materials remain labeled as such.
Paraphrases do not add causality, certainty, or generality absent from the source.
Ask what your source set does not answer. Turn one possible gap into a question and a follow-up search.
You’ll make: A tentative gap statement Review question: Is it a gap or a search limit?
Open the activity & prompt
Tool: Cursor Agent or Antigravity, followed by a library search Bring: A verified source ledger, a focused research question, and the actual search record. Use a prepared evidence matrix if available; otherwise derive one from checked sources before proposing a gap.
Read the verified source ledger. If drafts/evidence-matrix.csv is not available, first build a compact claim/method/context/limitation matrix from the sources actually checked. Use the real search log if one is supplied; otherwise state that search coverage has not been documented and do not invent searches. Identify three questions this particular source set does not answer. For each, explain whether the absence may reflect our search terms, database coverage, date or language limits, inaccessible texts, or a plausible gap in the literature. Do not say 'no research exists' based on this small set. Choose one tentative gap and write it as: 'Within the sources reviewed so far, we have not found ...; we will test this by ...'. Give a follow-up search using additional terms, one citation-chaining action, and the evidence that would disconfirm the gap. Save drafts/gap-hypothesis.md. The instructor will decide whether the gap remains defensible after the follow-up search.
Work through it
Identify an unanswered question within the reviewed source set.
Check whether the search process plausibly produced that absence.
Run a targeted follow-up search and inspect references or citing work.
Update or abandon the gap statement if relevant evidence is found.
Before you use it
The statement is explicitly limited to the reviewed evidence.
Search limitations are separated from substantive gaps.
The follow-up could actually discover counterevidence.
The question remains worth investigating even if the novelty claim changes.
Specify the learning purpose, subject, composition, style, and what the visual must get right.
You’ll make: An image design brief Review question: What should learners notice first?
Open the activity & prompt
Tool: Cursor, Antigravity, or an approved chat tool to write the brief Bring: A module title, learning purpose, intended image placement, and any instructor-approved visual facts. Example: an introductory ecology module on urban wetlands.
Help me brief an image for a first-year ecology module on urban wetlands. The image will introduce the topic in an LMS module header, not function as a scientific data diagram. Write drafts/image-brief.md specifying: audience and learning purpose; what learners should notice first; required subject matter; composition and title-safe space; a suitable visual style; image aspect ratio 16:9; details that must be verified by the instructor; and what to exclude. The intended scene is a city-edge wetland with water, shoreline vegetation, and a visible relationship to the surrounding built environment. Avoid implying that a specific real site or species assemblage has been documented. Request an illustration, not a documentary photograph. Keep any eventual title as editable text outside the image. Include a provisional text alternative based on the intended purpose, to be revised after seeing the actual output. Do not generate the image yet.
Work through it
Name the image's teaching job: orientation, explanation, comparison, or evidence.
Specify composition and factual requirements before selecting a visual style.
Check whether the image needs to be decorative or informative in its final context.
Save the brief and identify the one detail the instructor will inspect first.
Before you use it
The image has an explicit learning purpose.
The visual does not imply unsupported site-specific facts.
Title placement and likely crop are considered.
The text alternative will be finalized from the actual image and context.
Refine the visual for accuracy, then clarity, then style. Change one thing at a time and compare versions.
You’ll make: An iteration strip Review question: Which change improved learning?
Open the activity & prompt
Tool: Image-generation tool, with Cursor or Antigravity maintaining the brief and change log Bring: An instructor-prepared module image generated from the approved image brief, or another draft image; the brief itself; instructor feedback on one inaccurate detail. Prepare the first image before presenting this activity.
Use the attached wetland module image and its teaching brief. Preserve the subject and intended message: learners should notice the relationship between water, vegetation, and habitat. Keep the original as wetland-v1.png. Make three separate revisions and show each before continuing. Pass 1, accuracy: change only the instructor-identified factual problem; ask for clarification if it is unspecified. Pass 2, clarity: reduce competing background detail so the intended relationship is easier to see, without removing essential information. Pass 3, style: make colour and composition consistent with the course without changing content. Save each version separately and write drafts/visual-change-log.md with the requested change, what actually changed, what stayed stable, and whether another check is needed. Do not label a version accurate solely because it looks realistic.
Work through it
Keep the starting image and brief visible.
Choose one factual correction, then compare the revised image with the original.
Make a clarity pass and a style pass, saving a new file each time.
Place the versions side by side; ask which change helps learners answer the intended question.
Plan six slides around one question. Give each slide a single message, a visual idea, and a teaching move.
You’ll make: A six-slide storyboard Review question: Does the sequence tell a story?
Open the activity & prompt
Tool: Cursor, Antigravity, or another text assistant Bring: One learning outcome, a driving question, and an approved reading or instructor explanation.
Plan a six-slide micro-lesson for first-year students answering: 'Does a strong association mean that one thing caused another?' Learning outcome: students can identify a plausible alternative explanation and state what additional evidence they would seek. Use this instructor-authored fictional example: across twelve weeks, ice-cream sales and pool visits rise together as weather becomes warmer. This example illustrates a possible common cause; it does not establish a measured causal result. Create drafts/correlation-storyboard.md with one row per slide: single message, maximum 25 words of visible copy, visual idea, teaching move, speaker explanation, and source or instructor-example status. Sequence: opening prediction, observed pattern, possible explanation, counterexample, student practice, exit question. Include a short text alternative for each meaningful visual. Do not build the deck until I have reviewed the story.
Work through it
Define the question students should be able to answer.
Read just the six single-message lines in order; check that the argument develops.
Check where students predict, practise, and explain, not only listen.
Approve or revise the storyboard before asking for visual production.
Start with the outcome and student task. Draft distinct criteria and observable descriptions of quality.
You’ll make: An analytic rubric Review question: Can students tell levels apart?
Open the activity & prompt
Tool: Cursor or Antigravity Bring: Starter-kit COURSE_BRIEF.md and APPROVED_READING.md for the campus transport proposal exercise; the instructor's assignment requirements.
Read COURSE_BRIEF.md and APPROVED_READING.md. Build a draft analytic rubric for the campus transport proposal: students compare two options, recommend one, use at least two relevant pieces of supplied evidence, and acknowledge a tradeoff and a limitation. Preserve the actual course outcome and task constraints from the brief. Propose four distinct criteria: use of evidence and its limits, comparison of options, reasoning about tradeoffs, and clarity for the intended decision-maker. Draft four performance levels with observable descriptions specific to this task. Avoid labels such as 'excellent' as the only distinction and avoid counting citations as a substitute for judging their relevance. Do not assess grammar as a separate criterion unless it prevents meaning. Produce drafts/recommendation-rubric.md and a CSV version. Explain how each criterion maps to the outcome; leave weighting as an explicit instructor decision. Flag any criterion that goes beyond the supplied assignment.
Work through it
Give the agent the actual assignment, outcome, and context.
Inspect one criterion across all performance levels for meaningful distinctions.
Check that different criteria are not scoring the same quality twice.
Save Markdown and CSV versions, then calibrate before using it.
Before you use it
Is every criterion tied to intended learning?
Are performance levels observable and distinguishable?
Is the same weakness counted twice?
Can a student use the descriptors to improve?
The descriptors explicitly preserve the required evidence, tradeoff, and limitation.
Apply the draft rubric to two fictional samples. Compare ratings, explain disagreements, and revise ambiguous descriptors.
You’ll make: A calibrated draft rubric Review question: Would two reviewers agree why?
Open the activity & prompt
Tool: Cursor or Antigravity plus independent instructor/peer review Bring: The draft rubric from slide 47 and starter-kit sample-responses.md, which contains fictional practice responses. Include APPROVED_READING.md and sample-data.csv to verify factual and numerical claims.
Read COURSE_BRIEF.md, APPROVED_READING.md, sample-data.csv, sample-responses.md, and drafts/recommendation-rubric.md. Use the supplied fictional practice responses for rubric calibration; preserve the source file and its synthetic status. First verify the sample claims and calculations against the supplied reading and data. In separate rating passes, apply the rubric criterion by criterion, quoting short evidence from each sample and noting uncertainty. Do not hide disagreement or average it away. If the supplied responses do not fit the current task, flag the mismatch before rating. Create drafts/rubric-calibration.md with the evidence for each rating, disputed boundaries, and proposed descriptor revisions. Preserve the original rubric; save the proposed revision as drafts/recommendation-rubric-v2.md. The instructor will independently rate the samples before accepting changes. Do not infer facts about real students or assign official grades.
Work through it
Have the instructor or a colleague rate the supplied synthetic samples before seeing the agent's ratings.
Compare evidence and rationale by criterion, not only totals.
Identify one ambiguous descriptor and revise its boundary.
Re-rate the same samples with the revision and record whether the ambiguity improved.
Build a fictional case with competing priorities, enough evidence, and a decision students must justify.
You’ll make: A discussion case Review question: Is there room for reasoned disagreement?
Open the activity & prompt
Tool: Cursor or Antigravity Bring: A decision students should be able to justify. Self-contained fictional campus project values appear in the prompt.
Create a fictional campus sustainability case for a 20-minute first-year seminar. Students must recommend one project within a $60,000 budget. Use these invented options consistently: building lighting upgrade costs $50,000 and is estimated to avoid 18 tonnes CO2e/year; a sheltered cycle hub costs $60,000 with an uncertain estimate of 8–20 tonnes/year and access benefits concentrated among cyclists; a refill-station programme costs $35,000 with an uncertain estimate of 3–7 tonnes/year and convenient locations still to be decided. These are invented teaching assumptions, not real engineering estimates. Include a short scenario, a clear data table, stakeholder perspectives that avoid stereotypes, uncertainty, and three discussion prompts. Require a recommendation, a tradeoff, and one additional piece of evidence students would seek. Save drafts/campus-case.md and a separate facilitator guide. Do not force one predetermined correct answer.
Work through it
Choose a decision that requires the target reasoning, not only recalling a fact.
Inspect all invented values for internal consistency.
Try to justify at least two different recommendations using the stated criteria.
Separate the student case from the facilitator's reasoning notes.
Ask Cursor or Antigravity to turn your brief into a local web page with outcomes, explanation, practice, and an exit ticket.
You’ll make: A working HTML module Review question: Can a student follow it alone?
Open the activity & prompt
Tool: Cursor or Antigravity with the workshop folder open; any modern browser Bring: COURSE_BRIEF.md and APPROVED_READING.md; a new folder for this build.
Read COURSE_BRIEF.md and APPROVED_READING.md. Plan a 10-minute introductory learning module about evaluating a campus sustainability decision. Show the learning outcome, student journey, proposed sections, and acceptance checks before building. After I approve the plan, create module.html with an outcome, a concise explanation grounded only in the supplied reading, one worked comparison, a practice decision with explanatory feedback, and a two-sentence exit-ticket prompt. Label the authored teaching reading accurately; do not invent external citations. Include a source note and a printable view. Use one self-contained HTML file with inline CSS and JavaScript. It must open by double-clicking the file, with no build step, external library, network request, API key, account, or learner-data collection. Use semantic headings, explicit form labels, keyboard controls, visible focus, readable contrast, and feedback that does not depend on colour alone. Keep student answers only in page memory until reset or reload. Do not promise LMS gradebook integration.
Work through it
Use Cursor Plan Mode, or Antigravity Planning with Request Review, for the proposed module.
Check whether the practice and exit ticket really demonstrate the chosen outcome.
Approve the plan and ask the agent to build module.html.
Double-click the file in a browser and complete the activity without instructor explanation.
Request one focused revision, such as clearer comparison criteria or better practice feedback.
Before you use it
The file opens offline without a terminal or account.
Every activity is traceable to the brief and supplied reading.
Practice feedback explains why a choice is defensible or incomplete.
Keyboard users can reach every control and see focus.
A new learner can complete the module and exit ticket unaided.
Turn a case into three decision points with consequences and feedback. Map every path before generating the page.
You’ll make: A branching learning activity Review question: Can every path reach a useful debrief?
Open the activity & prompt
Tool: Cursor or Antigravity with the workshop folder open; any modern browser Bring: COURSE_BRIEF.md and APPROVED_READING.md; campus sustainability decision as the shared case.
Read the course brief and approved teaching reading. Design a campus sustainability decision scenario with exactly three sequential decision points and two options at each point. Keep all eight choice sequences reachable. Branch-specific consequences may differ, but every sequence must reach a debrief about evidence, stakeholder priorities and trade-offs. First save scenario-map.md with each decision, the two options, immediate feedback, possible accumulated consequences and all eight terminal sequences. Use fictional context and no unsupported claims about a real institution. After I approve the map, build scenario.html. Include a visible record of the learner's choices, a debrief, and restart. Ask the learner to defend one trade-off; do not reduce a defensible policy choice to a single simplistic right answer. Use one self-contained HTML file with inline CSS and JavaScript. It must open by double-clicking the file, with no build step, external library, network request, API key, account, or learner-data collection. Use semantic headings, explicit form labels, keyboard controls, visible focus, readable contrast, and feedback that does not depend on colour alone. Also save a path-test.md table recording the eight paths and whether each reaches its debrief.
Work through it
Review the map before generating the interactive page.
Check that alternatives are plausible and their consequences are consistent with the reading.
Build the page, then deliberately choose the least expected path.
Test all eight sequences and compare them with the map.
Revise one shallow feedback message to explain a trade-off and invite justification.
Before you use it
All eight choice sequences terminate without a dead end.
Consequences do not contradict earlier choices.
The final debrief refers to the learner's actual decisions.
Restart clears the old state.
Feedback uses the supplied evidence and makes room for justified alternatives.
Use a small synthetic dataset to build a filterable chart and interpretation questions. Check the chart against the source rows.
You’ll make: A classroom data explorer Review question: What could the display mislead about?
Open the activity & prompt
Tool: Cursor or Antigravity with the workshop folder open; any modern browser Bring: sample-data.csv, the provided synthetic campus transit dataset, and COURSE_BRIEF.md.
Read sample-data.csv first and report its actual columns, units, row count and missing values. Propose one learning question this synthetic campus transit dataset can support. Do not invent columns or treat the observations as causal evidence. After I approve, build transit-explorer.html: embed the exact CSV rows in the file; offer one meaningful category filter; show a clearly labelled bar chart, count of included rows, the displayed summary calculation, and the matching source rows in an accessible table. Use a zero baseline for bars. Distinguish totals, averages and percentages and state the denominator. Include three interpretation questions and a revealable teaching note explaining one limitation. Handle an empty result with a readable message. Use one self-contained HTML file with inline CSS and JavaScript. It must open by double-clicking the file, with no build step, external library, network request, API key, account, or learner-data collection. Use semantic headings, explicit form labels, keyboard controls, visible focus, readable contrast, and feedback that does not depend on colour alone. If the file lacks the fields needed for the requested chart, explain the mismatch and propose a supported chart instead. Save data-check.md comparing three displayed results with calculations from the underlying rows.
Work through it
Inspect the actual data schema before specifying a chart.
Choose a single classroom question and meaningful filter.
Build the offline page and inspect a filtered view.
Recalculate three displayed values from source rows.
Ask learners to identify a conclusion the data cannot support.
Before you use it
Every plotted value matches the embedded source data.
Labels identify units, aggregation and denominator.
The source table updates with the filter.
The chart makes clear that the dataset is synthetic.
An empty filter state is usable.
The discussion avoids causal conclusions from descriptive observations.
No activities match those filters. Try a broader term or another purpose.
Choose by purpose
Filter for planning, learning design, research, visuals, assessment, or building. Start with a resource whose improvement you can describe. A reading guide or rubric is often easier to inspect in one sitting than a complete course redesign.
Supply the missing context
Copy the prompt and replace its examples with your audience, outcome, approved materials, and constraints. The input notes identify prerequisites. Research activities require verified real sources; the supplied campus scenario is an authored teaching example.
Inspect what you make
Use the stated review question and keep your own teaching criteria visible. Open the output, try the student task, and request a precise change. Activity numbers refer to their positions in the 70-slide deck so you can return to the surrounding explanation.
Keep the brief. Keep the evidence. Keep improving.
Choose one activity, make one reviewable artifact, and improve something that matters for learning.
