# Twenty activities woven into the presentation These are selected from the original 50-activity library. Numbers below refer to the 70-slide narrative deck. Choose demonstrations and participation moments to fit the session; full exercise durations do not need to be completed live. ## Slide 16: Define the win Ask for a teaching need before asking for a product. This is the first short audience participation moment after the explanation of the technology. **Inputs:** A teaching need and the COURSE_BRIEF.md example. **Tool:** Any chat or agent environment **Full exercise:** about 3 minutes ```text 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. ``` **Review** - The outcome describes student work. - The evidence fits the outcome. - No policy or course fact was invented. ## Slide 19: Cursor: plan first Preview the workflow with the supplied starter brief. Participants will adapt a brief of their own on slide 22. Show one plan correction before Build. **Inputs:** COURSE_BRIEF.md and APPROVED_READING.md. **Tool:** Cursor Plan Mode **Full exercise:** about 6 minutes ```text 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. ``` **Review** - The plan names a testable output. - The activity actually elicits the outcome. - The build has no unnecessary accounts or dependencies. ## Slide 20: Antigravity: review the work Use the same prepared teaching need as the Cursor preview. Compare how work is planned and reviewed; do not suggest these are different kinds of intelligence. **Inputs:** A local workshop project, COURSE_BRIEF.md, and APPROVED_READING.md. **Tool:** Antigravity Planning with artifact review **Full exercise:** about 6 minutes ```text 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. ``` **Review** - Plan incorporates the course brief. - Files and preview match the request. - Reported tests include any checks not completed. ## Slide 22: Give the agent a brief Now move from the prepared demonstration to the participant's own context. A two-minute rewrite of the brief is enough for the presentation route. **Inputs:** faculty-starter-kit/COURSE_BRIEF.md and the example inputs. **Tool:** Cursor, Antigravity, or a text editor **Full exercise:** about 5 minutes ```text 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. ``` **Review** - Brief states audience, outcome, sources, deliverable, and review criteria. - Missing facts remain visible. - Agent can summarize the requirements accurately. ## Slide 25: Give each role a job Connect this directly to the agent loop: each role gets a task and returns an inspectable result. The roles do not become qualified experts because we give them names. **Inputs:** The course brief, approved reading, and one draft. **Tool:** Agent roles; subagents if available **Full exercise:** about 6 minutes ```text 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. ``` **Review** - Role outputs have distinct purposes. - Critique points to specific passages or requirements. - Instructor checks unresolved disagreements. ## Slide 27: Critique, then revise Show one consequential revision to the campus task: require evidence, a tradeoff, and a limitation. Explain how this changes what students must do. **Inputs:** drafts/activity-v1.md plus the brief and critique; create a first draft if needed. **Tool:** Any agent environment **Full exercise:** about 5 minutes ```text 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. ``` **Review** - Every change addresses a stated issue. - The outcome is preserved. - Revision has not introduced new unsupported claims. ## Slide 30: Generate more than one idea Demonstrate divergence, then make an instructor choice. Do not read ten ideas aloud. Compare two contrasting options against the same outcome. **Inputs:** One difficult concept, such as correlation versus causation. **Tool:** Any chat or agent environment **Full exercise:** about 4 minutes ```text 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. ``` **Review** - Ideas vary in the work students do. - Each includes observable evidence. - Materials and time are realistic. ## Slide 32: Use Bloom's with evidence Ask what the complete task reveals, not which verb sounds most advanced. Retain prerequisite knowledge and choose the demand appropriate to the course. **Inputs:** A vague outcome: 'Students understand campus sustainability.' **Tool:** Any chat or agent environment **Full exercise:** about 6 minutes ```text 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. ``` **Review** - Classification considers the whole task. - Evidence demonstrates the stated process. - The task fits learners' prior knowledge. ## Slide 34: UDL: vary the response Preserve the full outcome: two evidence details, a comparison, a tradeoff, and a limitation. An alternative format is useful only if it preserves the essential construct. **Inputs:** COURSE_BRIEF.md and APPROVED_READING.md; preserve the full outcome, including comparison, two pieces of evidence, a tradeoff, and a limitation. **Tool:** Cursor Agent, Antigravity, or an approved chat tool **Full exercise:** about 7 minutes ```text 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. ``` **Review** - 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. ## Slide 37: Build a source ledger Open one real source and locate support for one claim. This concrete action makes the earlier distinction between fluent text and verified evidence visible. **Inputs:** 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. **Tool:** Cursor Agent or Antigravity, plus a browser or library reader **Full exercise:** about 10 minutes ```text 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. ``` **Review** - 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. ## Slide 39: Find a gap worth testing Frame the result as a search hypothesis. The question is what this set has not answered and what search would test the absence, not a declaration that no research exists. **Inputs:** 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. **Tool:** Cursor Agent or Antigravity, followed by a library search **Full exercise:** about 7 minutes ```text 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. ``` **Review** - 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. ## Slide 41: Brief the image before making it Use the brief to explain the decisions behind an image. The live sequence uses an instructor-prepared first draft before the next visual iteration activity. **Inputs:** A module title, learning purpose, intended image placement, and any instructor-approved visual facts. Example: an introductory ecology module on urban wetlands. **Tool:** Cursor, Antigravity, or an approved chat tool to write the brief **Full exercise:** about 5 minutes ```text 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. ``` **Review** - 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. ## Slide 43: Improve it in three passes Show a prepared before-and-after pair, then ask what changed for the learner. A factual correction, a clarity change, and a style change answer different questions. **Inputs:** 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. **Tool:** Image-generation tool, with Cursor or Antigravity maintaining the brief and change log **Full exercise:** about 8 minutes ```text 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. ``` **Review** - Was the requested change actually made? - Did unrelated content drift between versions? - Is the teaching relationship clearer? - Are image prompts and accepted versions saved? ## Slide 45: Storyboard the lesson slides Make the sequence do explanatory work. Ask what a learner must understand before the next slide will make sense. **Inputs:** One learning outcome, a driving question, and an approved reading or instructor explanation. **Tool:** Cursor, Antigravity, or another text assistant **Full exercise:** about 6 minutes ```text 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. ``` **Review** - Is the driving question answered by the sequence? - Does every slide advance one message? - Do learners do something with the concept? - Are examples and sources accurately described? ## Slide 47: Build a rubric from evidence Display one criterion across performance levels before showing the entire grid. Ask which evidence in a response would distinguish the levels. **Inputs:** Starter-kit COURSE_BRIEF.md and APPROVED_READING.md for the campus transport proposal exercise; the instructor's assignment requirements. **Tool:** Cursor or Antigravity **Full exercise:** about 8 minutes ```text 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. ``` **Review** - 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. ## Slide 49: Calibrate the rubric Have the audience rate a short fictional response first, then compare the agent's rationale. Disagreement is a reason to inspect the descriptors. **Inputs:** 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. **Tool:** Cursor or Antigravity plus independent instructor/peer review **Full exercise:** about 9 minutes ```text 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. ``` **Review** - Are sample responses explicitly synthetic? - Is each rating supported by observable evidence? - Do disagreements reveal ambiguous language? - Does the revision preserve the intended standard? ## Slide 51: Create a case with a decision This is an independent fictional case-building example. Transfer the same evidence-and-tradeoff pattern rather than treating its scenario as a factual extension of the starter campus case. **Inputs:** A decision students should be able to justify. Self-contained fictional campus project values appear in the prompt. **Tool:** Cursor or Antigravity **Full exercise:** about 8 minutes ```text 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. ``` **Review** - Is the decision explicit and feasible? - Are fictional assumptions visibly identified? - Can more than one option be defended? - Do stakeholder perspectives avoid caricature? - Is the required evidence of learning clear? ## Slide 53: Build a one-page module Open the supplied example module as a fallback. Show a real student path rather than only the agent's completion message. Request one bounded change if time permits. **Inputs:** COURSE_BRIEF.md and APPROVED_READING.md; a new folder for this build. **Tool:** Cursor or Antigravity with the workshop folder open; any modern browser **Full exercise:** about 12 minutes ```text 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. ``` **Review** - 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. ## Slide 55: Build a branching scenario Use a branch map before building. Explain why the debrief and path coverage matter more than the novelty of clicking through a story. **Inputs:** COURSE_BRIEF.md and APPROVED_READING.md; campus sustainability decision as the shared case. **Tool:** Cursor or Antigravity with the workshop folder open; any modern browser **Full exercise:** about 14 minutes ```text 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. ``` **Review** - 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. ## Slide 57: Let students explore data Use the supplied synthetic rows. Compare one displayed number with the underlying records before discussing the interpretation. The included demo already provides a table/filter starting point. **Inputs:** sample-data.csv, the provided synthetic campus transit dataset, and COURSE_BRIEF.md. **Tool:** Cursor or Antigravity with the workshop folder open; any modern browser **Full exercise:** about 12 minutes ```text 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. ``` **Review** - 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.