The Studio Aletheia Design Lab

• Shift from “delivery” to “design”: intent, constraints, and learner experience.
• Define what counts as evidence in a studio-based learning environment.
• Establish critique protocols as a learning mechanism (not evaluation theater).

• Studio onboarding: norms, roles, and critique language.
• Identity translation: teacher moves → designer decisions.
• Micro-redesign: convert one familiar lesson into a designed experience map.

Mastery intent: Learners can name and justify the designer responsibilities they will enact throughout AICI 401.

• Present a design identity claim: what you design for, what you refuse, what you protect.
• Receive critique focused on coherence, ethics, and practical enactment.
• Revise with a change log and rationale.

• Justification over preference.
• Alignment to learner experience and evidence integrity.
• Clear articulation of constraints and responsibilities.

• Define the design problem without prematurely selecting a solution.
• Identify constraints (time, tools, learners, standards, environment).
• Establish success criteria and evidence indicators.

• Learner/context interview protocol or proxy persona building.
• Constraints map + risk register.
• Drafting a one-page design brief + evidence map starter.

• Present design brief + constraints map + initial evidence signals.
• Receive critique for ambiguity, missing constraints, and weak evidence logic.
• Revise brief with a rationale that explains each change.

• Problem statement is precise and human-centered.
• Constraints are acknowledged (not ignored).
• Evidence plan aligns with intended learning.

• Prototype the artifact as a learning interface.
• Identify the “minimum viable learning experience” (MVLE).
• Embed evidence capture points (observable learner signals).

• Rapid build sprint (prototype v1).
• Internal walkthrough using a learner lens.
• Prepare prototype for critique: intent + constraints + evidence signals.

• Critique prototype for clarity, flow, and evidence capture.
• Identify what the prototype accidentally teaches (or fails to teach).
• Redirect the design: revise the brief, artifact, or evidence plan as needed.

• Critique notes + redirection decisions.
• Prototype change log (v1 → v2 plan).

• Define a testable slice of the learning experience (micro-pilot scope).
• Identify evidence signals: what you will watch for, record, and interpret.
• Prepare for real constraints: time, behavior, tech, pacing, environment.

• Micro-pilot protocol design (steps + timing + roles).
• Evidence collection plan (observable indicators + student work sampling).
• Risk mitigation plan (what to do when constraints show up).

• Organize evidence: student artifacts, observations, timing, friction points.
• Interpret signals without over-claiming (what evidence can and cannot say).
• Decide next iteration moves and justify them.

• Evidence review memo (findings + implications).
• Iteration plan (what changes next and why).

• System coherence check: do components reinforce the same learning claims?
• Resolve contradictions between artifact design and evidence expectations.
• Prepare documentation that makes the system legible to others.

• System map: components, dependencies, evidence points, feedback loops.
• Revision integration: unify changes across materials.
• Usability pass: test navigation, clarity, and student flow.

• Present the system map and explain how each component supports learning intent.
• Receive critique focusing on coherence, friction, and evidence integrity.
• Revise the system and document decisions with rationale.

• System coherence memo (strengths, weaknesses, changes).
• Revised system map + change log.

• Portfolio packaging: clarity, navigation, and interpretability.
• Documentation: brief, evidence map, iteration log, and designer rationale.
• Prepare for defense: what you designed, why, and what evidence proves it.

• Portfolio assembly checklist pass.
• Rationale writing (tight, evidence-referenced, non-performative).
• Final polish pass focused on clarity (not decoration).

• Portfolio review: clarity, coherence, evidence integrity, usability.
• Defense: intent → constraints → decisions → evidence → iteration.
• Exit critique: what you now design differently and why.

• Final portfolio artifact package.
• Defense notes + critique record.
• Studio exit reflection (future iteration intentions).