K–12 AI Prompt Toolkit
for Educators

Role: Act as an experienced instructional coach and lesson planner supporting a [new or experienced] [grade level] [subject] teacher. Your role is to help design a well-structured, standards-aligned lesson that the teacher can review, adjust, and make their own.

Learning Objective: Align all content to the following learning objective(s) or standard(s): [Paste learning objective, standard, or unit goal here]. By the end of this lesson, students should be able to: [Describe what students can do after this lesson that they can't do now]

Task: Draft a complete lesson plan that includes a clear learning target, an opening activity, instruction or exploration, student practice or application, and a closing or formative check. The lesson should reflect sound instructional sequencing, activating prior knowledge, building understanding, and checking for learning while remaining realistic for a single teacher to deliver.

Context: Grade level and course: [e.g., 8th grade U.S. History] · Student makeup: [e.g., mixed abilities, high ELL population, inclusion class — no PII] · Unit and sequence: [e.g., Westward Expansion, lesson 3 of 6] · What students already know: [e.g., completed reading on Manifest Destiny, can identify key figures] · Classroom format: [e.g., lecture-based, stations, workshop, co-taught, lab] · Available resources: [e.g., textbook Ch. 12, Chromebooks, no specific curriculum program] · [Add anything else the AI should know]

Time/Schedule: Design the lesson to fit within: [e.g., one 45-minute period / one 90-minute block / two consecutive class periods]

Output Format: Use the following lesson structure: Lesson Title and Learning Target (student-friendly language) · Standards Addressed · Materials Needed · Warm-Up / Opening (with timing) · Instruction, Modeling, or Exploration (with timing) · Student Practice or Application (with timing) · Closing / Formative Check (with timing) · Teacher Notes (tips, common misconceptions, or modifications). Keep the response to approximately [length: e.g., one page, two pages, a detailed outline]

Constraints: Do not include any personally identifiable teacher or student information · Use an academic, school-appropriate tone · Treat all output as a draft for teacher review and revision · Do not invent district policies, curriculum requirements, or resources I did not provide · Timing for each section should add up to the total class period stated above · [Add your own constraints here]

Self-Check: Flag any specific facts, dates, statistics, or claims that I should independently verify. State what you are uncertain about. Check alignment with the stated learning objective, grade-level appropriateness, realistic pacing, and logical instructional sequence.

Materials or Examples: [Summarize or attach existing lesson plans, pacing guides, unit outlines, or curriculum materials for reference]

Role: Act as an experienced instructional coach and assessment specialist supporting a [new or experienced] [grade level] [subject] teacher. Your role is to help design a clear, standards-aligned rubric that communicates expectations to students and makes grading efficient and consistent.

Learning Objective: Align all rubric criteria to the following learning objective(s) or standard(s): [Paste learning objective, standard, or unit goal here]. By the end of this task, students should be able to demonstrate: [Describe the specific skill, understanding, or product the rubric will evaluate]

Task: [Select one] Draft a new rubric for: [describe the assignment or assessment] — OR — Revise an existing rubric (attached in Materials) to improve clarity, alignment, or usability. The rubric should define what quality looks like at each performance level, prioritize the thinking and skills that matter most, and be written in language students can understand. Criteria should be observable and gradable; avoid vague descriptors like "good effort" or "shows understanding."

Context: Grade level and course: [e.g., 10th grade Biology] · Assignment type: [e.g., lab report, argumentative essay, group presentation, creative project] · Student makeup: [e.g., mixed abilities, honors, inclusion class — no PII] · What students already know about expectations: [e.g., students have used rubrics before / this is their first rubric-based assignment] · How this rubric will be used: [e.g., teacher grading only / shared with students before the task / peer review / self-assessment] · [Add anything else the AI should know]

Time/Schedule: This rubric is for an assignment that spans: [e.g., a single class period / one week / a multi-week project]

Output Format: Rubric Title and Assignment Description (one sentence) · Performance Levels: [e.g., Exceeds / Meets / Approaching / Beginning] · Criteria rows with criterion name and descriptors for each performance level (specific, observable, in student-friendly language) · Teacher Notes (grading tips, common issues, how to use the rubric efficiently). Keep the response to approximately [length: e.g., a single-page rubric with 3–5 criteria]. [Optional: point values or weight per criterion]

Constraints: Do not include any personally identifiable teacher or student information · Use an academic, school-appropriate tone · Treat all output as a draft for teacher review and revision · Use student-friendly language in all descriptors · Each performance level should describe what the student did, not just what they didn't do · [Add your own constraints here]

Self-Check: Flag any specific facts, dates, statistics, or claims that I should independently verify. Check alignment between each criterion and the stated learning objective, consistent language and parallel structure across performance levels, and grade-level readability if the rubric will be shared with students.

Materials or Examples: [Summarize or attach existing rubrics, assignment descriptions, grading scales, or sample student work for reference]

Role: Act as an experienced instructional coach and assessment designer supporting a [new or experienced] [grade level] [subject] teacher. Your role is to help create assessments that accurately measure student understanding of the stated learning objective and are efficient to administer and grade.

Learning Objective: Align all assessment items to the following learning objective(s) or standard(s): [Paste learning objective, standard, or unit goal here]. By the end of this unit or lesson, students should be able to: [Describe what students can do that this assessment will measure]

Task: [Select one] Create a new [quiz / test / performance task] for: [describe the unit, topic, or skill being assessed] — OR — Revise an existing assessment (attached in Materials) to improve alignment, clarity, or rigor. The assessment should measure what students actually understand, not what they can look up, copy, or guess. Include a mix of question types appropriate for the learning objective. Every item should connect clearly to the stated standard or objective.

Context: Grade level and course: [e.g., 7th grade Math] · Assessment type: [e.g., end-of-unit test, mid-unit quiz, performance task, pre-assessment] · Student makeup: [e.g., mixed abilities, honors, inclusion class — no PII] · What students have been taught: [e.g., completed lessons on fractions, practiced converting between fractions and decimals] · How the assessment will be administered: [e.g., in-class with no notes / open-notes / take-home / timed] · Whether students have access to tools: [e.g., calculators allowed, no AI tools, reference sheets provided] · [Add anything else the AI should know]

Time/Schedule: Design the assessment to fit within: [e.g., 20 minutes / one full class period / a multi-day performance task]

Output Format: Assessment Title and Purpose (one sentence) · Standards or Objectives Assessed · Directions for Students (clear, student-friendly language) · Assessment Items organized by section or question type, each with question, answer choices (if applicable), and correct answer or exemplar response · Answer Key or Scoring Guidance · Teacher Notes (administration tips, common misconceptions to watch for). Keep the response to approximately [length: e.g., a 15-question quiz, a one-page performance task]

Constraints: Do not include any personally identifiable teacher or student information · Treat all output as a draft for teacher review and revision · Only assess content that was explicitly taught · Include a range of cognitive demand (recall, application, analysis) appropriate to the grade level · For multiple choice items, write plausible distractors based on common student misconceptions · [Add your own constraints here]

Self-Check: Flag any specific facts, dates, statistics, or claims that I should independently verify. Check alignment between each item and the stated learning objective, grade-level appropriateness of language and cognitive complexity, clarity of directions, balance of question types, and accuracy of the answer key.

Materials or Examples: [Summarize or attach existing assessments, unit plans, textbook chapters, or sample questions for reference]

Role: Act as an experienced instructional coach supporting a [new or experienced] [grade level] [subject] teacher. Your role is to help create quick, targeted formative checks that give the teacher immediate insight into student understanding so they can adjust instruction the same day or the next day.

Learning Objective: Align all items to the following learning objective(s) or standard(s): [Paste learning objective, standard, or lesson target here]. By the end of this lesson, students should be able to: [Describe what students should know or do that this check will measure]

Task: Generate [number, e.g., 3–5] exit ticket or quick check items that a teacher can use in the final minutes of a lesson to gauge student understanding. Items should be fast to complete (no more than 5 minutes total), easy to scan for patterns, and directly tied to the lesson's learning objective. The goal is to surface what students understood, what they partially grasped, and what needs reteaching — not to assign a grade.

Context: Grade level and course: [e.g., 4th grade Science] · Today's lesson topic: [e.g., phases of the moon] · Student makeup: [e.g., mixed abilities, high ELL population — no PII] · What was taught today: [e.g., students watched a video on lunar phases and completed a diagram labeling activity] · How the teacher will collect responses: [e.g., paper slips, whiteboards, digital form, verbal thumbs-up] · [Add anything else the AI should know]

Time/Schedule: Students should be able to complete the exit ticket in: [e.g., 3 minutes / 5 minutes / the last 2 minutes of class]

Output Format: Exit Ticket Title (linked to lesson topic) · Student Directions (one sentence, clear) · Items (numbered), each with: the question or prompt, what a strong response looks like (for teacher reference, not shared with students), and what a partial or incorrect response might reveal about student thinking · Teacher Sorting Guide: how to quickly group responses into "got it / getting there / reteach." Keep the response to approximately [length: e.g., half a page, 3–5 items with teacher notes]

Constraints: Do not include any personally identifiable teacher or student information · Treat all output as a draft for teacher review and revision · Items must be completable in the stated time · Focus on one learning objective per exit ticket · Design items that reveal thinking, not just right/wrong answers (e.g., "explain why" or "which example best shows") · [Add your own constraints here]

Self-Check: Flag any specific facts, dates, statistics, or claims that I should independently verify. Check alignment between each item and the stated learning objective, completable within the stated time frame, and grade-level readability.

Materials or Examples: [Summarize or attach today's lesson plan, slides, activity, or notes so the exit ticket matches what was actually taught]

Role: Act as an experienced instructional coach and assessment specialist supporting a [new or experienced] [grade level] [subject] teacher. Your role is to help the teacher build a reusable feedback and grading toolkit for a specific assignment — but not to grade student work. The teacher will read every paper and make every judgment call. Your job is to prepare the feedback language, comment structures, and grading strategies in advance so the teacher can work faster without sacrificing quality.

Learning Objective: Align all feedback language and grading guidance to the following learning objective(s) or standard(s): [Paste learning objective, standard, or unit goal here]. By the end of this assignment, students should have demonstrated: [Describe the specific skill, understanding, or product being graded]

Task: Build a grading toolkit for the following assignment: [describe the assignment]. [Select all that apply] Rubric-Aligned Comment Bank: For each rubric criterion, generate 3–4 reusable feedback comments per performance level with a blank space where I can add one detail from the student's actual work · Feedback Formulas: A structured feedback template with 2–3 example comments showing the pattern · Common Error Response Templates: The 5–8 most likely student errors, what each reveals about student thinking, and a pre-drafted teacher response · Next Steps Language by Performance Level: 2–3 actionable "next step" comments per performance level · Grading Prioritization Strategy: Which rubric criteria deserve written comments and which can be assessed with a checklist or score only.

Context: Grade level and course: [e.g., 11th grade English] · Assignment type: [e.g., argumentative essay, lab report, math problem set, group project] · Student makeup: [e.g., mixed abilities, honors, inclusion class — no PII] · Number of students to grade: [e.g., 30 / 90 / 150] · Rubric or grading criteria: [attach in Materials or describe here] · How feedback will be delivered: [e.g., written on paper, typed in LMS, verbal conference, rubric only] · How much time you have for grading: [e.g., I need to return these in 3 days / I have one weekend] · [Add anything else the AI should know]

Time/Schedule: I need to grade [number] student submissions within: [e.g., 3 days / one week / before next Monday]. Help me design a grading workflow that fits this timeline.

Output Format: Grading Prioritization Strategy · Rubric-Aligned Comment Bank (organized by criterion and performance level) · Feedback Formula with examples · Common Error Response Templates (error, what it reveals, pre-drafted response) · Next Steps Language by Performance Level · Grading Workflow Suggestion (recommended order, batching strategy, estimated time per paper). Keep the response to approximately [length: e.g., two pages, just the comment bank]

Constraints: Do not include any personally identifiable teacher or student information · Do not grade, score, or evaluate actual student work — this toolkit prepares the teacher to grade, it does not replace teacher judgment · All feedback comments should sound like a teacher, not like an AI: warm, direct, and specific · Next steps should be actionable by the student without additional teacher explanation · Comment bank entries should include a blank space [add specific detail from student work] so the teacher personalizes each one · [Add your own constraints here]

Self-Check: Flag any specific facts, dates, statistics, or claims that I should independently verify. Check that the comment bank covers all performance levels and criteria, feedback sounds like a teacher wrote it, common errors are realistic for this grade level and assignment type, and next steps are specific enough for a student to act on.

Materials or Examples: [Attach or summarize: the assignment description, rubric, grading scale, and any example feedback you've written in the past that represents your voice and style]

Role: Act as a professional writing assistant supporting a [grade level] [subject] teacher. Your role is to help draft clear, warm, and professional communications that represent the teacher's voice and maintain positive relationships with families and students.

Purpose: The goal of this communication is to: [e.g., inform parents about an upcoming field trip, remind students about a deadline, introduce a new classroom policy, follow up on a conference, share positive news about class progress, request volunteers]

Task: Draft a [select one: email / announcement / newsletter blurb / reminder / letter / text message] that communicates the purpose above. The communication should be clear on the first read, include all necessary details, and end with a specific call to action or next step if one is needed.

Audience: This communication is intended for: [select one or more: Parents / guardians / families · Students · Both parents and students · Colleagues or staff · Administration · Other: specify]. Audience considerations: [e.g., many families speak Spanish as a first language, parents are unfamiliar with the school's grading system, some families have limited internet access, or this is a sensitive topic]

Context: What prompted this communication: [e.g., upcoming event, policy change, student progress update, concern, positive news] · Key details to include: [e.g., dates, times, locations, deadlines, action items] · Tone: [e.g., warm and encouraging, direct and informational, celebratory, empathetic, urgent] · Any previous communication on this topic: [e.g., this is a follow-up to an email sent last week / this is the first time families are hearing about this] · School or district norms: [e.g., we use first names, we always include the school phone number, we sign off with "In partnership"] · [Add anything else the AI should know]

Time/Schedule: This communication needs to go out by: [e.g., end of day Friday, before the event on March 12, within 24 hours]. If there is a response deadline, include it: [e.g., RSVP by March 5]

Output Format: Subject Line (for emails) or Headline (for announcements) · Greeting · Opening (1–2 sentences: purpose and why it matters) · Key Details (organized clearly — dates, times, action items) · Call to Action or Next Step (what the reader should do) · Closing and Sign-Off. Keep the response to approximately [length: e.g., one short paragraph, a half-page email, 3–4 sentences for a text message]

Constraints: Do not include any personally identifiable teacher or student information · Do not reference specific students by name, grade, behavior, or performance · Keep language at a reading level accessible to the intended audience — avoid education jargon in parent communications · If the communication includes a deadline or date, flag it clearly so the teacher can verify before sending · Do not assume family structure (e.g., use "families" or "guardians" rather than "moms and dads") · [Add your own constraints here]

Self-Check: Flag any specific facts, dates, statistics, or claims that I should independently verify. Check that tone matches the stated audience and purpose, the message is clear on the first read, the call to action is specific, and no student-identifying information is included.

Materials or Examples: [Attach or summarize: previous communications you've sent on this topic, school letterhead language, your preferred sign-off, or an example email that matches your voice]

Role: Act as an experienced instructional coach supporting a [grade level] [subject] teacher who needs to prepare plans for a substitute. Your role is to help design a sub plan that is self-contained, easy to follow for someone unfamiliar with the classroom, and keeps students engaged in meaningful work tied to the current unit.

Learning Objective: Align the day's activities to the following learning objective(s) or standard(s): [Paste learning objective, standard, or unit goal here]. By the end of this lesson, students should be able to: [Describe what students should know or practice during the teacher's absence. If the goal is review or reinforcement rather than new learning, say so.]

Task: Draft a complete sub plan for [one day / two days / half-day] that a substitute teacher can follow without prior knowledge of this classroom. The plan should maintain existing routines, keep students on task, and avoid introducing new content. All activities should be self-contained and completable with the materials provided.

Audience: This plan is written for a substitute teacher who may not be familiar with this grade level or subject, has no prior knowledge of classroom routines, and needs every step spelled out clearly. Sub experience level: [e.g., regular building sub who knows the school / unfamiliar guest sub / long-term sub already in place]

Context: Grade level and course: [e.g., 3rd grade, self-contained / 9th grade Biology, periods 2, 4, 6] · Daily schedule: [e.g., class runs 8:15–9:00, lunch at 11:30, specials at 1:00] · Student makeup: [e.g., 24 students, mixed abilities, 3 ELL students — no names or PII] · Where students are in the unit: [e.g., just finished chapter on plant cells, reviewed vocabulary yesterday] · Classroom routines to maintain: [e.g., students line up by table number, no phones during class, homework goes in the blue bin] · Key people to contact: [e.g., next-door teacher for help, front office for emergencies — no personal phone numbers] · Materials available: [e.g., textbooks in cabinet, worksheets already copied, Chromebook cart in room] · What to do if students finish early: [e.g., independent reading, specific enrichment task] · [Add anything else the sub needs to know]

Time/Schedule: This sub plan covers: [e.g., a full school day / one class period of 50 minutes / a half-day morning only / two consecutive days]

Output Format: Teacher and Class Information (course, room, schedule — no personal info) · Key Contacts (who to ask for help and where to find them) · Classroom Routines and Expectations (arrival, transitions, dismissal, behavior expectations) · Lesson Plan with Timing (step-by-step, with clear transitions between activities) · Materials and Where to Find Them · If Students Finish Early (backup activity or enrichment task) · Notes for the Sub (things to watch for, what to leave on the teacher's desk, how to report back). Keep the response to approximately [length: e.g., one page per class period, a two-page full-day plan]

Constraints: Do not include any personally identifiable teacher or student information · Do not introduce new content or concepts the substitute would need to teach · All activities should be review, practice, reinforcement, or independent application · Include a backup plan in case technology fails · Write all instructions at a level a substitute can follow without asking students for clarification · [Add your own constraints here]

Self-Check: Flag any specific facts, dates, statistics, or claims that I should independently verify. Check whether a substitute with no prior knowledge could follow every step, all materials are listed and locations specified, activities fit within the stated time frame, and there is a backup plan if the primary activity doesn't work.

Materials or Examples: [Attach or summarize: your daily schedule, existing worksheets or activities you want the sub to use, your standard sub plan template if you have one, or previous sub plans that worked well]

Role: Act as a creative instructional brainstorming partner supporting a [new or experienced] [grade level] [subject] teacher. Your role is to generate a wide range of ideas the teacher can choose from, not to make decisions for them. Prioritize ideas that are creative, classroom-feasible, and connected to the learning objective.

Learning Objective: Anchor all ideas to the following learning objective(s) or standard(s): [Paste learning objective, standard, or unit goal here]. By the end of this lesson or unit, students should be able to: [Describe what students should know or do]

Task: I need fresh ideas for: [select one or describe your own] A hook or opening activity that sparks curiosity about the topic · A real-world connection that makes the content relevant to students' lives · An engaging activity, project, or task for a lesson or unit · A creative way to review or practice a skill students have already learned · A cross-curricular connection to another subject area: [specify] · An alternative approach to a lesson that isn't working: [describe what's not landing] · Discussion questions or essential questions that provoke genuine thinking · [Add another option: describe what you're looking for]. Generate [number, e.g., 5–10] distinct ideas. Each idea should be different in approach, not variations of the same concept.

Context: Grade level and course: [e.g., 6th grade World History] · Unit or topic: [e.g., Ancient Egypt, ecosystems, persuasive writing] · Student makeup: [e.g., mixed abilities, high energy class, students disengage during lecture — no PII] · What students already know: [e.g., they've read about pharaohs, they can identify the parts of an argument] · Student interests: [e.g., students are into sports, gaming, social media, music — general observations only, no PII] · What you've already tried: [e.g., I've done a textbook reading and a video — I need something more interactive] · Classroom constraints: [e.g., no outdoor access, limited tech, 30-minute periods, 35 students] · [Add anything else the AI should know]

Time/Schedule: Ideas should be feasible within: [e.g., a 10-minute warm-up / a single 50-minute class / a week-long project / a homework assignment]

Output Format: For each idea: Idea Title (short, descriptive) · What It Is (2–3 sentences describing the activity or approach) · Why It Works (1 sentence connecting it to the learning objective and explaining why it would engage students) · What You'd Need (materials, time, setup — keep it realistic). Keep the response to approximately [length: e.g., 5 ideas with brief descriptions, 10 one-liner concepts, 3 fully developed ideas]

Constraints: Do not include any personally identifiable teacher or student information · Each idea should be genuinely different in approach · Ideas must be feasible for a single teacher with the stated classroom constraints · Prioritize ideas that create genuine curiosity or cognitive engagement, not just "fun" activities disconnected from learning · [Add your own constraints here]

Self-Check: Flag any specific facts, dates, statistics, or claims that I should independently verify. Check that each idea clearly connects to the stated learning objective, ideas are genuinely varied in approach, all ideas are feasible with the stated constraints, and ideas would actually engage this age group.

Materials or Examples: [Attach or summarize: your current lesson plan, unit overview, textbook chapter, or examples of activities that have worked well with your students before]

Role: Act as an experienced instructional coach and AI-aware curriculum specialist supporting a [grade level] [subject] teacher. Your role is to analyze existing lessons, assignments, or assessments and identify specific points where a student could use AI to bypass the intended learning. You are not here to judge the teacher's work — you are here to help them see what students will see.

Learning Objective: The original material was designed to assess or develop the following learning objective(s) or standard(s): [Paste learning objective, standard, or unit goal here]. By the end of this task, students should be able to: [Describe what students were supposed to learn or demonstrate through this work]

Task: Analyze the material I provide (attached in Materials) and identify every point where a student could use AI to shortcut the intended learning. For each vulnerability, explain: What the shortcut is (specifically what a student could paste into AI and get back) · What learning is bypassed when the student uses that shortcut · How high-impact this vulnerability is (high / medium / low) based on how much learning is lost · A brief redesign suggestion that would close or reduce the shortcut while preserving the learning objective. Rank the vulnerabilities from highest to lowest impact.

Context: Grade level and course: [e.g., 9th grade English] · Type of material being audited: [e.g., essay assignment, lab report, take-home test, project rubric, homework worksheet] · Student makeup: [e.g., mixed abilities, honors, inclusion class — no PII] · Student AI access: [e.g., students have personal phones, school-issued Chromebooks, no supervised AI tools] · Current school AI policy: [e.g., AI is not allowed for assignments / AI is allowed for brainstorming only / no formal policy yet] · How this material is currently used: [e.g., completed at home unsupervised / done in class with teacher present / submitted digitally] · [Add anything else the AI should know]

Time/Schedule: This audit is for a [lesson / assignment / assessment] that currently takes: [e.g., one class period / one week / a take-home weekend assignment]. Any redesign suggestions should fit within a similar time frame.

Output Format: Summary: One paragraph overview of the material's overall AI vulnerability level and the most critical finding · Vulnerability Table (ranked by impact): Vulnerability # and Description · What a student would paste into AI and what AI would return · What learning is bypassed · Impact level (High / Medium / Low) · Redesign suggestion (brief) · Top 3 Priorities: Which vulnerabilities the teacher should address first and why · What's Already Strong: Identify any parts of the material that are naturally AI-resistant. Keep the response to approximately [length: e.g., one page summary with table, a detailed multi-page audit]

Constraints: Do not include any personally identifiable teacher or student information · Do not suggest AI detection tools, plagiarism checkers, or surveillance-based solutions · Do not frame this as "catching cheaters" — frame it as protecting learning · Redesign suggestions should preserve the original learning objective · Be specific about what a student would actually do with AI · [Add your own constraints here]

Self-Check: Flag any specific facts, dates, statistics, or claims that I should independently verify. Check that each vulnerability describes a specific, realistic student behavior, redesign suggestions preserve the original learning objective, and impact rankings are justified.

Materials or Examples: [Attach or paste: the lesson plan, assignment instructions, rubric, assessment, worksheet, or any student-facing materials you want audited. The more complete the material, the more specific the audit.]

Role: Act as an instructional assistant supporting a [grade level] [subject] teacher. Maintain the instructional-coach perspective established in the previous prompt, but limit your role to redesigning the specific components the teacher selected. Do not make new audit or assessment design decisions.

Redesign Focus: [Paste the vulnerability number(s) and descriptions you selected from the audit]

Learning Objective: Use the same learning objective(s) provided in the previous prompt. Do not reinterpret, expand, or replace the objective.

Task: Redesign the selected components of the original material to close or significantly reduce the identified AI shortcuts while preserving the original learning objective. For each vulnerability I selected, provide: The original version (brief summary of what it looks like now) · The redesigned version (ready to use or adapt) · What changed and why (one sentence explaining the design decision) · What learning this redesign protects

Context: Use the same context from the B1 audit. How much of the original material I want to keep: [e.g., preserve the overall assignment structure / open to a major rework / just tweak the weak spots] · Any constraints on the redesign: [e.g., must still be completable at home / must remain a written assignment / needs to work without technology] · [Add anything else the AI should know]

Output Format: For each selected vulnerability: Vulnerability Addressed (number and description from audit) · Original Version (brief) · Redesigned Version (classroom-ready) · What Changed and Why · What Learning This Protects. Keep the response to approximately [length: e.g., one redesigned component per page, just the highest-priority fix]

Constraints: Do not suggest AI detection tools, plagiarism checkers, or surveillance-based solutions · Do not re-audit or identify new vulnerabilities — redesign only the ones I selected · Redesigned components must preserve the original learning objective · Keep the redesign realistic for the stated classroom context and time frame · [Add your own constraints here]

Self-Check: Confirm the redesign actually closes or reduces the identified shortcut, the original learning objective is preserved, the redesigned version is realistic for the stated time frame, and the redesign doesn't create new, unintended AI vulnerabilities.

Role: Act as an experienced instructional coach and learning design specialist supporting a [grade level] [subject] teacher. Your role is to analyze existing lessons or assignments and identify where the task design allows students to produce a polished product without doing the thinking the task was meant to develop. Then recommend specific redesign strategies that make the reasoning process visible and essential.

Learning Objective: The original material was designed to develop or assess the following learning objective(s) or standard(s): [Paste learning objective, standard, or unit goal here]. By the end of this task, students should be able to: [Describe the specific thinking, reasoning, or skill students are supposed to develop through this work]

Task: Analyze the material I provide (attached in Materials) and evaluate it through one question: Does the task require students to do the thinking, or can students produce a finished product by taking a shortcut with AI without engaging in the reasoning the task is meant to develop? For each component, identify: Where the thinking happens · Where the thinking is optional · The thinking gap (the difference between what the task asks students to produce and what the task actually requires them to think about). Then recommend 3–5 redesign strategies, ranked by impact, that would close the thinking gaps and make the reasoning process visible and necessary.

Context: Grade level and course: [e.g., 10th grade World History] · Type of material being analyzed: [e.g., essay assignment, project, problem set, discussion activity, lab report] · Student makeup: [e.g., mixed abilities, honors, inclusion class — no PII] · What students already know: [e.g., students have read the source texts, they understand thesis statements, they can identify bias] · What's not working: [e.g., student responses all look the same, students seem to finish without struggling, the product doesn't show me what they actually understand] · How the task is currently completed: [e.g., in class / at home / over multiple days / individually / in groups] · [Add anything else the AI should know]

Time/Schedule: The original task currently takes: [e.g., one class period / three days / a two-week project]. Redesign strategies should fit within a similar time frame unless I indicate otherwise.

Output Format: Summary: One paragraph assessing the overall balance between product and process in the current task · Thinking Map: For each component, identify what the task asks students to produce, what thinking that production requires (or doesn't), and the thinking gap · Redesign Strategies (ranked by impact), each with: Strategy name and description, what thinking it makes visible or necessary, example of how it changes one specific part of the original task, and trade-offs · What's Already Strong: Which parts already require genuine thinking. Keep the response to approximately [length: e.g., one page summary with strategies, a detailed multi-page analysis]

Constraints: Do not suggest AI detection tools, surveillance, or monitoring-based solutions · Focus on making the thinking necessary, not making the task harder to cheat on · Redesign strategies must preserve the original learning objective · Be honest about trade-offs — if a strategy adds grading time, say so · [Add your own constraints here]

Self-Check: Flag any specific facts, dates, statistics, or claims that I should independently verify. Check that each thinking gap identifies a specific, concrete place where output can be produced without reasoning, redesign strategies make the process visible, strategies are realistic, and trade-offs are honestly stated.

Materials or Examples: [Attach or paste: the lesson plan, assignment instructions, rubric, project description, or student-facing materials. Include any samples of student work that illustrate the problem if available.]

Role: Act as an instructional assistant supporting a [grade level] [subject] teacher. Maintain the learning design perspective established in the previous prompt, but limit your role to building the redesigned task based on the teacher's selected strategies. Do not recommend new strategies or re-analyze the material.

Redesign Strategies Selected: [Paste the strategy name(s) and descriptions you selected from the analysis]

Learning Objective: Use the same learning objective(s) provided in the previous prompt. Do not reinterpret, expand, or replace the objective.

Task: Build the redesigned version of the original task incorporating the selected strategies. Provide: The complete, classroom-ready redesigned task (assignment instructions, activity steps, or student-facing materials) · How and where each selected strategy is built into the task · What the teacher should look for in student responses that shows genuine thinking (not just a polished product) · Brief teacher notes explaining any changes to grading, facilitation, or timing

Context: Use the same context from the first prompt. How much of the original task to preserve: [e.g., keep the overall assignment structure / rebuild from scratch / keep the topic but redesign the deliverable] · Student-facing or teacher-facing: [e.g., provide me the redesigned student handout / provide the full lesson plan / just give me the revised instructions] · Any additional constraints: [e.g., must still work as a take-home assignment / needs to be completed individually / must include a written component] · [Add anything else the AI should know]

Output Format: Redesigned Task (complete, classroom-ready version) · Strategy Integration Notes (where each selected strategy appears and how it works) · What to Look For (indicators of genuine student thinking in the completed task) · Teacher Notes (changes to grading approach, facilitation tips, estimated timing). Keep the response to approximately [length: e.g., a one-page student handout with teacher notes, a full redesigned lesson plan]

Constraints: Do not recommend new strategies or re-analyze the material — build only what I selected · The redesigned task must preserve the original learning objective · Make the thinking process visible in the student deliverable · [Add your own constraints here]

Self-Check: Confirm the redesigned task actually requires the thinking it claims to require, selected strategies are clearly built into the task, the original learning objective is preserved, and the task is realistic for the stated time frame and classroom context.

Role: Act as an experienced instructional coach and student engagement specialist supporting a [new or experienced] [grade level] [subject] teacher. Your role is to help redesign an existing lesson or assignment so that students are intrinsically motivated to do the work themselves. The premise: students who find a task genuinely interesting, personally relevant, or worth doing don't look for shortcuts.

Learning Objective: Preserve the following learning objective(s) or standard(s) while increasing engagement: [Paste learning objective, standard, or unit goal here]. By the end of this lesson or task, students should be able to: [Describe what students should know or do]

Task: Redesign the lesson or assignment I provide (attached in Materials) to increase student engagement, curiosity, and ownership. The redesign should address why students might disengage or shortcut this task and build in elements that make the work feel worth doing. Focus the redesign on one or more of these engagement drivers: Relevance: Connect the content to students' lives, interests, identities, or current events · Autonomy: Give students meaningful choices in what they explore, how they demonstrate learning, or what questions they pursue · Challenge: Make the task intellectually interesting — not just harder, but genuinely thought-provoking · Social connection: Build in collaboration, discussion, debate, or audience beyond the teacher · Purpose: Help students see why this learning matters beyond the grade · Mystery or surprise: Open with a question, puzzle, contradiction, or phenomenon that creates a need to know. Provide the complete redesigned task, ready to use in the classroom. Explain how each engagement element addresses a specific disengagement risk.

Context: Grade level and course: [e.g., 8th grade Science] · Unit or topic: [e.g., chemical reactions, the American Revolution, linear equations] · Student makeup: [e.g., mixed abilities, high energy, students disengage during independent work — no PII] · What students already know: [e.g., students can balance equations, they've read primary sources] · What's not working: [e.g., students rush through to be done, responses are surface-level, students seem bored, I'm seeing a lot of AI-generated work] · Student interests: [e.g., students are into sports, social media, gaming, music, local issues — general observations, no PII] · Classroom constraints: [e.g., 50-minute periods, limited tech, no lab access this week, 32 students] · What engagement strategies you've tried: [e.g., videos, group work, gamification — what worked, what didn't] · [Add anything else the AI should know]

Time/Schedule: The redesigned task should fit within: [e.g., a single 50-minute class / three class periods / a one-week project / a homework assignment]

Output Format: Engagement Diagnosis: What's likely causing disengagement or shortcutting in the current task (2–3 sentences) · Redesigned Task (complete, classroom-ready version): Opening hook or curiosity trigger, Core activity with engagement elements built in, Student deliverable or demonstration of learning · Engagement Elements Explained: For each element you built in, explain which disengagement risk it addresses and why it works for this age group and content · What to Watch For: Signs that students are genuinely engaged vs. going through the motions · Teacher Notes: Any changes to facilitation, timing, materials, or grading approach. Keep the response to approximately [length: e.g., one redesigned lesson with teacher notes, a one-page student-facing activity, three alternative approaches to choose from]

Constraints: Do not include any personally identifiable teacher or student information · Engagement must serve the learning objective — do not sacrifice academic rigor for fun · Avoid superficial engagement tactics (adding points, making it a competition, turning it into a game) unless they genuinely support the learning · Do not assume technology is the answer · Treat engagement as a design problem, not a student motivation problem · [Add your own constraints here]

Self-Check: Flag any specific facts, dates, statistics, or claims that I should independently verify. Check that the redesigned task preserves the original learning objective, engagement elements are specific to this content and age group, the task would make a student want to do it, and the redesign is realistic for the stated constraints.

Materials or Examples: [Attach or paste: the current lesson plan, assignment, or activity you want redesigned. Include any context about what's not landing and any past activities that generated genuine student interest.]

Role: Act as an experienced instructional coach and formative assessment specialist supporting a [new or experienced] [grade level] [subject] teacher. Your role is to help insert process checkpoints into an existing assignment or project — brief, structured moments where students make their thinking visible before, during, and after the task. The checkpoints should be low-lift for the teacher to review and high-signal for understanding what students actually know.

Learning Objective: Align all checkpoints to the following learning objective(s) or standard(s): [Paste learning objective, standard, or unit goal here]. By the end of this assignment, students should be able to: [Describe what students should know or demonstrate through this work]

Task: Add process checkpoints to the assignment or project I provide (attached in Materials). Each checkpoint should be a brief, structured moment where students pause to show their thinking. The checkpoints should: Make the learning process visible, not just the final product · Be fast for students to complete (2–5 minutes each) · Be fast for the teacher to scan (glance-and-sort, not read-and-grade) · Reveal whether students are thinking through the task or just assembling a product · Be placed at natural decision points in the assignment. [Select the types of checkpoints you want, or let the AI recommend]: Planning checkpoint: Before starting — students outline their approach · Decision checkpoint: At a key choice point — students explain what they chose and why · Draft or progress checkpoint: Mid-task — students share rough work with a brief reflection · Struggle checkpoint: When students get stuck — a structured way to name what's confusing · Reflection checkpoint: After completing — students look back at their process · Other: [describe a specific moment in the assignment where you want to see student thinking]

Context: Grade level and course: [e.g., 7th grade ELA] · Assignment or project: [e.g., research paper, science fair project, group presentation, creative writing piece] · Student makeup: [e.g., mixed abilities, high ELL population, students tend to wait until the last minute — no PII] · What students already know: [e.g., students have done peer review before, this is their first multi-week project] · How the assignment is currently structured: [e.g., assigned Monday, due Friday / three weeks with milestones] · Current pain point: [e.g., students turn in polished products that don't match their understanding, I can't tell who did the thinking] · How you'll collect checkpoints: [e.g., paper forms, Google Doc comments, verbal check-in, sticky notes] · [Add anything else the AI should know]

Time/Schedule: The overall assignment spans: [e.g., one week / three class periods / a month-long project]. Each checkpoint should take no more than [e.g., 3 minutes / 5 minutes] of class time.

Output Format: Checkpoint Map: A timeline showing where each checkpoint falls in the assignment sequence · For each checkpoint: Checkpoint name and type, when it happens, student-facing prompt (exactly what students see — clear, brief, grade-appropriate), what it reveals about student thinking, how the teacher scans it (what to look for in 10 seconds or less) · Teacher Scanning Guide: How to quickly sort checkpoint responses into "on track / needs redirect / needs support" without grading each one · Teacher Notes: How to introduce checkpoints to students, how to handle pushback, and how to use checkpoint data to adjust instruction. Keep the response to approximately [length: e.g., 3–5 checkpoints with student prompts and teacher notes]

Constraints: Do not include any personally identifiable teacher or student information · Checkpoints must be low-lift — if the teacher has to read and grade each one, the system collapses at scale · Checkpoints should reveal thinking, not just track compliance · Student-facing prompts should be short enough to fit on a sticky note or a single text field · Do not frame checkpoints as surveillance or "catching AI use" · [Add your own constraints here]

Self-Check: Flag any specific facts, dates, statistics, or claims that I should independently verify. Check that each checkpoint is placed at a genuine thinking moment, student-facing prompts are brief and clear, the teacher can scan each checkpoint in under 10 seconds per student, and checkpoints reveal understanding rather than just task completion.

Materials or Examples: [Attach or paste: the assignment instructions, project timeline, rubric, or any student-facing materials. The more detail you provide about the assignment structure, the better the checkpoint placement.]

Role: Act as an experienced instructional coach and cognitive science-informed learning specialist supporting a [new or experienced] [grade level] [subject] teacher. Your role is to help build retrieval, synthesis, and retention activities into an existing lesson or unit. These strategies should be grounded in how memory and learning actually work, not just best guesses about what helps students remember.

Learning Objective: Align all retrieval and retention activities to the following learning objective(s) or standard(s): [Paste learning objective, standard, or unit goal here]. By the end of this unit or lesson sequence, students should be able to: [Describe what students should retain and be able to do weeks after the instruction, not just on the test]

Task: Generate classroom-ready activities that build retrieval, synthesis, and retention into the lesson or unit I provide (attached in Materials). The activities should be brief, repeatable, and designed to strengthen long-term memory, not just short-term recall for the next quiz. [Select the strategies you want, or let the AI recommend]: Retrieval practice: Activities where students pull information from memory without looking at notes (e.g., brain dumps, no-notes quizzes, recall prompts, think-pair-share from memory) · Spaced practice: A schedule for revisiting key concepts across days or weeks · Interleaving: Activities that mix different problem types or concepts within a single practice session · Synthesis: Activities where students connect ideas across lessons, topics, or units (e.g., concept mapping, "how does X connect to Y?" prompts) · Elaboration: Activities where students explain concepts in their own words, generate examples, or teach the material to someone else · Metacognitive reflection: Activities where students assess their own understanding and identify what they know vs. what they think they know

Context: Grade level and course: [e.g., 7th grade Science] · Unit or topic: [e.g., the water cycle, the Civil War, algebraic expressions] · Student makeup: [e.g., mixed abilities, students forget material quickly, strong on day-of but weak on cumulative assessments — no PII] · What students have already learned: [e.g., completed the unit last week, currently mid-unit, reviewed vocabulary but haven't applied concepts] · Current retention problem: [e.g., students do well on unit tests but bomb the midterm, they can't connect this unit to the last one, they forget key vocabulary within a week] · Available class time for retention activities: [e.g., 5 minutes at the start of each class, one full review day per unit, homework slots] · Existing routines: [e.g., we already do bell-ringers, we have a weekly quiz tradition, students have composition notebooks] · [Add anything else the AI should know]

Time/Schedule: Each individual activity should take no more than: [e.g., 5 minutes / 10 minutes]. The retention plan should span: [e.g., one week of warm-ups, a 3-week spaced practice schedule, activities for the remainder of the semester]

Output Format: Retention Diagnosis: What's likely happening with student memory based on the current problem (2–3 sentences) · Recommended Strategy Mix: Which strategies address the stated retention problem and why · Activity Bank (organized by strategy type), each activity with: Activity name and type, when to use it, student-facing prompt or instructions (ready to use), what it strengthens, time required · Spaced Practice Calendar (if applicable): A simple schedule showing when to revisit which concepts · Teacher Notes: How to introduce these without student pushback, how to keep them low-stakes, and how to tell if they're working. Keep the response to approximately [length: e.g., 5–10 activities with a spaced practice calendar]

Constraints: Do not include any personally identifiable teacher or student information · Retrieval practice must be from memory — if students can look at their notes, it's not retrieval practice · Keep activities low-stakes — retrieval practice works best when students aren't afraid to get things wrong · Do not claim specific percentages or statistics about memory retention unless you can cite a specific source · Activities should fit into existing routines where possible · [Add your own constraints here]

Self-Check: Flag any specific facts, dates, statistics, or claims that I should independently verify. Check that each activity actually requires the cognitive process it claims to strengthen, the spaced practice schedule is realistic, activities fit within the stated time constraints, and no unsourced statistics about memory or retention percentages are included.

Materials or Examples: [Attach or paste: your unit plan, lesson sequence, key vocabulary list, concept map, or any materials that show what students need to retain. The more specific the content, the more targeted the activities.]

Role: Act as an experienced instructional coach and assessment design specialist supporting a [new or experienced] [grade level] [subject] teacher. Your role is to recommend thinking-based assessment approaches that make student reasoning visible, reduce reliance on polished final products, and remain realistic for classroom implementation and grading. The goal is not to make assessments AI-proof through surveillance — it's to design assessments where the thinking is the product.

Learning Objective: Align all assessment recommendations to the following learning objective(s) or standard(s): [Paste learning objective, standard, or unit goal here]. By the end of this unit or lesson, students should be able to: [Describe what students can do that this assessment will measure. Focus on the thinking and reasoning, not just the content knowledge]

Task: Recommend thinking-based assessment methods that best support the stated learning objective. Do not recommend every method available — select only the approaches that meaningfully align with what I'm trying to assess. [Select from the methods below, or let AI recommend]: Cold Start Check: Students respond to a prompt at the beginning of class with no notes, no prep, and no warning · In-Class Writing: Students write under conditions where the teacher can see the thinking develop in real time · Oral Assessment or Oral Micro-Reflection: Teacher asks students to explain, justify, or defend their thinking verbally · Transfer Problem: Students apply what they've learned to a new, unfamiliar context they haven't seen before · Error Analysis: Students are given work that contains mistakes and must identify, explain, and correct the errors · Whiteboard or Live Reasoning Challenge: Students solve problems or construct responses on whiteboards in real time · Socratic Seminar or Discussion-Based Assessment: Students demonstrate understanding through live, evidence-based discussion · "Invisible Work" Assessment: Students show their planning, decision-making, or reasoning process rather than a final product · Field Research or Observation Task: Students collect data, examples, or evidence from their own environment · Other: [describe an assessment approach you'd like evaluated for this objective]

Context: Grade level and course: [e.g., 9th grade Biology] · Unit or topic being assessed: [e.g., cell division, persuasive writing, the Civil War] · Student makeup: [e.g., mixed abilities, honors, inclusion class — no PII] · What students have been taught: [e.g., completed the unit, mid-unit check, students have practiced but not mastered] · Assessment purpose: [e.g., formative check / summative end-of-unit / pre-assessment] · How the assessment will be administered: [e.g., in class only / take-home component / over multiple days] · Student AI access: [e.g., students do not have approved AI access for this task] · Grading capacity: [e.g., I have 30 students / 150 students / I need this to be quick to score] · What hasn't worked: [e.g., students submit polished essays that don't match their in-class ability, take-home assessments come back AI-generated] · [Add anything else the AI should know]

Time/Schedule: Design the assessment to fit within: [e.g., one 50-minute class period / 20 minutes of class / a multi-day performance task / a short formative check]

Output Format: Recommended Methods (only those that align with the stated objective): Method name and description, what type of thinking it makes visible, why it fits this learning objective, whether it is best used formatively or summatively · For each recommended method, a Low-Prep Classroom Example: One concrete, classroom-ready example feasible within the stated time frame · Grading and Efficiency Guidance: What evidence of thinking the teacher should focus on, what does not need to be graded, how to keep grading manageable · Methods Not Recommended (and why). Keep the response to approximately [length: e.g., 2–3 recommended methods with examples and grading guidance]

Constraints: Do not include any personally identifiable teacher or student information · Do not suggest AI detection tools, plagiarism checkers, or surveillance-based solutions · Do not recommend every method — select only the approaches that genuinely fit this learning objective · Grading guidance must be realistic for the stated number of students · Do not assume students will cheat — design for learning, not for enforcement · [Add your own constraints here]

Self-Check: Flag any specific facts, dates, statistics, or claims that I should independently verify. Check that each recommended method aligns to the stated learning objective, classroom examples are concrete and implementable, grading guidance is realistic for the stated number of students, and the assessment emphasizes process over polish.

Materials or Examples: [Attach or paste: existing assessments you want to improve, unit plans, rubrics, or examples of student work that illustrate the problem you're trying to solve.]

Role: Act as an instructional assistant supporting a [grade level] [subject] teacher. Maintain the instructional-coach perspective established in the previous prompt, but limit your role to drafting the assessment the teacher selected. Do not make new instructional or assessment design decisions.

Assessment Method Selected: [Paste the selected method(s), e.g., Transfer Problem + Oral Micro-Reflection]

Learning Objective: Use the same learning objective(s) provided in the previous prompt. Do not reinterpret, expand, or replace the objective.

Task: Draft a classroom-ready assessment that: prioritizes reasoning, explanation, and/or transfer · makes student thinking visible during or immediately after learning · minimizes opportunities for shortcut behaviors · aligns directly to the stated learning objective

Context: Students do not have approved AI access for this task · Assessment must be feasible within normal class time · Teacher grading time must remain manageable

Output Format: Student-Facing Prompt or Instructions · What Students Must Show (Thinking Focus) · Evidence to Collect (What the Teacher Looks For) · Optional Reflection or Justification Component · Teacher Notes (Spot-Check Guidance, What Not to Grade)

Constraints: Do not select or recommend new assessment methods · Do not include grading scales or scores unless explicitly requested · Avoid heavy documentation, extended writing, or excessive prep · Treat this as a draft for teacher revision · If a design choice is unclear, flag it instead of making an assumption.

Self-Check: Confirm alignment to the learning objective, confirm the assessment emphasizes process over polish, confirm grading can be completed efficiently, and flag any specific facts, dates, statistics, or claims that I should independently verify.

Role: Act as an experienced instructional coach and discussion pedagogy specialist supporting a [new or experienced] [grade level] [subject] teacher. Your role is to help design a structured classroom discussion that requires students to think in real time, construct arguments, respond to peers, and defend positions using evidence. The format should make AI irrelevant not by prohibiting it, but by requiring the kind of live, responsive reasoning AI cannot do for students at the moment.

Learning Objective: Align the discussion to the following learning objective(s) or standard(s): [Paste learning objective, standard, or unit goal here]. By the end of this discussion, students should be able to: [Describe what students should think through, not just talk about — e.g., evaluate competing claims, defend a position with evidence, identify the strongest counterargument]

Task: Design a complete, classroom-ready structured discussion for the topic and content I specify. [Select the format or let AI recommend]: Socratic Seminar: Student-led discussion around a central text or question · Structured Academic Debate: Students prepare and argue assigned or chosen positions using evidence · Fishbowl Discussion: Inner circle discusses while outer circle observes and takes notes, groups rotate · Four Corners / Philosophical Chairs: Students physically move to a position and defend their choice, can change positions when persuaded · Collaborative Inquiry: Small groups investigate a question together through structured rounds of evidence review and synthesis · Other: [describe the discussion format you want]

Context: Grade level and course: [e.g., 11th grade AP English Language] · Topic or text: [e.g., excerpt from Letter from Birmingham Jail, competing data sets on climate policy, ethical dilemma about genetic testing] · Student makeup: [e.g., mixed abilities, some students dominate discussion while others stay silent, several ELL students — no PII] · What students already know: [e.g., students have read the text, they understand ethos/pathos/logos, they've practiced identifying claims and evidence] · Discussion experience: [e.g., students have done Socratic seminars before / this is their first structured discussion] · Room setup: [e.g., desks in rows, flexible seating, can form a circle, breakout spaces available] · Class dynamics: [e.g., a few students dominate, many are reluctant to speak, students are respectful but passive, there's tension around this topic] · [Add anything else the AI should know]

Time/Schedule: The discussion should fit within: [e.g., one 50-minute class period / two class periods including prep / a 90-minute block]. Include time for setup, the discussion itself, and a closing reflection.

Output Format: Discussion Format and Rationale (which format and why it fits this objective and class) · Essential Question(s): The central question(s) driving the discussion (open-ended, debatable, text-dependent or evidence-based) · Pre-Discussion Preparation: What students need to do before the discussion, student preparation handout or guide (ready to distribute) · Discussion Structure with Timing: Step-by-step facilitation plan with time estimates, teacher facilitation moves, protocols for equitable participation · Discussion Norms or Ground Rules (student-facing) · Assessment or Observation Tool: How the teacher will track student thinking during the discussion · Closing Reflection: A brief post-discussion activity that captures what students thought, learned, or changed their mind about · Teacher Notes: Troubleshooting tips, how to handle off-topic tangents, what to do if discussion stalls. Keep the response to approximately [length: e.g., a complete discussion plan for one class period, just the essential questions and structure]

Constraints: Do not include any personally identifiable teacher or student information · Essential questions must be genuinely debatable, not questions with obvious "right" answers · Design for equitable participation: the format should ensure more students think and speak · Include specific facilitation moves, not just "facilitate the discussion" · The discussion must require real-time reasoning: students should respond to what peers actually say, not read pre-written scripts · [Add your own constraints here]

Self-Check: Flag any specific facts, dates, statistics, or claims that I should independently verify. Check that the essential question(s) are genuinely open-ended and debatable, the format supports equitable participation, the facilitation plan includes specific teacher moves, and the plan fits within the stated time frame.

Materials or Examples: [Attach or paste: the text, data set, case study, or content students will discuss. Include any discussion protocols, norms, or rubrics you already use.]

Role: Act as an experienced instructional coach and assignment design specialist supporting a [new or experienced] [grade level] [subject] teacher. Your role is to help transform an existing homework assignment from production-based (where students create a finished product at home) to preparation-based (where students do the thinking that sets up the next day's class). The premise: any homework that asks students to produce a polished output unsupervised now risks an AI shortcut. Redesign this homework assignment so its value comes from what students bring to class, not what they submit.

Learning Objective: Align the redesigned homework to the following learning objective(s) or standard(s): [Paste learning objective, standard, or unit goal here]. By the end of this lesson sequence, students should be able to: [Describe what students should know or do — including what the homework prepares them to do in class the next day]

Task: Redesign the homework assignment I provide (attached in Materials) so that it prepares students for the next day's class rather than producing a finished product at home. [Select the homework type or let the AI recommend]: Retrieval prep: Students recall what they learned today from memory (no notes) and bring their recall to class for comparison and gap-filling · Question generation: Students read or review material and write 2–3 genuine questions they have — not comprehension questions, but "I wonder why" questions that drive the next day's discussion · Evidence gathering: Students collect examples, observations, data, or evidence from their own life or environment that connects to the next day's content · Pre-thinking or position-taking: Students form an initial opinion, prediction, or hypothesis before the next day's lesson so class begins with something to test, debate, or revise · Planning or brainstorming: Students sketch an approach, outline, or set of ideas for a project or assignment they'll build in class — not the finished version, just the thinking that precedes it · Reflection or connection: Students look back at recent learning and make connections across lessons, identify what they understand vs. what's still unclear, or relate content to something in their own experience · Other: [describe what you want students to prepare]

Context: Grade level and course: [e.g., 6th grade ELA] · Current homework assignment: [describe it briefly or attach in Materials] · What's happening in class the next day: [e.g., Socratic seminar, lab, group problem-solving, essay drafting, review session] · Student makeup: [e.g., mixed abilities, many students don't complete homework, high AI use at home — no PII] · What students already know: [e.g., students read the chapter in class, they can identify main ideas, they've practiced note-taking] · Homework completion context: [e.g., most students have internet and devices at home / many don't / uneven access / no supervision] · Current problem: [e.g., homework comes back looking AI-generated, students copy from each other, homework doesn't connect to the next day's lesson] · [Add anything else the AI should know]

Time/Schedule: The homework should take students no more than: [e.g., 15 minutes / 20 minutes / 30 minutes]. The next day's class activity that uses the homework is: [e.g., a 50-minute class period / a 20-minute warm-up]

Output Format: Why the Original Homework Is Vulnerable (2–3 sentences: what makes it easy to shortcut and what learning is at risk) · Redesigned Homework: Student-facing instructions (clear, brief, ready to distribute), what students produce at home (the prep artifact — not a polished product), estimated time · Next-Day Class Connection: How the homework feeds into the next day's activity (specific, not "we'll discuss it"), what happens if a student didn't do the homework (low-barrier entry point) · Why This Works: One sentence explaining what makes the redesigned version harder to shortcut and more valuable for learning · Teacher Notes: How to check homework quickly, how to use it in class, and how to handle non-completion. Keep the response to approximately [length: e.g., one redesigned homework assignment with class connection, three alternative homework options to choose from]

Constraints: Do not include any personally identifiable teacher or student information · The redesigned homework must be completable without internet or devices unless the teacher confirms all students have access · Homework should take no longer than the stated time limit · The value of the homework must be activated in class the next day · Do not design homework that only works if every student completes it — include a low-barrier entry point · [Add your own constraints here]

Self-Check: Flag any specific facts, dates, statistics, or claims that I should independently verify. Check that the homework is preparation, not production; the homework connects to a specific next-day activity; the homework is completable within the stated time limit; a student could not get the same value from pasting the prompt into AI; and there's a plan for students who don't complete the homework.

Materials or Examples: [Attach or paste: the current homework assignment, the next day's lesson plan, and any relevant context about what students are working on. The more specific the next-day connection, the better the redesign.]