596 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Design a complete document-based history lesson using the Reading Like a Historian four-part structure. Use when planning a primary source inquiry lesson or converting a textbook lesson into document-based investigation.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Map a complex topic by placing factors on hexagonal tiles where adjacency signals a claimed relationship. Use when students need to surface hidden connections in a system before analysis or action.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Design a sequence where students compare AI's handling of the same question across disciplines, developing a mental model of where AI is reliable vs. distorting based on knowledge type.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Design a document set for a document-based lesson — selecting and sequencing sources for analytical tension around a central question. Use when assembling sources for a new lesson or when an existing set produces flat responses.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Adapt a historical primary source for classroom use — modifying complexity and length while preserving features for sourcing, close reading, and corroboration. Use when a primary source is too complex for the target age group.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Identify and navigate genuine dilemmas in curriculum, school, or community contexts — tensions between competing goods that cannot be solved, only navigated. Produces a structured dilemma map with both poles named and both/and possibilities.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
After any AI-generated explanation, require the learner to identify one place it could be wrong, one thing to check, and one source to consult. Builds epistemic vigilance — treats AI output as a claim to evaluate, not truth to absorb.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Build students' capacity to compare accounts across multiple historical sources — identifying agreements, contradictions, and gaps. Use when students treat individual documents as complete answers rather than partial perspectives.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Design a structured protocol for auditing AI-generated text against Ennis's six CT standards. Use when students need to critically evaluate AI output in any subject.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Design a multi-round questioning sequence for interrogating AI chatbot answers, tracking how responses shift and distinguishing genuine updates from sycophantic capitulation. Use when teaching students to probe AI critically.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Design the deeper patterns, structures, artefacts, and mental models needed to grow a desired event. Use when a class imagines a better future.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Generate argument structure scaffolds using Toulmin, PEEL, or CER frameworks for a specific claim or question. Use when teaching argumentative or analytical writing across any subject.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Evaluate a teacher-drafted central historical question for its capacity to drive genuine historical inquiry. Use when assessing whether a question will generate real evidence-weighing or produce shallow responses.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Build students' capacity to read historical documents closely — attending to word choice, tone, and rhetoric as evidence of perspective. Use when students summarise sources without analysing language.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Orchestrate compassionate systems tools from issue or aspiration to wise action. Use when a class needs a complete inquiry workflow.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Build students' capacity to place historical documents in their temporal and social context. Use when students read sources without considering what was happening at the time, or know the context but don't deploy it.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Refines raw ideas into sharp, actionable concepts through structured divergent and convergent thinking. Use when an idea is still vague, when you need to stress-test assumptions before committing to a plan, or when you want to expand options before converging on one. Triggers on "ideate", "refine this idea", or "stress-test my plan".
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Extracts what the user actually wants instead of what they think they should want. Achieves this through one-question-at-a-time interview until ~95% confidence about the underlying intent. Use when an ask is underspecified ("build me X" without "for whom" or "why now"), when the user explicitly invokes ("interview me", "grill me", "are we sure?", "stress-test my thinking"), or when you catch yourself silently filling in ambiguous requirements before any plan, spec, or code exists.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Strategic UX designer and design thinking partner for WDS. Use when the user asks to talk to Freya or requests the WDS designer.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Pressure-test an idea through persona-driven interrogation until it hardens, proves out, or dies cheaply. Use when the user says 'forge an idea', 'pressure-test this idea', 'stress-test my thinking', or 'harden this idea'.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Use when evaluating biology grant ideas in the Chinese funding context (NSFC, MOST, etc.) — diagnosing project legitimacy, mechanism-centered scientific questions, reviewer-aware logic, innovation discipline, feasibility, and scope control across funding levels (youth, general, key).
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Use when interpreting biological research findings, evaluating life science evidence, analyzing molecular or cellular mechanisms, comparing competing biological hypotheses, designing or critiquing experiments in biology, genetics, genomics, cell biology, immunology, neuroscience, ecology, or any life science domain. Triggers on questions about gene function, pathways, phenotypes, GWAS hits, single-cell data, animal models, clinical translation, evolutionary arguments, or any biology/life science reasoning task.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Use when interpreting research findings, evaluating scientific evidence, analyzing mechanisms, comparing competing hypotheses, designing experiments, or constructing scientific arguments.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Use when evaluating grant ideas, diagnosing proposal logic, framing fundable projects, strengthening reviewer-aware arguments, or preparing to write any section of a research proposal.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。