MGO 364 Week 1 Assignment

Week 1 Individual Activity: Team Learning and AI Exploration Student Learning Outcomes Addressed Completing this assignment contributes to the following course learning outcomes: SLO 4 — Team Leadership and Collaboration: Lead and collaborate effectively within project teams by demonstrating communication, negotiation, and leadership skills, and applying team dynamics theories to improve team performance. SLO 5 — Critical AI Use: Evaluate and apply AI tools critically and responsibly in project management contexts, assessing their potential benefits, limitations, and ethical implications while maintaining human judgment and oversight. Purpose Project management is, at its core, about people working together to achieve goals that none of them could reach alone. This activity has two purposes: To invite you to reflect on what you already know about teamwork — from your own lived experience — before the semester’s course content begins to shape that understanding. To give you a first, structured opportunity to try an AI tool on a course-relevant question, evaluate what it produces using a simple framework, and connect its response to both your own experience and your course reading. Both parts require your own thinking. The value comes from the reflection you do, not the words on the page. Instructions This assignment has two parts. Complete both before submitting. Your total response should be approximately 280–400 words. Part 1 — Your Team Experience (approximately 150–200 words) Think of one time in your life when you were part of a team working toward a shared goal. This can be from any setting — school, work, a sport, a community organization, a family project, or anything else. The experience can be positive, negative, or mixed. In your response, address all three of the following: What was the goal your team was working toward? What was your specific role on the team? Name one thing that worked well, and one thing that could have been done better. Important: This section must reflect your own personal experience. There are no right or wrong answers — honest reflection is what matters. Part 2 — AI Exploration (approximately 130–200 words) Choose any AI tool you are familiar with or curious about. Common options include ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, and others. You are free to use any AI assistant. The Five “S” Framework for Evaluating AI Prompts Before you critique your prompt in step (d) below, review it against the following five criteria. A strong prompt meets all five. Complete all of the following steps and include each one in your submission: Prompt the AI: Ask it this question — exactly as written, or in a version you write yourself: “Why is learning in teams and through projects valuable for students who want to become professionals?” Name the tool: State the name of the AI tool you used. Show your prompt: Copy and paste your exact prompt, word for word. Critique your prompt using the Five “S” Framework (2–3 sentences): Apply the five criteria above to your prompt. Which criteria did it meet? Which did it miss? If you were to revise it, what specific change would you make and why? Critique the AI’s response (2–3 sentences): Was the response helpful and accurate? Did it sound generic or was it specific? What, if anything, did it miss or oversimplify? Synthesize with your experience and the course textbook (2–3 sentences + citation): Does your own team experience from Part 1 confirm, challenge, or add to what the AI said? Identify one idea from your assigned reading in Oguz (2025) that either supports or challenges the AI’s response. Include an APA 7 in-text citation (e.g., Oguz, 2025, p. X). Required Reference Include the following reference at the bottom of your submission whenever you cite the course textbook: Oguz, A. (2025). Project management: Navigating the complexity with a systematic approach (2nd ed.). MSL Academic Endeavors. https://pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu/projectmanagement2ndedition/ How to Submit Type or paste your response into the Brightspace submission text box, or upload a Word document. Include your reference at the bottom. Submissions are due by 11:59 PM on Sunday of Week 1. Grading This activity is worth 4 points. Full credit is earned by completing both parts thoroughly and thoughtfully. A rubric with full criteria is available in Brightspace. Instructor Notes (Not for Student Distribution) Design Revisions in This Version Citation requirement added (step 2f): Students must identify one idea from Oguz (2025) that confirms or challenges the AI’s response, and provide an APA 7 in-text citation. This satisfies the “Citation & Referencing” criterion on the rubric and begins building the habit of grounding AI critique in course materials. Five “S” Framework added: An original structured prompting framework designed for undergraduate students new to AI tools. It gives students five concrete criteria (Specific, Situated, Scoped, Sequenced, Self-checking) for evaluating their prompts before critiquing them in step 2d. This replaces open-ended self-assessment with scaffolded evaluation. Pedagogical Notes Anti-shortcut design: Part 1 requires personal experience that AI cannot manufacture convincingly. Step 2f requires synthesis with both Part 1 and a specific textbook citation — a student who used AI for Part 1 will produce a disconnected, uncitable synthesis. Framework calibration: The Five “S” Framework is intentionally simple for Week 1. “Self-checking” (asking the AI to flag its own gaps) is the most advanced criterion and will distinguish stronger students. Expect most Week 1 students to miss it in their first prompt — this is the intended teaching moment. Textbook access: The Oguz (2025) text is a free OER available at https://pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu/projectmanagement2ndedition/ — students have no cost barrier. Consider specifying Chapter 1 in the Brightspace version if you want a focused reading scope. Suggested 4-Point Rubric Weighting Part 1 — completeness and specificity of personal experience — 2 points Part 2 steps (a)–(d) — prompt quality + Five “S” critique — 1 point Part 2 steps (e)–(f) — response critique + synthesis with citation — 1 point Common Student Questions “Which part of the textbook should I cite?” Any passage from the assigned reading. If you have not specified a chapter, suggest they look in Chapter 1 for foundational project and team concepts. “Do I have to use the suggested prompt?” No. Students who write their own prompt and apply the Five “S” Framework to it demonstrate higher engagement. Note this positively when grading. “Does the AI response count toward my word count?” No — only the student’s own writing counts toward the 280–400 word range.