# Learning Design & Technology — steal this assignment
_EL3vate 2026 · Day 8 · Part 08 of 15 · build 3dfcaff_

## Try it Tuesday (90 minutes)
90 minutes. Minutes 0–15: students write one measurable learning objective for a concept they teach. Minutes 15–45: they generate an interactive module with the accessibility-constrained prompt. Minutes 45–90: they run the embedded a11y-audit demo (or a manual checklist) against their module, documenting every failure — keyboard traps, contrast below 4.5:1, motion that ignores the reduced-motion setting — and fixing what they can in the room. The deliverable is the audit log: what the AI shipped broken and what the student caught, which is where the professional skill lives.

## The assignment
**Make it (3D print · laser cut).** A tactile manipulative for a concept students currently teach with a diagram. The design constraint that makes this a real assignment: it has to work for a learner who cannot see the diagram.

**Build it (AI chat · no code).** A working interactive module built in one sitting, then run against an accessibility checklist. The audit is where the learning is. Most AI-generated interfaces fail keyboard navigation and contrast on the first pass, and finding that is the skill.

## 4-week plan
- **Wk 1.** Choose one concept and write the learning objective before touching a tool; the objective gets peer-reviewed for measurability. Design the tactile manipulative of that same concept for a learner who cannot see the diagram.
- **Wk 2.** Submit the tactile-manipulative fabrication file at the start of the week so it is cut in parallel. Build the digital module with AI; ship a rough version fast.
- **Wk 3.** Accessibility audit against WCAG basics: keyboard only, contrast, screen reader, reduced motion. Document every failure and fix it.
- **Wk 4.** User test both versions with three learners outside the class. Revise once. The revision log is the deliverable.

## What this replaces
- **Replaces:** The instructional-design project submitted as a storyboard or static prototype.
- **What is lost:** The full ADDIE-style documentation and storyboard fidelity.
- **What is gained:** Students confront a working artifact and its real accessibility failures instead of a diagram of one; the grade rewards catching what AI generation breaks, which storyboards never expose.

## Where AI is bad at this
AI-generated interfaces look polished and fail the basics: div-based click handlers with no keyboard operability, color choices below WCAG contrast, and animations that ignore prefers-reduced-motion — and the model will assure you it 'meets WCAG AA' without having tested anything. That confident accessibility claim, unbacked by a real audit, is the specific failure a learning designer must learn to distrust.

## Rubric
| Criterion | Weight | What it assesses |
|---|---|---|
| Objective measurability | 15% | The learning objective states an observable, assessable behavior. |
| Audit completeness | 35% | Keyboard, contrast, screen-reader, and reduced-motion are each checked and results recorded, not assumed. |
| Failure diagnosis | 30% | Each failure is explained in terms of the learner it excludes, not just the rule it breaks. |
| Remediation | 20% | Fixes actually resolve the flagged failures on re-test. |

## Starter prompt
> Build a single self-contained HTML page that teaches this concept interactively: [concept]. The learner is [describe them]. Requirements: it must be fully operable by keyboard alone, meet WCAG AA contrast, respect prefers-reduced-motion, and work on a phone. After you build it, list every accessibility decision you made and every place you are uncertain whether it passes.

## Budget & logistics
- **Instructor prep:** 1.5 hours
- **Class time:** 90 minutes
- **Per-student cost:** $0 for the Tuesday version; roughly $5–12 per student in print or cut stock **[unverified]** for a tactile manipulative in the four-week build.
- **Fabrication file due:** First day of Week 2 — submit the tactile-manipulative fabrication file; it is a parallel artifact of the concept chosen in week 1 and need not wait for the week-3 audit. PACE quotes 7–10 business days (up to 14 calendar days), so it clears before week-4 user testing.
- **Calendar dependency:** The digital build and audit need no lead time. The tactile manipulative is defined by the week-1 concept, independent of the digital module, so its file goes in at the start of week 2 and the up-to-14-calendar-day turnaround clears before week-4 user testing.

## Three sizes
- **One session:** The 90-minute build-then-audit session producing an audit log; no fabrication.
- **4 weeks:** The seeded four-week plan: peer-reviewed objective, fast AI module, accessibility audit and fabrication file, then user testing both versions with outside learners.
- **One semester:** A full design cycle — objective, AI-built module, iterated accessibility audits, a fabricated tactile version usable by a learner who cannot see the diagram, and user testing with three outside learners.

---
_PACE · Shidler College of Business · University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa · pace.shidler.hawaii.edu/maker_
_All fifteen assignments, the demos and every handout: https://el3vate.vercel.app_