Here is the original lesson plan:
| Audit Question | Result | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| "Why now" is explicit in the first 2 minutes | PASS (borderline) | The opener says "That instinct will ruin your data. Compliments are cheap. Evidence is useful." It names the skill and the stakes. However, it relies on instructor charisma rather than making the urgency structural (e.g., tying it to their upcoming real interviews). |
| Success criteria are visible | FAIL | The learning outcomes are instructor-facing. Students never see what "good" looks like before being asked to perform. No exemplar is shown until the fishbowl at minute 32. The rubric appears only at the end of the document, not during class. Students are flying blind for the first 30 minutes. |
| Time math actually works | PASS (tight) | 0–5 opener, 5–12 diagnostic, 12–22 mini-lesson, 22–32 group exercise, 32–40 fishbowl, 40–58 role-play 1, 58–68 role-play 2, 68–73 debrief, 73–75 exit ticket. Adds to 75 minutes. Role-play round 1 allows 2 rotations (9 min each = 18 min), round 2 allows 1 rotation. All 3 students get to interview. However, transitions, forming triads, distributing checklists, and "confusion time" are not budgeted. Realistically this plan runs 5–8 minutes over. |
| Task is executable by a hesitant student | FAIL | The diagnostic at minute 5 asks students to "write 3 questions" before they've seen any framework or example. This is intentional productive struggle, but it is not framed as such — a hesitant student reads it as "perform before you've been taught." The group exercise ("fix bad questions") has clear instructions but no roles, so a hesitant student waits for others to start. |
| Plan creates evidence | FAIL | The only captured artifact is the exit ticket (3 short items in the final 2 minutes). Role-play learning is ephemeral. Observer checklists are used during practice but never collected or photographed. The group exercise output (rewritten questions) is shared verbally, not saved. A student leaves with almost nothing portfolio-worthy. |
| There is an iteration loop | PASS | Write questions → learn framework → fix bad questions → see fishbowl model → role-play 1 → get feedback → role-play 2 with revision pressure → exit ticket with revised question. This is the plan's strongest structural feature. |
| Teamwork is engineered | FAIL | The triads have functional roles for role-play (interviewer/customer/observer), which is good. But the group exercise (22–32 min) puts 3–4 students together with no roles, no individual deliverables, no checkpoints, and one collective output ("share your best rewrite"). This is a freerider invitation. Observer feedback in triads is verbal and uncaptured. |
Audit summary: 3 PASS, 4 FAIL. The iteration loop is strong. Evidence capture, visible success criteria, team accountability, and hesitant-student accessibility are all broken.
| Student | Layer 1: Entry & Buy-In (first 5 min) | Layer 2: Flow & Teamwork (during session) | Layer 3: Evidence & Transfer (end + after) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Grade-Programmed Achiever | FAIL — "I hear 'evidence is useful' but I don't know what counts as good performance today. No rubric, no exemplar, no criteria shared. I'm scanning for what matters and finding nothing." | FAIL — "During role-play, I don't know if I'm doing well. The observation checklist helps, but nobody told me what score I'm aiming for. I'm anxious the whole time." | FAIL — "I wrote 3 things on an exit ticket in 2 minutes. That doesn't feel like evidence of mastery. Nothing connects to my portfolio or my grade." |
| 2. Permission Seeker | FAIL — "Write 3 questions about WHAT exactly? My 'idea or problem area' is vague. I haven't seen a single example yet. I'll stare at my paper." | PASS (borderline) — "The mini-lesson and fishbowl finally show me what to do. The role-play checklist gives me structure. But forming triads is chaotic and I don't know who to work with." | PASS — "The exit ticket tells me exactly what to write. I can do that." |
| 3. Spotlight-Avoider | FAIL — "Minute 1: raise your hand if you think interviews are about validation. Public confession of ignorance. Then the instructor 'collects a few examples verbally.' I'm praying I don't get called on to share my bad questions." | FAIL — "The instructor says they will 'interrupt weak habits in real time.' That means I might get publicly corrected mid-interview in front of my triad. I'm performing as little as possible." | PASS (borderline) — "The exit ticket is private, which is fine. But the whole-class debrief (68–73 min) could mean being called on. I'm checked out by then." |
| 4. Fairness Hawk | PASS — "The opener is fine. Clear framing, nothing unfair yet." | FAIL — "The group exercise (22–32 min) has no roles. I'm in a group of 4 rewriting questions and one person is doing nothing while another person dominates. Nobody tracks who contributed what. I've seen this movie before." | FAIL — "My name isn't on anything from the group exercise. If I did all the rewriting, there's no record. The observer feedback in triads is verbal — the freerider in my triad gave garbage feedback and nobody noticed." |
| 5. Non-Business Outsider | FAIL — "I'm told to interview 'potential customers' about my 'idea or problem area.' I'm a nursing student. I don't have customers. I don't have a venture. The word 'entrepreneurship' tells me this class isn't for me." | FAIL — "Every single example is about apps, platforms, budgeting tools, student entrepreneurs connecting. There's zero acknowledgment that interviewing skills apply to health, design, education, community work, social innovation, or research. I'm mentally checked out." | FAIL — "The homework asks me to interview people in my 'target segment' and deliver 'customer interviews.' I don't have a target segment. This language confirms: the course is for wannabe founders, not for me." |
| 6. Dominator | PASS — "Fine, let's get started." | FAIL — "In the group exercise, I rewrite all 6 questions in 4 minutes while my group watches. During role-play, I give unsolicited feedback even when I'm playing the customer. During debrief, I answer every question before others can think." | FAIL — "The debrief is open discussion. I talk the most. The instructor doesn't constrain me. I leave thinking I nailed it, but I actually skipped the hard work of listening." |
| 7. Partner-Proof Realist | PASS — "No partner interaction today. I'm fine." | FAIL — "We're about to be sent to interview real humans within 48 hours and nobody has discussed: how to approach people, how to introduce yourself, how to get consent, how to be respectful of their time, what's ethical, what's not. I'm uneasy." | FAIL — "The homework says 'name or type of interviewee.' Are we using real names? Did anyone discuss consent or privacy? What if I'm interviewing vulnerable people? This feels irresponsible and I don't want my name on sloppy fieldwork." |
C1. No visible success criteria or exemplar before students perform Flagged by: Students 1, 2, 3 (Entry); Students 1, 2 (Flow) Plan moment: Students are asked to write questions at minute 5 and fix questions at minute 22 without ever seeing what a "good" interview looks like in action. The fishbowl (the only exemplar) doesn't arrive until minute 32 — after 40% of the session. Impact: Achiever freezes without criteria. Permission Seeker stalls without a model. Spotlight-Avoider won't risk performing without knowing the target.
C2. Group exercise (22–32 min) has no roles, no individual accountability Flagged by: Students 4, 6 (Flow); Student 2 (Flow, borderline) Plan moment: "Put students in groups of 3 or 4. Give each group 6 bad questions. Their task: fix them." No roles assigned. One collective output. No mechanism to track who did what. Impact: Fairness Hawk watches freeriders coast. Dominator takes over. Permission Seeker defers.
C3. Thin portfolio evidence — no captured artifacts Flagged by: Students 1, 4, 5 (Evidence); Student 3 (Evidence, borderline) Plan moment: The only captured deliverable is a 2-minute exit ticket with 3 items. Role-play practice is ephemeral. Observer checklists are not collected. Group exercise rewrites are shared verbally. Revised interview guides are not saved. Impact: Achiever sees no connection to portfolio or mastery. Fairness Hawk has no proof of contribution. Outsider has no artifact worth keeping.
C4. Entrepreneurship-only framing alienates non-business students Flagged by: Student 5 (all 3 layers); Students 3, 7 (affected indirectly) Plan moment: Every example uses startup/app/platform language. "Customer interview," "target segment," "venture idea" appear throughout. No acknowledgment that interviewing is a universal research skill used in health, education, design, social science, and community work. Impact: Non-Business Outsider checks out entirely. Even engaged students see a narrower application than the skill actually has.