Course Module Builder Prompt

Build a review-ready course module from the information below.

Module brief: [Module brief]
Learner profile: [Learner profile]
Curriculum context: [Curriculum context]
Constraints and delivery conditions: [Constraints and delivery conditions]
Source materials: [Source materials]
Approval and success criteria: [Approval and success criteria]

Input requirements
The minimum reliable inputs are the module topic and scope, intended learners, expected duration, delivery mode, and at least one course-level goal or competency. Treat prerequisite knowledge, required standards, available instructional time, assessment rules, accessibility requirements, technology, class size, source content, and approval criteria as important context when supplied.

Before designing
1. Separate the input into supplied facts, stated requirements, assumptions, unresolved conflicts, and unknowns.
2. Ask concise clarification questions only when a missing or conflicting detail would materially affect scope, learner safety, standards alignment, assessment validity, accessibility, or feasibility. If essential information is unavailable, identify the blocker and provide only a clearly labeled provisional framework.
3. For non-blocking gaps, make conservative assumptions, label them, explain their likely effect, and identify what a reviewer must confirm.
4. Use only source content that is present in the conversation or otherwise directly accessible to ChatGPT. Do not imply that a URL, file, learning management system, classroom, student record, or external standard was inspected when its contents were not available.
5. Do not invent quotations, citations, institutional policies, accreditation requirements, learner data, research findings, or alignment to a named standard. Mark unsupported alignment claims as unverified.

Module design workflow
1. Define the module boundary: purpose, place in the wider course, prerequisites, exclusions, duration, delivery mode, and intended learner transition from entry state to exit state.
2. Write a small set of observable, measurable module outcomes. Each outcome must state what learners will do and the expected level or conditions of performance. Avoid vague verbs unless an observable performance clarifies them.
3. Check outcome scope and cognitive demand against the learner profile, prerequisites, available time, course-level goals, and approval criteria. Flag outcomes that are overloaded, redundant, unsupported, or inappropriate for the module level.
4. Create a lesson sequence that activates prerequisite knowledge, introduces concepts in manageable increments, models performance, provides guided practice, moves toward independent application, and includes retrieval or consolidation. Explain sequencing dependencies.
5. For every lesson, define its lesson objective, key concepts, instructor or content actions, learner activity, worked example or model, formative check, likely misconception, feedback approach, resources, estimated time, and accessibility or participation support.
6. Design authentic practice tasks at the same or a lower level of cognitive demand than the related assessment. Include instructions, expected evidence, scaffolding, feedback timing, and an extension or alternative path where appropriate.
7. Design formative and summative assessments that directly elicit evidence for the outcomes. Specify assessment conditions, submission artifact, scoring method, criteria, feedback plan, and reasonable controls for reliability and academic integrity. Do not use surveillance-heavy or punitive controls without a supplied requirement and human review.
8. Create concise scoring guidance or an analytic rubric for assessed performances. Criteria must describe observable qualities, distinguish performance levels consistently, and avoid grading unrelated traits. Reconcile point totals, weights, thresholds, and stated grading rules.
9. Add learner support: prerequisite refreshers, vocabulary or concept supports, clear instructions, exemplars, feedback opportunities, accessibility considerations, and recovery options for common difficulties. Offer equivalent ways to participate or demonstrate learning only when they preserve the target construct.
10. Estimate learner workload and instructional time. Show the basis for estimates, identify asynchronous versus synchronous work, and flag overload, unrealistic pacing, or resource dependencies.
11. Build a traceability map from each module outcome to lesson instruction, practice, assessment evidence, rubric criteria, and success threshold. Identify orphaned outcomes, untaught assessment demands, activities with no instructional purpose, and criteria that do not measure an outcome.
12. Evaluate trade-offs and failure modes, including excessive content breadth, prerequisite mismatch, construct-irrelevant grading, inaccessible media, dependence on unavailable technology, culturally narrow examples, weak feedback loops, ambiguous instructions, assessment leakage, and insufficient time for practice.

Authority, privacy, and safety boundaries
- Produce a proposed module blueprint and review artifacts only. Do not claim to publish a course, update an LMS, enroll or contact learners, approve curriculum, assign grades, grant accommodations, or satisfy legal or accreditation obligations.
- Require authorized human review before curriculum adoption, grading use, standards claims, publication, or changes affecting learners.
- Do not expose or infer private student information. If source materials contain identifiable learner records, advise the user to remove or anonymize them and do not reproduce unnecessary sensitive details.
- Do not diagnose disabilities or prescribe individualized accommodations. Identify potential access barriers and refer formal accommodation decisions to authorized institutional processes.
- Flag potentially harmful, age-inappropriate, discriminatory, or culturally sensitive content for contextual review. Preserve disciplinary accuracy while proposing safer framing or participation alternatives.
- Distinguish proposed, document-checked, human-reviewed, learner-tested, approved, and published states. Use the latter four only when explicit evidence is supplied.

Required deliverable

A. Design basis
- Module purpose, scope, course placement, audience, prerequisites, duration, delivery mode, and exclusions
- Supplied facts and requirements
- Assumptions with impact and confirmation owner
- Unknowns or conflicts, including whether each is blocking
- Source register listing each supplied source, how it was used, and any access or reliability limitation

B. Outcome specification table
Columns: outcome ID; measurable outcome; cognitive or performance demand; conditions or quality threshold; course-goal or standard connection; prerequisite; rationale; alignment status.

C. Module sequence map
Columns: lesson and duration; lesson objective; concepts or skills; learning progression; teaching or content method; learner activity; formative evidence; feedback; dependency; delivery resources.

D. Detailed lesson plans
For each lesson include opening diagnostic or retrieval activity, concise content outline, worked example, guided practice, independent or collaborative practice, misconception responses, formative check with expected evidence, feedback method, materials, accessibility supports, and timing.

E. Practice and assessment package
For each task include purpose, mapped outcome, learner instructions, evidence to submit, conditions, estimated effort, scaffolds, answer features or model response outline, feedback plan, and integrity considerations. Include the summative assessment specification and any necessary retake or recovery recommendation.

F. Rubric or scoring guide
Provide observable criteria, performance-level descriptors, points or weights where applicable, calculation check, success threshold, and outcome mapping. Flag any criterion that measures presentation, language, attendance, speed, or behavior without a stated construct-related reason.

G. Alignment and traceability matrix
Columns: outcome ID; lesson instruction; modeled example; practice task; formative check; summative evidence; rubric criterion; success threshold; alignment finding; required revision.

H. Learner support and accessibility review
Cover instructions, navigation, document and media accessibility, captions or transcripts, color and contrast considerations, keyboard or device constraints where relevant, language load, inclusive examples, participation options, prerequisite remediation, and support escalation. Mark items requiring specialist or institutional review.

I. Feasibility and risk register
Columns: risk or dependency; affected learners or component; likelihood; impact; early warning sign; mitigation; decision owner; residual concern. Include workload, staffing, technology, content permissions, privacy, assessment validity, and delivery constraints when relevant.

J. Verification and acceptance record
For each check report the expected condition, document-based observation, status as pass, revise, blocked, or unverified, evidence location, and corrective action. At minimum verify:
- Every outcome is measurable, appropriately scoped, and taught before it is assessed.
- Every assessed criterion maps to an outcome and is supported by instruction and practice.
- Cognitive demand is coherent across outcome, learning activity, assessment, and rubric.
- Point totals, weights, thresholds, lesson durations, and total workload reconcile.
- Instructions identify the artifact, conditions, quality expectations, and submission requirements.
- Formative checks produce usable evidence and have a defined feedback response.
- Required resources and technologies are available or explicitly unresolved.
- Accessibility barriers and privacy concerns are identified without claiming formal compliance.
- Named standards or policies are either supported by supplied evidence or marked unverified.
- No approval, publication, implementation, learner testing, or effectiveness claim exceeds the available evidence.

K. Handoff state
State what is ready for document review, what remains provisional, all blocking decisions, who should review each consequential issue, and the smallest safe next step. Do not claim the module is validated by learners unless actual pilot evidence and results were supplied.