Overview

The CORE+AI Design Program supports faculty in intentionally redesigning their courses for a generative AI environment. Participants will document their instructional thinking through a Design Portfolio that captures prior practice, redesigned work, design rationale, and, where feasible, evidence of what happened when redesigned materials were used in the classroom.

CORE+AI Design Program participants are faculty who want to rethink one course in response to the growing presence of generative AI. The program is built around a core principle: good AI-era teaching is not about finding the right policy or the right tool, but about understanding why you are making instructional decisions and being able to explain that reasoning to students, colleagues, and yourself.

To accommodate varying faculty capacity and course schedules, the program offers three participation tiers. Participants select the tier* they would like to complete at the start of the project period and commit to completing the corresponding portfolio by mid-November (Tier 1), the end of November (Tier 2) or the end of January (Tier 3).

*Given funding constraints, it’s possible that not all participants will be invited to continue beyond Tier 1.

Tier 1 Portfolio Requirements

Each artifact includes both a substantive teaching document and a brief design reflection.

Instructional Challenge Statement

Identify one authentic teaching problem within an existing course that has been meaningfully affected by the proliferation of generative AI tools. Examples of authentic challenges might include meaningful assessment design, effective feedback, student writing, critical thinking, or collaborative learning. This statement (approximately 250–400 words) frames your entire portfolio: every artifact you submit should connect back to this challenge.

Professional Development Plan

Share a list of AI-related professional learning you have completed or plan to complete during the project period. This may include the Teaching with AI credential, Lunchtime Lab sessions, other workshops or mini-courses, or relevant external professional development. The plan establishes that portfolio development is supported by ongoing learning, not simply artifact collection.

Artifact 1: AI Policy

Submit your existing course-level AI use policy, including scope, permitted use, documentation requirements, rationale, and consequences. Include:

• Prior policy: your original AI policy, or a brief description of your prior approach if no formal written policy existed.
• Revised policy: your updated AI policy, incorporating intentional decisions about where and how students may (or may not) use generative AI.

Artifact 2: AI-Inclusive Assignment

An assignment in which use of generative AI is deliberately incorporated into the learning process. Include:

• Original assignment, or a description of the prior approach. (A full “before” document is not required if the assignment is genuinely new.)
• Revised or new assignment instructions: complete, ready-to-use materials a student would receive
• Rubric or other explanation of expectations that would be provided to students

Artifact 3: AI-Restrictive Assignment

Share an assignment where AI use would undermine the intended learning, redesigned so that students cannot simply use AI to bypass the cognitive work the assignment requires. Include:

• Original assignment, or a description of the prior approach and why it was vulnerable to AI (mis)use. (A full “before” document is not required if the assignment is genuinely new.)
• Revised or new assignment instructions: complete, ready-to-use materials a student would receive
• Rubric or other explanation of expectations that would be provided to students

Portfolio Due: November 15 

Stipend Available for Completion of Tier 1: $200

Tier 2 Portfolio Requirements

Complete everything in Tier 1, plus the Adaption/Use Guide and any 2 of the 4 optional artifacts (Option A-D) listed below. The same reflection prompts apply to each additional artifact.

Required: Adaptation/Use Guide

For at least one of your Portfolio assignments (your choice from Tier 1 or 2), write a guide for a faculty audience explaining what the assignment is intended to accomplish, how it was used in your course, and how another instructor could adapt it to a different course, discipline, or student population. This is the document that makes your work usable by others in a shared teaching repository.

Option A: AI Literacy Assignment

A new assignment designed to build students’ understanding of how generative AI tools work, what they can and cannot do reliably, and how to evaluate AI-generated content critically. No prior version is required.

Option B: Ethical/Professional AI Use Activity

An assignment or structured discussion activity focused on how students are likely to encounter and use AI as practitioners or employees in their professional field, distinct from an academic-integrity framing. No prior version is required.

Option C: Inclusive Teaching/UDL Reflection

A substantive reflection on how your redesigned assignments and AI policy account for diverse learners, and what changes you made (or plan to make) based on inclusive teaching or Universal Design for Learning principles.

Option D: Image or Video Generation Assignment

An assignment where students create, analyze, or critically evaluate AI-generated images or video as part of the learning process. May be discipline-specific or focused on media literacy more broadly. No prior version is required.

Portfolio Due: November 29 

Stipend Available for Completion of Tier 1 + 2: $350

Tier 3 Portfolio Requirements

Complete everything in Tier 1 and Tier 2, plus 1 of the 3 optional components (Option E-G) listed below, and participate in a post-program interview. The same reflection prompts apply to each additional artifact.

Option E: Student Feedback Component

Structured evidence of student response to your revised AI policy or a redesigned assignment. This evidence may be in the form of student reflection(s), a brief survey, or documented class discussion, and should be accompanied by a short faculty analysis of themes and what the feedback revealed (approximately 3-5 pages).

Option F: Implementation Reflection

If you teach one of your new or redesigned assignments, a substantive description and reflection on what happened: what worked, what did not, what surprised you, and what you would change. This is distinct from the design reflection, which is forward-looking; the implementation reflection is based on actual classroom experience (approximately 3-5 pages).

Option G: Classroom Inquiry/SoTL Proposal

A brief proposal (approximately 3–5 pages) for a systematic inquiry into a question your portfolio work has surfaced. This could form the basis of a future Scholarship of Teaching and Learning project, a departmental assessment initiative, or a conference presentation. The proposal should identify the teaching question, a tentative method for investigating it, and what evidence you would collect. You are not committing to completing the full project within this program, only to articulating a question worth pursuing.

Interview

Participate in a 30-45 minute interview about your experience (re)designing assignments/activities for this project.

Final Tier 3 Portfolio Due: January 30 (Tier 1 components by Nov. 15 and Tier 2 components by Nov. 29)

Stipend Available for Completion of Tier 1, 2 + 3: $450

Design Reflections

For every artifact in your portfolio, prepare a brief reflection (not more than 1 page) on the design process you engaged in to document your design thinking.

Questions you may consider as you prepare your reflections include:

• What did you change (or create)?
• Why did you make this choice?
• What alternatives did you consider?
• What evidence or experience informed this decision?
• What concerns influenced your thinking?
• How do you expect students to benefit?
• What role should AI play, if any, in this learning experience?

Note: Reflections should also explain how each artifact responds to the instructional challenge you identified. The connection does not need to be elaborate, but it should be explicit.

Notes for Participants

On “before” versions

Not every artifact will have a meaningful prior version. AI literacy assignments and ethical AI activities are often genuinely new – there is no sensible “before.” For these artifacts, participants document the instructional problem or gap the artifact addresses in place of a prior version. The portfolio should tell a coherent story about where your teaching was, what you noticed, and how you responded, whether or not that story includes a literal before-and-after document comparison.

On implementation artifacts

Student Feedback (Option E) and Implementation Reflections (Option F) depend on when assignments are taught. These are intentionally optional rather than universal requirements. Participants whose courses allow relevant assignments to be taught in the fall semester are encouraged to pursue these options as evidence of what actually works in practice.

On prior mini-course work

Faculty who have already completed the Teaching with AI mini-course or Lunchtime Lab may have relevant artifacts (e.g., AI literacy assignments, discipline-specific AI assignments, redesigned assessments, or reflections) that can contribute directly to this portfolio.

On the reflection prompts

The reflection prompts are the same across all tiers and all artifact types. They are intended to surface your design thinking: the reasoning, evidence, tradeoffs, and concerns that shaped your decisions. Reflections do not need to be polished or formal. They should be honest and specific: what actually influenced your choices, including uncertainty and things that did not go as planned.