Community Problem Pitch

Overview

Students pick a real problem they can observe at school or in their community, gather evidence, and generate their own ideas before any AI is involved. Then AI joins as a brainstorm critic: the teacher projects a district-approved chatbot (or uses a printed mock critique) that suggests ideas and pokes holes in the team's plan. Some of its suggestions are useful, some are unrealistic, and some include claims no one can verify. Teams must decide what to keep, verify, or reject, build a simple prototype, and pitch it. The grade rests on their reasoning and their record of what changed, not on the AI's ideas.

Objectives

• Students will define a real problem, break it into smaller parts, and gather evidence from observation or interviews before generating solutions.
• Students will evaluate AI-generated suggestions and critiques by keeping, verifying, or rejecting each one with a stated reason.
• Students will work as a team to build a simple prototype and pitch a solution that explains what changed from their first idea and why.

Step by step

1. 10–10 min

   Hook

   Problem hunt (Day 1)

   Ask: "What is one thing at our school that bugs you, wastes something, or leaves someone out?" Students write one per sticky note and post them. The class clusters similar notes, and teams of 3–4 choose one cluster. Share the rubric (Handout C) right away and say: "You won't be graded on whether AI gives you a good idea. You'll be graded on how well you decide."

   Facilitator noteSteer teams toward problems they can actually observe and test this week. "World hunger" becomes "food thrown away at our lunch."

2. 210–30 min

   Explore

   Define it and gather evidence

   Teams fill in the first sections of Handout B. They write the problem as a question ("How might we reduce the food thrown away at Ridgeview's lunch?"), name who it affects, and break it into smaller parts (for example: what gets thrown away, when, why, who decides portions). Then they gather quick evidence: five minutes of observation, two short interviews with staff or students, or a tally. Roles: Lead Designer, Evidence Keeper, AI Skeptic, Pitch Captain.

   Facilitator noteBreaking a big problem into parts is computational thinking (decomposition). Name it when you see it.

3. 330–45 min

   Create

   Our ideas first

   Before any AI, teams brainstorm as many ideas as they can in five minutes (quantity first, no judging), then pick their top idea using their evidence. They record the top idea and why in Handout B. Say: "We think first so the AI critiques our thinking instead of replacing it."

   Facilitator noteProtect this step. Teams who start with AI tend to adopt its first idea and stop thinking.

4. 445–55 min

   Model

   Meet the critic (Day 2)

   Project your district-approved chatbot, or read Handout A aloud. Show how you use the critic prompt with one team's problem and idea, leaving out any names or personal details. Then model the three decisions on one suggestion. Keep: it fits our evidence and we can do it. Verify: it might be true but we need to check it (ask the cafeteria manager, look up the district rule). Reject: it's unrealistic, unfair, invents facts, or creates a new problem. Point out the "studies show 90%" line in Handout A: "No source, a very precise number. What do we do with that?"

   Facilitator noteModel rejecting an AI idea respectfully and confidently. Students need permission to disagree with a fluent tool.

5. 555–75 min

   Practice

   Keep, verify, or reject

   Each team gets a critique of its own idea: the teacher runs the critic prompt on the projector for each team in turn (about two minutes each) and prints or copies the output, or teams use Handout A if their problem is food waste. The AI Skeptic leads the team through every suggestion and weakness, marking Keep, Verify, or Reject in Handout B with a reason. Teams verify at least one claim by asking a real person or checking a trusted source, then revise their idea.

   Facilitator noteKey for Handout A: Share table: Verify. It's a promising idea, but "allowed in every school" is an overconfident claim; rules vary, so ask the cafeteria manager about local and district health rules. Portion sizes: Keep, then verify with the cafeteria staff. Composting "90%": Reject the statistic (no source, suspiciously exact) and verify the idea; composting may reduce what goes to the landfill but not how much food is wasted. Ban packed lunches: Reject; it's unfair to families and doesn't address why food is wasted. AI cameras: Reject; it's expensive, raises privacy concerns, and could shame students. Weaknesses 1–3: Keep; all three are fair and useful critiques. Weakness 2 should send the team back to gather more evidence. Look for at least one rejected suggestion with a clear reason, and one changed idea that credits the critique it came from.

6. 675–90 min

   Create

   Prototype it

   Teams build a quick prototype: a sketch, a cardboard model, a poster mock-up, a sign, or a step-by-step plan. If time allows, they test it with one other team and note one piece of feedback. They complete the "What changed" section of Handout B: our first idea, what the AI critique and our testing showed, and our final idea.

   Facilitator notePrototypes should be rough. The point is to test thinking, not to make something beautiful.

7. 790–105 min

   Apply

   The pitch (Day 2 or 3)

   Each team gives a two-minute pitch: the problem and our evidence, our solution and prototype, one AI idea we kept and one we rejected (and why), and what changed. Classmates give feedback using two sticky notes: "One strength" and "One question." If possible, invite a staff member connected to a problem (such as the cafeteria manager) to listen.

   Facilitator noteHold teams to the "what changed" part. It's the strongest evidence that they, not the AI, owned the thinking.

8. 8105–110 min

   Reflect

   Who did the thinking?

   Students individually self-score on Handout C and answer on the back: "What did the AI help us see that we missed? What did we know that the AI didn't?" Collect Handout B and C.

   Facilitator noteStudents usually realize their local evidence (what they saw and heard at school) was something no AI had.

Adaptations

Grades 3–5

Use one class-wide problem, have the teacher run the critic, and reduce the decisions to thumbs up (keep) or thumbs down (reject) with a spoken reason.

Grades 9–12

Expand to a community problem, require at least two verified sources or interviews, and include a cost or feasibility estimate. Teams present to a panel of adults.

Students who need structure

Provide sentence frames for Handout B ("We rejected this because…", "We changed our idea when…") and let teams choose a sketch or model instead of a spoken pitch.

Pairs well with

• Augmented K–16 AI Learning FrameworkTeacher reference for keeping student thinking at the center when AI joins a project.
• AI Custom Instructions LibraryIdeas for setting up the critic prompt so the AI questions rather than answers.
• High-Effect Strategy CoachTeacher support for planning feedback and reflection during the design cycle.