Start Here | Design Sprint Preview

Pre-Sprint Focus

Get ready for Design Session 1 with a learning experience in mind and thoughts about how AI is making it vulnerable.

Design Time

~45 minutes, including the Preview video

In the Preview video, you identify an AI-vulnerable learning experience using two Design Brief worksheets: the AI Vulnerability Assignment Audit from Design Brief 1 and the Learning Goal Audit from Design Brief 2.

Before Design Session 1, complete the following two design activities:

1. Access your Design Decisions Document

Your Design Decisions Document is where all of your sprint work lives. Take a moment to make your own copy now, before you start the sessions.

To get your copy:

• Open the Design Sprint | Design Decisions Document
• Make a copy to complete on your own:
  • Google Docs: Go to File → Make a copy.
  • Other formats: Go to File → Download
• Save it somewhere you can easily find it. You will return to it throughout the Design Sprint to document your design work.

For now, just skim the entire document to get a feel for the arc of the four design sessions. At this point, focus only on the Pre-Work section.

2. Choose your learning experience and run the AI test

Open your Design Decisions Document and head to the Design Sprint Prework section. Describe the learning experience you are bringing, capture your current learning goals, then run the AI-Vulnerability Test. This test helps you see how AI use could indicate issues with your:

• learning goals,
• learning tasks,
• learning process visibility, and
• learning measurement.

Jennifer’s AI-Vulnerability Design Challenge

My Design Reflections:
Like everyone who worked through the live Design Sprint, I’m working through an AI-vulnerability design challenge of my own. What follows are my design session notes and reflections that align with the same design decisions you’re working through.

Yours in learning,
Jennifer

My Learning Experience

My AI-vulnerable learning experience is an annotated bibliography in a graduate course where students work all semester to produce a literature review on a topic related to the implications of technology use in education. In the annotated bibliography assignment, students locate eight to ten scholarly sources relevant to their own emerging research question, provide a full APA citation for each, and write a 150 to 200-word annotation per source that summarizes it, evaluates its credibility and methodology, and explains its relevance to their literature review purpose statement. It is submitted once as an early step toward a full literature review at the end of the semester.

Context and Learner Level:
Graduate students in education, many writing their first formal literature review from which they will make practice recommendations and identify needed future research.

Intended Learning Goals:
After this assignment, students should be able to locate and select credible scholarly sources that are relevant to their purpose statement, evaluate the methodology and quality of a source, and begin to articulate how each source relates to the greater body of literature, as well as the aims they set for themselves in their purpose statement.

Current Learning Goals:

1. Locate and select credible, relevant scholarly literature for a defined research question.
2. Critically evaluate the methodology, quality, and contribution of a scholarly source.
3. Articulate how each source informs the student’s own aims, as the beginning of synthesis across the greater body of relevant literature.

My AI-Vulnerability Test

I pasted the following prompt into Claude based on the assignment requirements. I used a sample purpose statement that is similar to a popular topic focus.

Jennifer’s AI Prompt for her AI-Vulnerable Test:

Create an annotated bibliography of 8 to 10 credible sources that is relevant to a literature review with this as the purpose statement: “This literature review will examine how [academic integrity] is impacted by [generative AI] used in [higher education], and consider recommendations for practice as they relate to [developing and implementing student assignments and assessments].”

Provide a full APA citation for each, and write a 150 to 200-word annotation per source that summarizes it, evaluates its credibility and methodology, and explains its relevance to the literature review purpose statement.

What did the AI produce, and what did it get right versus miss? Here is a summary of the results: Jennifer’s Annotated Bibliography | AI-Vulnerability Test

• Yikes! It returned a complete, well-formatted annotated bibliography in just a few minutes. It included APA citations and fluent 150-word annotations with evaluation language and tidy relevance statements.
• It got the format, the fluent summaries, the surface-level evaluation, and plausible relevance statements right.
• However, it would take more digging to verify the citations. They look real, but hallucinated references remain a serious problem in academic work.
• While some journals are top in the field, I would expect to see a greater mix of high-caliber educational technology journals.
• The evaluations were generic rather than grounded in genuine immersion in the literature.
• The relevance to the specific research question felt templated and lacked nuance. Nothing in it showed that a person had read a single source. It also introduced a failure my current assignment cannot catch: invented sources that a student copying the output would not notice.

Your Design Reflections

Welcome to the Design Sprint! Please take a moment to reflect on the learning experience you want to work on during the Design Sprint. Why is it feeling AI-vulnerable to you? Jot your thoughts in your Design Decisions Document.

Next: Design Session 1 | Discover
Back to Design Sprint On-Demand