Make, Teach, Investigate, Explain, or Critique

What did we learn about generative AI by making with it?

Participants can share what they built, found, tested, adapted, explained, or critiqued. The goal is not impressiveness; it is evidence, reflection, and transfer back to practice.

What we make visible

Evidence

Every project points to a prompt, artifact, comparison, or observation.

Human judgment

Participants name what they chose, revised, rejected, or refused.

System assumptions

Projects connect output behavior to defaults, data, interfaces, and access.

Transfer

The cohort leaves with a protocol they can use beyond the camp.

Fig. 04B — Evidence wallartifact → claim → consent

Show what you found, not just what you finished.

Each studio artifact should point to evidence: a prompt, comparison, failure, refusal, model card, classroom adaptation, or consent decision.

prompt artifact evidence claim consent

Choose a pathway

Use

Creative artifact

Share a text, image, or video piece with process evidence and reflection.

Observe / Critique

Model investigation

Present a Default Test, failure analysis, or comparison that supports a claim.

Teach / Design

Classroom activity

Show a handout, facilitation plan, or adapted protocol for your learners.

Build / Code

Explainer or tool

Walk through a prototype, poster, zine, or concept bridge that makes a mechanism visible.

Critical / No-AI

Policy or refusal artifact

Bring a critique, consent checklist, model card, or unplugged activity with equal standing.

Showcase supports

01 Model Card Builder Document claims, evidence, defaults, failures, and responsible-use limits. Optional studio · Cross-session 02 Classroom Activity Builder Generate a printable activity skeleton from grade band, subject, concept, pathway, tool, evidence, and no-AI options. Optional studio · Teach / Design 03 A/B/C Comparison Board Organize baseline, changed variable, stress test, and the claim you can defend. Cross-session 04 Confidence Is Not Truth Explorer Compare confident answers against evidence before trusting the output. Cross-session 05 Concept Bridges Use short explainers to connect a project to a durable AI concept. Cross-session 06 Access Tiers Compare the same task across paid, free, and unplugged tiers — name what is lost and who is excluded. Cross-session 07 Evidence Wall Paste Zoom chat into a tiled display. Caption, tag, and share only what participants consented to share. Cross-session · Collaborative

Response prompts

What did you notice?

What question does this open?

What did the human decide?

What is something the machine cannot do that matters?

What evidence did the presenter point to — a specific prompt, output, or comparison?

What did the human decide that the machine couldn't?

What would you need to change to adapt this for your own students or context?

What question are you leaving with that you didn't arrive with?

Project materials

Model Investigation Journal Human, machine, system, ethics AI Use + Consent Recap and attribution permissions No-AI Pathway Critique, consent, classroom activity, or unplugged route Adapting for younger learners Ages 6–12 notes for this session

Low-AI / No-AI pathway

A critique, consent checklist, policy draft, or unplugged activity gets the same presentation time as a generated artifact. Refusal is a valid final project stance. Open the participant pathway.