Design the project entry event

Where the evidence comes from

• Gold Standard: Project Design Elements | PBLWorks
• Gold Standard: Teaching Practices | PBLWorks

Strong for entry events and question generation; AI benefit unvalidated.

1. Check the issue and stimulus

   Bring one real issue, a verified stimulus and your project brief. Optional D02, D03 and D04 outputs can supply these decisions; equivalent teacher documents work. Keep student identities and private support facts outside AI. Verify rights yourself.

   Prompt 1 · Source boundary Copy

   CONTEXT
   Teacher-selected real issue and project brief, including open project question and learning goals: [paste brief with IDs].
   Exact stimulus, source excerpt and essential background: [paste material with source IDs].
   Teacher verification record for accuracy, currency, rights and permitted use: [paste evidence references, checks and unresolved limits].
   Class-wide access requirements and teacher cultural/emotional review, without personal details: [paste requirements, review and unresolved concerns].
   Existing entry-event plan: [paste plan or none].
   REQUEST
   Inventory usable stimulus content and necessary background. Separate observation, source claim and open question. Identify missing checks before proposing any event.
   QUALITY BAR
   Use only supplied material. An assertion that rights are verified is insufficient without the teacher's evidence reference and permitted use. Do not verify rights, accuracy or emotional safety yourself. Mark absent, stale or conflicting checks HOLD, meaning the material cannot proceed until human review. Stop event drafting if the stimulus is unverified, could cause harm, or lacks a question-led purpose. Do not invent sources, student responses or learner characteristics. Do not answer the project question.
   FORMAT
   Table: supplied content, source ID, verification evidence and limits, background needed, open inquiry, HOLD and human action. End with whether essential inputs are present for drafting, without approving classroom use.

2. Compare two inquiry openings

   Confirm or replace held material outside AI. Use one short, classroom-based opening with one stimulus. Include planning, actual facilitation and debrief in your scope. Stop and re-scope if the work exceeds sixty active minutes.

   Prompt 2 · Sequence options Copy

   CONTEXT
   Exact step 1 inventory approved for drafting: [paste inventory].
   Teacher corrections and verification evidence: [paste explicit decisions, source IDs and retained HOLD items].
   Chosen stimulus, brief, approved background and access requirements: [paste approved material].
   Time and classroom constraints: [paste teacher-set limits].
   REQUEST
   Propose two short entry-event sequences using the same approved stimulus. Include teacher moves, access options, possible misconceptions to watch for and inquiry debrief questions. Explain the trade-off between sequences without selecting one.
   QUALITY BAR
   Use only supplied facts and approved definitions. Keep curiosity and background without pre-solving the project. Possible misconceptions are hypotheses, never claims about students. Do not script or predict student responses. Provide equivalent participation without required personal disclosure. Preserve cultural and emotional review limits. Any new material, changed rights use or missing essential access check remains HOLD. Do not approve safety or rights. Keep the debrief connected to questions students will actually raise.
   FORMAT
   Two sequence tables: phase, duration within supplied limit, teacher move, stimulus/background used, access route, question purpose. Then possible misconceptions with observable cues and neutral clarification moves. Include a literal trade-off comparison table, not prose alone, with columns: comparison aspect, sequence A, sequence B, trade-off for teacher consideration. Leave blank space for actual questions.

3. Build the selected facilitation plan

   Choose a sequence and make cultural, emotional and access checks yourself. Supply explicit edits. After checking the plan, facilitate the event and inquiry debrief with students. Record actual questions privately; never ask AI to manufacture participation.

   Prompt 3 · Facilitation plan Copy

   CONTEXT
   Exact step 2 options reviewed by the teacher: [paste options].
   Teacher-selected sequence and explicit edits: [paste decision record].
   Verified stimulus, permitted use, approved background and class-wide access requirements: [paste evidence and limits].
   Teacher facilitation and debrief decisions after local review: [paste choices and remaining HOLD items].
   REQUEST
   Draft the selected entry-event plan for teacher use. Include setup, exact stimulus references, teacher moves, equivalent access routes, possible misconceptions as hypotheses, and an inquiry debrief that connects emerging questions to the open project question.
   QUALITY BAR
   Follow the teacher's selection and edits only. Leave spaces for actual observations and questions, without invented responses or quotations. Do not resolve the project question. Make participation possible without personal disclosure. Include a pause or alternative route under the teacher's supplied emotional-safety decisions. Treat any unsupported source, rights, access or safety change as HOLD. The teacher must check and release the plan before facilitating; AI cannot approve it.
   FORMAT
   Plan table: phase, time, teacher action, material/evidence ID, access option, inquiry purpose. Follow with possible misconceptions and neutral checks, debrief questions, blank observation fields, and pre-use HOLD items for the teacher.

4. Audit the selected plan and debrief

   Review actual facilitation and debrief evidence locally. Share only non-identifying summaries, or explicitly state the event is unrun. Supply your corrected plan for audit. Decide yourself whether to revise, repeat or carry questions into further inquiry.

   Prompt 4 · Inquiry audit Copy

   CONTEXT
   Exact step 3 plan reviewed by the teacher: [paste plan].
   Teacher-selected corrected plan and explicit edits: [paste plan and decision record].
   Approved stimulus, brief, verification evidence and access/safety limits: [paste records].
   Actual teacher facilitation/debrief record with no student identifiers: [paste non-identifying process summary or explicitly state unrun].
   REQUEST
   Compare the selected plan with approved records. Audit whether stimulus, teacher moves, access options, possible misconceptions and debrief support inquiry without supplying an answer. If a facilitation record exists, distinguish observed process from planned action and identify follow-up decisions.
   QUALITY BAR
   Quote plan lines and cite supplied evidence. Flag unsupported sources, rights claims, cultural/emotional/access gaps and any pre-solved conclusion as HOLD. Never invent student responses or infer understanding, consent or rights. If unrun, label enactment and inquiry outcomes untested. Do not rewrite, approve or release the plan. The teacher verifies local checks and decides next steps outside AI.
   FORMAT
   Table: component, exact line, supporting evidence, match or HOLD, human action. Then planned versus observed facilitation/debrief, untested claims and questions for the teacher's final decision. A document match is not verification of real-world permission or learning.

Check before you use it

• Have you checked the real issue, stimulus accuracy, currency and permitted use against evidence outside AI?
• Does background help students ask questions without supplying the project's answer?
• Have you checked cultural fit, emotional safety and equivalent access without requiring personal disclosure?
• Are possible misconceptions labelled as hypotheses rather than claims about students?
• Will you facilitate sense-making and connect actual emerging questions to the project during the debrief?
• Have you separated the plan from observed participation and kept student identities and private support facts outside AI?