A revised Purpose, Task step, and Criteria for one assignment, built around one BE behavior and ready to paste into your Blackboard instructions.
If you've been through the Essential Skills trainings, you already know TILT. You take an assignment you already give and make three things clear to students: why they're doing it (Purpose), what to do (Tasks), and what good work looks like (Criteria). The research behind TILT found that when instructors made those three things clear, students reported more confidence and a stronger sense of belonging, and the gains were largest for first-generation and underserved students. That describes a lot of our students.
AI has become one of the things students have to guess about. When an assignment doesn't say anything about AI, some students avoid it even when it would have been fine. Others use it in ways that skip the learning. Many don't mention it either way, because they aren't sure whether they're allowed to. TILT is a good fit for this problem because it was built to bring unwritten expectations into the open.
On the Essential Skills sheet, you named a target skill. Here you name a target BE behavior and write it into each of the three parts. Pick one behavior for one assignment. CPE's TILT trainings make the same point about the Essential Skills: focus each assignment on one skill so students learn it deeply.
Purpose: say what AI does to the learning
Your Purpose probably already says what the assignment builds. Add a sentence or two on how AI affects that. If AI can help with part of the work, say which part and why the rest stays with the student. If the assignment is No AI, say why. When the difficulty is the point, tell students so. They handle a hard assignment better when they know the struggle is part of the design. Otherwise, many assume they're doing it wrong.
Tasks: write the decision point as a step
Most assignments have a moment where a student decides whether or how to use AI: before they start drafting, when they're stuck, when they check their work. That's the decision point. Write it into the Tasks as a step of its own, so the choice is out in the open. Then give the path for students who don't use AI, so every student has something clear to do at that step. If there's a common misstep, name it too, like pasting in AI output without checking it.
Criteria: name the evidence
Say what good judgment looks like at that decision point, and what the student turns in to show it. Keep it small: a two-sentence note, a marked-up claim, a line in the submission comments. That small piece of evidence is what you'll use for checkpoints in the next exercise.
Matching the behavior to the decision point
The decision point usually tells you which behavior to target.
- BE Safe: the step is about what goes into the tool, or whether the tool is the right one for the job.
- BE Honest: the step is about telling you how AI was used.
- BE Critical: the step is about checking what AI produced before using it.
- BE Responsible: the step is about deciding whether AI fits this task at all.
- BE Reflective: the step is about looking back at how the choice affected their learning.
An example
A patient education handout in an allied health course. AI use label: AI-supported. Target behavior: BE Critical.
Purpose (added): "You'll explain a health condition in plain language, which is something you'll do with patients on the job. You can use AI to help with a first draft, but what matters here is whether the information is accurate and right for your patient. Checking it is the part of this assignment you'll use most in practice."
Task step: "Once your draft is done, check every health claim against the textbook or another approved source. If you used AI, mark one thing you changed or removed and explain why. If you didn't use AI, mark one claim you double-checked and where you checked it."
Criteria: "Every health claim matches the course text or an approved source. Your checking note names a specific claim and what you did with it."
A few tips
- Start with an assignment you labeled in Exercise 1. The label you chose there is the starting point for your Purpose.
- Name the behavior in your Purpose, then come back to it in the Task step and the Criteria. If it only appears once at the top, students lose track of it.
- Put the change in the assignment instructions in Blackboard, where students actually look.
- The non-use path should be a real task. It shouldn't read like a penalty or an afterthought.
- Read your revision as a student would. If they'd still have to guess about AI, add a sentence.
Work through the steps below, or skip to the Copilot prompt at the end and let it interview you. Your answers stay in this browser only. To keep a copy, choose Print or save as PDF when you finish the steps.
Step 1Pick one assignment
Step 2Find the decision point and choose a behavior
Step 3Purpose
Step 4Tasks
Step 5Criteria
Step 6Read it as a student, then set a date
Your answers save in this browser as you type.
Paste this into Copilot, along with your current assignment instructions. It will interview you, then draft the revised sections. Don't paste in student names or student work, and read the draft carefully before you use it.
I'm a community college instructor revising one assignment using the TILT framework (Purpose, Tasks, Criteria). I want to make my expectations about AI clear by building the assignment around one AI literacy behavior. My current instructions are below. The five behaviors: - BE Safe: knowing what goes into an AI tool and whether the tool fits the job. - BE Honest: being accurate about what you did and what AI did. - BE Critical: checking AI output before acting on it. - BE Responsible: choosing on purpose whether AI fits the task, and owning the result. - BE Reflective: noticing how using AI, or not using it, affects your learning, and adjusting. The assignment's AI use label is one of: No AI: students do the work without AI. AI-supported: AI can help with specific parts; students do the thinking and own the result. AI-integrated: using AI well is part of what the assignment teaches. Interview me before you write anything. Ask one question at a time and wait for my answer. Keep it to about 6 questions. Find out: - What the assignment is meant to teach, and who my students are - The AI use label, if I haven't decided - The point in the assignment where a student decides whether or how to use AI - Which one behavior fits that decision point (suggest one if I'm unsure, and explain why) - What students who don't use AI should do at that point - What small piece of evidence students could turn in to show their judgment Don't draft until I say "ready." Then write, in plain, warm language addressed to students: 1. Two or three sentences to add to my Purpose, explaining how AI affects what the assignment builds. 2. One Task step for the decision point, including the path for students who don't use AI. 3. Criteria describing good judgment at that step and the evidence students turn in. Ground rules: - Keep my existing instructions. Only add or revise what's needed. - Never take points off for honestly disclosing AI use. - Students who don't use AI must be able to earn full credit. - Don't make up college policies or approved tools. Flag anything that depends on OCTC or KCTCS policy for me to check. - Don't suggest AI detection tools. After the draft, ask me what a student might still be confused about, and revise. My current instructions: [paste here]
The Purpose / Tasks / Criteria structure in this exercise comes from the Transparency in Learning and Teaching framework (TILT Higher Ed), developed by Mary-Ann Winkelmes and shared under a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license. Kentucky faculty may know it from the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education's work connecting TILT to the 10 Essential Skills. This exercise applies the same structure to AI literacy.
Winkelmes's templates, checklist, and examples are at TILT Higher Ed Examples and Resources. For a refresher, see CPE's webinar TILT 101: Transparent Approaches for the Graduate Profile.
Winkelmes, M.A., Bernacki, M., Butler, J., Zochowski, M., Golanics, J., & Harriss Weavil, K. (2016). A teaching intervention that increases underserved college students' success. Peer Review, 18(1/2).
