A Design Thinking Approach
You aren't just writing code or prompts. You are training a digital assistant. Approach this project with a Process over Product Mindset:
Your bot is designed to help a user practice a habit. To do that, it needs to ask questions before giving suggestions.
Required conversation structure:
Reminder: the AI only does what you tell it.
You must complete the Project Worksheet. That worksheet is your documentation.
Everything you need to include (user, pain point, bot plan, guardrails, success criteria, safety check, and peer test + improvement) will be written directly on the Project Worksheet.
Submit on our LMS:
Complete this worksheet before building your bot.
How do you know the engagement was successful? How should it conclude?
What data would it be risky to share with your bot?
Bot Template (fill this in)
Gate A: Ready to Build (Teacher check)
Before you build in Mizou or Google Gemini Gems, show sections 1–3 to the teacher. If approved, the teacher fills the Teacher Approval box at the bottom.
Build your bot using your plan above. You may use either Mizou or Google Gemini Gems. If working in pairs, only one of you needs to open an account.
4A. MVP build notes (Version 1)
MVP = Minimum Viable Prototype. That means the smallest working version that follows the required structure. It does not need to be “good” yet. It just needs to work.
Example: "I will demand the bot just tell me what to do. The bot should ask two questions first and then give one small action."
5C. Final bot link (V2 after improvements)
Gate B: Tested + Improved (Teacher check)
Show proof of the peer test and your one improvement before final submission. If approved, the teacher fills the Teacher Approval box below.
You must pass Gate A and Gate B, before handing in your assignment.
Gate A: Ready to Build
Gate B: Tested + Improved
5 criteria × 20 points each. Performance levels: Not Meeting Expectations, Approaching Expectations, Meeting Expectations (Low), Meeting Expectations (High), Exceeding Expectations.
| Criteria (20 pts each) | Not Meeting (0–7) | Approaching (8–10) | Meeting Low (11–13) | Meeting High (14–16) | Exceeding (17–20) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Design Thinking Application | Little to no evidence of user consideration; “solution looking for a problem.” User/pain point unclear or missing. | User is mentioned but vague or generic. Pain point is unclear or not specific enough to guide design. | User is identified. Pain point is mostly clear. Bot purpose generally connects to the user’s need. | Evidence of user empathy. Problem is clearly defined. Bot purpose and design choices mostly match the user’s specific pain point. | Evidence of deep user empathy. Problem is sharply defined. Solution directly addresses a specific user pain point with clear, intentional design choices. |
| Habits of Mind Coaching Content | The habit is unclear or mostly missing. The bot mainly gives generic advice or “motivational talk.” Little evidence of practice, reflection, or habit-focused questioning. | The habit is mentioned but is still vague. Bot sometimes focuses on advice more than practice. Action/reflection is inconsistent or weak. | The habit is present but sometimes vague or inconsistent. The bot sometimes slips into giving answers too quickly. The action/reflection exists but may not clearly support practice of the habit. | The bot teaches/practices the chosen habit (more than advice). Usually asks better questions before suggesting anything. Provides a realistic small action and ends with a reflection prompt. | The bot clearly teaches/practices the chosen habit (not just advice). It consistently asks better questions before suggesting anything. It provides a realistic small action and ends with a reflection prompt that makes thinking visible. |
| LO3 (combined): Media Production (Write + Design & Produce) | Purpose and target audience are unclear or inconsistent. Limited or inappropriate use of chatbot conventions. Product lacks focus and/or does not hold attention. Little evidence of design/planning/reworking. Limited control of production technology. | Purpose/audience is stated but not well matched. Some conventions used but choices feel random/inconsistent. Some planning visible; limited reworking. Control of tools is uneven. | Crafts a media text and chatbot for a specified purpose and audience. Conventions mostly appropriate. Product has focus and some creativity. Some evidence of design/planning and some reworking. Mostly practised control of production technology. | Crafts a clear media text and chatbot for a specific purpose and audience. Uses appropriate conventions and mostly holds attention. Clear evidence of design/planning and reflection/reworking. Strong control of production technology. | Crafts a clear media text and chatbot for a specific purpose and audience. Effective control of chatbot conventions and media language. Sustained focus, creativity, and well-considered choices that hold attention. Clear evidence of planning, reflection, and reworking. Consistent, precise control of production technology. |
| Bot Functionality (Prototype) | Bot fails to load or does not perform the basic task requested. | Bot sometimes works but is unreliable or confusing. Guardrails/persona/logic frequently break. | Bot generally works but breaks character easily. Guardrails are weak or easily bypassed. | Bot works reliably most of the time. Persona is mostly consistent. Guardrails usually hold and the flow is logical. | Bot adheres to guardrails. Persona is consistent. Handles inputs logically and effectively guides the user. |
| Process Evidence (Documentation + Testing & Iteration) | Documentation missing or sparse; no mention of challenges or safety. No evidence of testing or improvement. | Documentation minimal and mostly descriptive. Missing Gate A and B. Testing mentioned but evidence weak/unclear. Improvements minor or not linked to feedback. | Basic documentation present, but may be missing Gate A or B; lists steps but limited reflection on why. Testing mentioned; no clear change based on results. | Documentation mostly complete with some reflection. Evidence of testing included. At least one improvement clearly linked to feedback/failure. | Detailed log of decisions, challenges, and safety review. Clear evolution from V1 to Final. Clear evidence of testing scenarios and documented changes based on feedback/failure. |
Note
To reach Meeting High or Exceeding in Process Evidence, include peer testing evidence and at least one improvement based on what failed or what a peer reported.