Tasks & Assignment Specifications

Task Index

Presence & Engagement (250 XP), the Growth Loop (20 XP), and Peer Feedback (10 XP) are scored directly wherever the gradebook is kept, not as standalone tasks — see Syllabus Section 3.

Task Continuity FAQ

Each Mission/Major block below also carries its own Builds on: line so the dependency is visible at the task itself, not just here.

Weekly Missions (M1–M7)

Detailed instructions and rubrics for the seven 30–60-minute weekly Missions. Each Mission is worth 30 XP, graded on the same 3-item checklist shape: Meets (10) / Partial (5) / Not Yet (0) per criterion. Submit through the Mission document in your shared Google Drive folder.

Mission1 — Philosophy of Technology Integration (Reflective Essay)

Due Thu, Sep 24 · 23:59 Week 1

Time: ~30–45 min

Builds on: — fresh start, no prior work needed. You'll revisit this exact essay in Week 12 (Philosophy Bookend, due Mon, Dec 14 · 08:00).

Objective: Put into words, before any tool training begins, what you actually believe about technology's role in math teaching and learning. There are no right or wrong answers here — this is a starting point, not a test.

Instructions:

1. Write a 300–500 word reflective essay on your personal philosophy of technology integration in mathematics education. Consider: What role should technology play in a math classroom? What excites you about it? What worries you? What experiences — as a student or observer — shaped this view?
2. Be honest and specific rather than diplomatic. A genuinely uncertain or even skeptical essay is scored the same as an enthusiastic one — this is about depth of self-examination, not the "correct" stance.
3. Submit your essay. Keep a copy for yourself — you'll be asked to reread and respond to it in Week 12, as a "bookend" to your Capstone.

Mission2 — GeoGebra Micro-Build

Due Thu, Oct 1 · 23:59 Week 2

Time: ~45 min

Builds on: — independent; pick any concept.

Objective: Build one small dynamic-geometry object illustrating a single concept from your chosen grade band (elementary, middle, or high school).

Instructions:

1. Pick a concept (e.g., slope, angle bisector, function transformation).
2. Build a GeoGebra sketch with at least one slider or draggable point.
3. Write a 3–4 sentence "what should a student notice" note: what should they see happen as they drag or move the slider, and what mathematical idea does that reveal?

Submit your GeoGebra sketch's public share link (File → Share → Copy link), not just a screenshot — check the link works in a private/incognito tab first.

Mission3 — AI Worksheet Critique

Due Mon, Oct 12 · 08:00 Week 3

Time: ~45 min

Builds on: — independent; a new concept of your choice.

Objective: Practice directing AI rather than accepting its first answer — and see how a general-purpose model compares to a purpose-built teaching tool.

Instructions:

1. Write one prompt asking for a short, two-tier differentiated worksheet for a math concept of your choice. Run that exact same prompt in both a general AI chat tool (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini) and coteach.ai.
2. Check both tiers of both outputs for mathematical accuracy.
3. Write a short comparison: how did the two outputs differ in accuracy, differentiation quality, and usefulness to you as a teacher? Then write 3 specific edits you made (or would make) to the version you'd actually use, and why.

Share the link/export of both AI conversations if the tool supports it — check it's viewable in a private/incognito tab before submitting.

Mission4 — CODAP Mini-Investigation

Due Mon, Oct 19 · 08:00 Week 4

Time: ~45 min

Builds on: — independent; a new dataset.

Objective: Ask one data question and let CODAP help answer it.

Instructions:

1. Open a provided (or self-chosen) small dataset in CODAP.
2. Build one graph.
3. Write one data-based claim and the specific evidence for it: what exactly in the graph supports your claim, and what would change your mind?

Submit your CODAP document's public share link, not just a screenshot — check the link works in a private/incognito tab first.

Mission5 — Differentiation Mini-Task

Due Mon, Nov 9 · 08:00 Week 7

Time: ~45 min

Builds on: Mission 2, 3, or 4 — required; pick one of those to extend.

Objective: Use AI to generate two tiers of one task, then verify them.

Instructions:

1. Pick a task you built in Mission 2, 3, or 4.
2. Prompt AI for a scaffolded version and an extension version.
3. Verify both mathematically. For each version, answer: which UDL principle (representation, action & expression, or engagement) does it reflect, and specifically how?

Share the AI conversation link alongside your two versions if possible — check it's viewable in a private/incognito tab.

Mission6 — AI Formative-Assessment Mini-Task

Due Mon, Nov 16 · 08:00 Week 8

Time: ~45 min

Builds on: — independent; a new concept of your choice.

Objective: Generate and vet a short formative check with AI.

Instructions:

1. Prompt AI for a 3-question exit ticket on a concept of your choice.
2. Solve all 3 yourself; flag and fix any AI errors.
3. Write specifically what the results would tell a teacher to do next: if most students missed question 2, what's the concrete next instructional move?

Share the AI conversation link if possible — check it's viewable in a private/incognito tab.

Mission7 — Computational Thinking Mini-Task

Due Mon, Nov 30 · 08:00 Week 10

Time: ~45–60 min

Builds on: — independent; a new procedure.

Objective: Translate one mathematical procedure into an algorithmic, step-based form.

Instructions:

1. Pick a procedure (e.g., long division, the quadratic formula).
2. Write it as a numbered algorithm or a simple GeoGebra/CODAP script.
3. Name one computational-thinking practice it uses — decomposition, abstraction, pattern recognition, or algorithm design (Weintrop et al., 2016).

If you build this in GeoGebra or CODAP, submit the public share link — check it's viewable in a private/incognito tab.

Major1 — Digital Toolkit Portfolio (150 XP)

Due Mon, Oct 26 · 08:00 Week 5 (work session Thu, Oct 22)

Est. time: ~2–3 hours (built from Missions 1, 2 & 4, not from scratch)

Builds on: Missions 1, 2, and 4 — required; this task revises and compiles them.

Objective: Show growth across GeoGebra, CODAP, and AI-assisted design by revising and curating your best work so far.

Instructions:

1. Choose your strongest artifact from Mission 2 (GeoGebra), Mission 4 (CODAP), and one AI-assisted piece (Mission 1 or 3).
2. Revise each using at least one piece of feedback you received.
3. Write a ~400-word rationale: what each tool contributes that the others don't, and how you'd sequence all three in a real unit.
4. Submit one entry in your shared Google Drive folder: 3 revised artifacts (public share links where applicable) + the rationale.

Rubric (150 XP total — enter the number that fits each row, then add):

Major2 — AI Professional Ethics & Practice Portfolio (180 XP)

Due Mon, Nov 23 · 08:00 Week 9

Est. time: ~3 hours, built up across the semester (not written the night before)

Builds on: your cumulative AI Usage Log since Week 1, plus any prior AI-assisted artifact you choose to formalize.

This is the course's signature AI assessment — it exists specifically to show that a student can use GenAI as a math-teaching collaborator professionally, transparently, and ethically, not just competently.

Components (submit as one entry in your shared Google Drive folder):

1. AI Usage Log — a running table kept since Week 1: tool used · purpose · one key prompt · what you changed or verified afterward. Update it weekly rather than reconstructing it at the end.
2. Annotated AI-Assisted Lesson Artifact — one lesson resource (activity, assessment, or task) that is clearly AI-co-created, with annotations showing exactly which parts came from AI, which you changed, and why. Share the AI conversation's public link alongside the artifact where possible.
3. Professional Ethics Reflection (~1 page) answering:
   • a) One place the AI's output was wrong or biased, and how you caught it.
   • b) One ethical boundary you would set for your own future students' AI use.
   • c) How you would explain your AI-assisted planning to a parent or principal.

Rubric (180 XP total):

Major3 — Capstone: AI-Integrated Unit & Public Defense (180 XP)

Due Mon, Dec 14 · 08:00 unit plan + Philosophy Bookend, Week 12 Defense Thu, Dec 17 Week 13

Est. time: ~4–5 hours across Weeks 10–12, plus the Week 13 defense

Builds on: the Weeks 10–12 backward-design work and the Week 11 Guild Critique peer feedback — required. Also builds on Mission 1 for the Philosophy Bookend component (required — revisit and compare).

Pursuing a master's or other graduate degree? Talk to me in the first two weeks — this Capstone can be adapted into a paper or a component of your own research or manuscript instead of the standard K–12 unit plan.

Objective: Independently design, and publicly defend, a short (2–3 lesson) AI-integrated mathematics unit that treats GenAI as a genuine collaborator.

Components:

1. A unit plan: learning goals, lesson sequence, at least one GeoGebra resource and one CODAP-or-AI-generated resource.
2. An AI-usage statement (per Syllabus Section 5).
3. Incorporation of the peer feedback received at the Week 11 "Guild Critique."
4. A Philosophy Bookend (~1 page): reread your Mission 1 reflective essay from Week 1, then write about how — and whether — your philosophy of technology integration has changed across the semester. Be specific about what shifted and what didn't.
5. An 8–10 minute public defense/presentation with Q&A on Week 13, Thursday (Dec 17).

Rubric (180 XP total):