Create Case Studies & Scenarios

Act as an experienced instructional designer and case writer.

Design a classic decision case for [Insert Domain/Topic] with a coherent narrative, grounded exhibits, guiding questions, facilitation support, and a brief exit ticket for [Insert Student Level] in [Insert Course]. The decision-maker role is [Insert Role].

Inputs:
- Materials: domain/topic, constraints (time/resources/ethics), any seed data: [Paste Text Here]
- AI Use Policy: [Insert AI Use Policy] (e.g., draft narrative/exhibits/questions; faculty will verify and adapt)

Produce a faculty-facing prompt that can be copied and run immediately, with these labeled sections:
- Assignment Overview (case purpose, audience, decision-maker role)
- Learning Outcomes (3-5)
- Scenario Brief (context, decision focus, constraints, prior knowledge, modality/pacing)
- Student Task & Deliverables (500–800 word narrative culminating in a clear decision; 3–5 exhibits with 1-line captions and alt text, referenced in-text; 4 guiding questions escalating in rigor; facilitator guide with likely misconceptions, 3 progressive hints, key takeaways; exit ticket 3 items with model answers)
- Process Artifacts (exhibit list with sources or “sample” labels, hint bank, answer key, takeaways)
- Success Criteria & Rubric Hooks (evidence use, ethical/privacy awareness, clarity/structure, exhibit integration, accessibility)
- Debrief Plan (3–5 prompts on evidence gaps, hindsight bias, and decision trade-offs)

Pedagogical and ethical requirements:
- Cite or label exhibits as examples; avoid bias and protect privacy
- Keep accessibility in mind (alt text, concise language)
- Be transparent about uncertainty and data limits

Tone: academic and realistic; concise and accessible.

Before producing the final version, ask me three clarification questions to confirm understanding. Then summarize my answers back to me in 3 bullets. Only after that, present the final output in clearly labeled sections.

Act as an experienced instructional designer and scenario designer.

Create a time-released case (T1 → T2 → T3) for [Insert Topic/Domain] that reveals information in stages, requires stance updates, and surfaces uncertainty management for [Insert Student Level] in [Insert Course]; releases every [Insert Pace].

Inputs:
- Materials: topic, constraints, and any seed data: [Paste Text Here]
- AI Use Policy: [Insert AI Use Policy] (e.g., draft staged prompts/notes; faculty will verify and sequence)

Produce a faculty-facing prompt that can be copied and run immediately, with these labeled sections:
- Assignment Overview (staged-release purpose, audience, cadence)
- Learning Outcomes (3-5)
- Scenario Brief (initial context, evolving information plan, constraints, modality/pacing)
- Student Task & Deliverables (T1 initial brief with guiding question; T2 update with prompt to revise stance; T3 update with prompt to finalize decision; instructor notes on uncertainty; 3 checks with answers—one per timepoint)
- Process Artifacts (timeline, update notes, answer key)
- Success Criteria & Rubric Hooks (plausibility of updates, stance revision quality, uncertainty reasoning)
- Debrief Plan (3–5 prompts on how/why stances changed, hindsight bias, and future info needs)

Pedagogical and ethical requirements:
- Keep updates plausible; avoid hindsight bias
- Be explicit about uncertainty and its impact on choices
- Ensure accessibility and clarity at each release

Tone: academic and crisp; reveal only what’s needed per timepoint.

Before producing the final version, ask me three clarification questions to confirm understanding. Then summarize my answers back to me in 3 bullets. Only after that, present the final output in clearly labeled sections.

Act as an experienced instructional designer and ethics case designer.

Create an ethical dilemma case for [Insert Domain/Topic] that makes value trade-offs explicit using an options × stakeholders × values matrix for [Insert Student Level] in [Insert Course].

Inputs:
- Materials: domain/topic, stakeholders, known constraints: [Paste Text Here]
- AI Use Policy: [Insert AI Use Policy] (e.g., draft vignette/matrix/prompts; faculty will localize and review)

Produce a faculty-facing prompt that can be copied and run immediately, with these labeled sections:
- Assignment Overview (ethics focus, audience, matrix framing)
- Learning Outcomes (3-5)
- Scenario Brief (stakeholders, values in tension, constraints, modality)
- Student Task & Deliverables (300–500 word vignette culminating in a choice; matrix with 3 options × stakeholders × 2–3 core values; risks and mitigations per option; discussion prompts on value conflicts/compromises; exit ticket: position + justification with rubric bullets)
- Process Artifacts (matrix template, prompt bank, answer key outline)
- Success Criteria & Rubric Hooks (fairness, avoidance of stereotyping, balance of risks/benefits, realistic mitigations)
- Debrief Plan (3–5 prompts on whose values prevailed, trade-offs, and alternative compromises)

Pedagogical and ethical requirements:
- Ensure fairness; avoid stereotyping and bias
- Balance risks/benefits; be realistic about mitigations
- Label any invented data as illustrative

Tone: academic and respectful; precise about values and impacts.

Before producing the final version, ask me three clarification questions to confirm understanding. Then summarize my answers back to me in 3 bullets. Only after that, present the final output in clearly labeled sections.

Act as an experienced instructional designer and quantitative case writer.

Create a quantitative decision case centered on evidence via computation and sensitivity analysis for [Insert Student Level] in [Insert Course].

Inputs:
- Materials: dataset link/description and decision goal: [Paste Text Here]
- AI Use Policy: [Insert AI Use Policy] (e.g., draft exhibits/tasks/keys; faculty will verify and adjust)

Produce a faculty-facing prompt that can be copied and run immediately, with these labeled sections:
- Assignment Overview (quant focus, audience, decision context)
- Learning Outcomes (3-5)
- Scenario Brief (context, data availability/limits, assumptions, constraints)
- Student Task & Deliverables (250–400 word narrative; data exhibits small table/summary/graph with alt text; tasks: compute/estimate X, compare models/assumptions Y, run sensitivity on Z; solution outlines explaining reasoning; debrief notes: uncertainty/limitations and “what data next?”)
- Process Artifacts (exhibit list with provenance or “sample” label, solution outline skeletons, sensitivity ledger)
- Success Criteria & Rubric Hooks (data traceability, reasoning transparency, correct methods/assumptions, honest uncertainty)
- Debrief Plan (3–5 prompts on what drove decisions, robustness, and further data needs)

Pedagogical and ethical requirements:
- Keep data traceable; show intermediate steps
- Mark illustrative numbers as examples
- Avoid overclaiming; communicate uncertainty clearly

Tone: academic and transparent.

Before producing the final version, ask me three clarification questions to confirm understanding. Then summarize my answers back to me in 3 bullets. Only after that, present the final output in clearly labeled sections.

Act as an experienced instructional designer and facilitator.

Design an adversarial collaboration case (Blue Team solution vs. Red Team critique) with a reconciliation step for [Insert Student Level] in [Insert Course]; teams of [Insert Team Size].

Inputs:
- Materials: topic/domain and any seed exhibits: [Paste Text Here]
- AI Use Policy: [Insert AI Use Policy] (e.g., draft briefs/prompts; faculty will validate and tailor)

Produce a faculty-facing prompt that can be copied and run immediately, with these labeled sections:
- Assignment Overview (adversarial collaboration purpose, audience, team size)
- Learning Outcomes (3-5)
- Scenario Brief (decision question, constraints, exhibits, modality)
- Student Task & Deliverables (case narrative with decision; Blue Team brief: proposed solution, assumptions, evidence; Red Team brief: risks, counter-evidence, alternatives; reconciliation: what changes after critique, final position and why; rubric bullets: evidence quality, fairness to counter-arguments, improvement)
- Process Artifacts (evidence ledger, critique checklist, reconciliation notes)
- Success Criteria & Rubric Hooks (steel‑man critiques, evidence use, balanced reasoning, improved final stance)
- Debrief Plan (3–5 prompts on what changed, strongest counterpoints, and remaining uncertainties)

Pedagogical and ethical requirements:
- Encourage fair, steel‑man critiques; avoid strawmen
- Cite evidence and be transparent about limits
- Keep communication professional and inclusive

Tone: academic and even‑handed.

Before producing the final version, ask me three clarification questions to confirm understanding. Then summarize my answers back to me in 3 bullets. Only after that, present the final output in clearly labeled sections.

Act as an experienced instructional designer and case theorist.

Create a multi-framework analysis case applying Framework A vs. Framework B to the same vignette for [Insert Student Level] in [Insert Course].

Inputs:
- Materials: case domain and frameworks A and B: [Paste Text Here]
- AI Use Policy: [Insert AI Use Policy] (e.g., draft prompts/outlines/keys; faculty will verify accuracy)

Produce a faculty-facing prompt that can be copied and run immediately, with these labeled sections:
- Assignment Overview (comparative frameworks purpose, audience)
- Learning Outcomes (3-5)
- Scenario Brief (vignette context, what each framework emphasizes, constraints)
- Student Task & Deliverables (300–500 word vignette; analysis prompts for Framework A and B with assumptions/criteria; synthesis comparing assumptions, conflicts, agreements; justified decision; worked outline non-solution to model structure; exit ticket 3 questions with answers)
- Process Artifacts (prompt bank, synthesis template, answer key)
- Success Criteria & Rubric Hooks (accurate framework application, fair comparison, justified synthesis, clarity)
- Debrief Plan (3–5 prompts on where frameworks diverge/align and when to use each)

Pedagogical and ethical requirements:
- Treat frameworks accurately; disclose limits; avoid false dichotomies
- Be explicit about uncertainty and assumptions
- Keep examples inclusive and accessible

Tone: academic and comparative.

Before producing the final version, ask me three clarification questions to confirm understanding. Then summarize my answers back to me in 3 bullets. Only after that, present the final output in clearly labeled sections.

Act as an experienced instructional designer and facilitator.

Create a short role‑play simulation for [Insert Student Level] in [Insert Course] with 3–5 roles, clear objectives/conflicts, guided debrief, and a short reflection.

Inputs:
- Materials: scenario theme and role list: [Paste Text Here]
- AI Use Policy: [Insert AI Use Policy] (e.g., draft briefs/agenda/debrief; faculty will tailor and run)

Produce a faculty-facing prompt that can be copied and run immediately, with these labeled sections:
- Assignment Overview (role‑play purpose, audience, role count)
- Learning Outcomes (3-5)
- Scenario Brief (context, role objectives/conflicts, constraints, modality/time)
- Student Task & Deliverables (role briefs one page each: objectives, constraints, 3–5 talking points; timeboxed meeting agenda with prompts; debrief guide to surface reasoning, correct misconceptions, and support transfer; short reflection prompt)
- Process Artifacts (role sheets, agenda, debrief prompts, reflection rubric bullets)
- Success Criteria & Rubric Hooks (respectful engagement, evidence‑based reasoning, clarity, reflection quality)
- Debrief Plan (3–5 prompts on conflicts, justification quality, future actions)

Pedagogical and ethical requirements:
- Ensure respectful framing; avoid stereotyping; keep conflicts realistic
- Encourage balanced airtime and inclusive participation
- Protect privacy if sensitive topics arise

Tone: academic and facilitative; clear and concise.

Before producing the final version, ask me three clarification questions to confirm understanding. Then summarize my answers back to me in 3 bullets. Only after that, present the final output in clearly labeled sections.

Act as an experienced instructional designer and case writer.

Create a counterfactual branching case for [Insert Student Level] in [Insert Course] that explores outcomes under altered constraints/assumptions and compares decisions.

Inputs:
- Materials: base scenario and candidate counterfactuals: [Paste Text Here]
- AI Use Policy: [Insert AI Use Policy] (e.g., draft branches/tables/checks; faculty will verify and adapt)

Produce a faculty-facing prompt that can be copied and run immediately, with these labeled sections:
- Assignment Overview (branching purpose, audience)
- Learning Outcomes (3-5)
- Scenario Brief (base case, critical constraint to alter, rationale)
- Student Task & Deliverables (base case vignette + decision question; counterfactual branch describing what changes and why it matters; comparison table feasibility/risks/cost‑benefit/ethics; debrief note on sensitivity/robustness; 3 short checks with answers)
- Process Artifacts (branch ledger, comparison template, answer key)
- Success Criteria & Rubric Hooks (comparability of branches, justified recommendations, uncertainty handling)
- Debrief Plan (3–5 prompts on sensitivity, robustness, and policy/ethical implications)

Pedagogical and ethical requirements:
- Keep branches comparable; disclose uncertainty; avoid hindsight bias
- Be explicit about constraints and their real impacts
- Use accessible language and alt text where needed

Tone: academic and structured.

Before producing the final version, ask me three clarification questions to confirm understanding. Then summarize my answers back to me in 3 bullets. Only after that, present the final output in clearly labeled sections.

Act as an experienced instructional designer and facilitator.

Create a failure analysis case (postmortem) for [Insert Student Level] in [Insert Course] using structured root‑cause tools and realistic corrective actions.

Inputs:
- Materials: failure domain and any seed artifacts: [Paste Text Here]
- AI Use Policy: [Insert AI Use Policy] (e.g., draft analysis prompts/plan/metrics; faculty will validate)

Produce a faculty-facing prompt that can be copied and run immediately, with these labeled sections:
- Assignment Overview (postmortem purpose, audience)
- Learning Outcomes (3-5)
- Scenario Brief (incident context, constraints, safety/ethics)
- Student Task & Deliverables (incident report 200–350 words; root‑cause analysis using Five Whys or fishbone with prompts; corrective action plan short/medium/long term; metrics to monitor and risk of recurrence; debrief prompts for transfer)
- Process Artifacts (root‑cause worksheet, action plan template, metric ledger)
- Success Criteria & Rubric Hooks (systems thinking, feasibility, safety, clarity, transfer)
- Debrief Plan (3–5 prompts on systemic factors, leading indicators, and prevention)

Pedagogical and ethical requirements:
- Avoid blame language; focus on systems
- Ensure feasibility and safety; be transparent about limits
- Encourage constructive, evidence‑based recommendations

Tone: academic and constructive.

Before producing the final version, ask me three clarification questions to confirm understanding. Then summarize my answers back to me in 3 bullets. Only after that, present the final output in clearly labeled sections.

Act as an experienced instructional designer and communicator.

Create dual‑audience case memos for [Insert Student Level] in [Insert Course] translating the same analysis for expert and stakeholder audiences.

Inputs:
- Materials: case domain and exhibits: [Paste Text Here]
- AI Use Policy: [Insert AI Use Policy] (e.g., draft prompts/rubric; faculty will verify and localize)

Produce a faculty-facing prompt that can be copied and run immediately, with these labeled sections:
- Assignment Overview (dual‑audience purpose, audience, stakeholder type)
- Learning Outcomes (3-5)
- Scenario Brief (case context, exhibits, audience needs, constraints)
- Student Task & Deliverables (case narrative and exhibits; expert memo prompts: assumptions, uncertainty, methods, limits; stakeholder memo prompts: plain language implications, trade‑offs, actions; reflection comparing choices across audiences; rubric bullets: accuracy, clarity, audience fit)
- Process Artifacts (prompt bank, reflection template, rubric bullets)
- Success Criteria & Rubric Hooks (accuracy, uncertainty honesty, audience fit, clarity)
- Debrief Plan (3–5 prompts on communication choices, simplification vs. precision, and trust)

Pedagogical and ethical requirements:
- Maintain accuracy and uncertainty; avoid overclaiming
- Ensure inclusive, accessible language for non‑experts
- Provide clear rationales where choices diverge

Tone: academic and audience‑aware.

Before producing the final version, ask me three clarification questions to confirm understanding. Then summarize my answers back to me in 3 bullets. Only after that, present the final output in clearly labeled sections.