This case is fictional. Any resemblance to real organizations or people is coincidental.
Pinewood Community College enrolls about 9,400 students across a main campus, two satellite centers, and a large online program. It employs 118 full-time faculty and roughly 310 adjuncts. In August, the Vice President for Academic Affairs, Dr. Renee Castillo, announced an "AI Literacy Initiative" with three goals: every course syllabus would include an AI-use policy by January; every faculty member would complete "AI literacy professional development" by May; and the college would report to its accreditor, in the spring, on how it was "preparing students for an AI-influenced workforce."
Jordan Lee, the college's instructional designer in the Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL), was asked to design the professional development. The CTL has three staff: Jordan, a director named Priya Natarajan who also teaches two sections of English each term, and a part-time technologist who supports the LMS. The initiative has a $40,000 budget for the year, most of which Dr. Castillo expects to spend on "a platform or a partner."
Faculty survey (September, 241 responses of 428, 56%). Asked to describe their stance on generative AI in their courses:
| Stance | Full-time | Adjunct |
|---|---|---|
| Ban it; it is cheating | 31% | 38% |
| Allow with restrictions | 44% | 35% |
| Encourage and teach it | 18% | 12% |
| Have not thought about it | 7% | 15% |
Asked what they wanted from professional development, the top responses were "how to detect AI cheating" (63%), "how to write an AI policy" (58%), "examples from my discipline" (51%), and "how to use AI to save time on grading and prep" (47%). Only 22% selected "how to teach students to use AI well." Free-text responses included "I am not going to learn a tool that will be replaced next year," "I have 180 students and no time," and "Just tell me what the college policy is and I'll put it in the syllabus."
Focus groups (three, 24 faculty). Themes: fear of being blamed for student misconduct; resentment of past mandatory training ("the last one was a 45-minute video with a quiz that anyone could pass by guessing"); real curiosity among a minority who had experimented; frustration among nursing, welding, and automotive faculty that the initiative seemed aimed at "writing classes"; and strong doubt that AI detection tools work. Two adjuncts said they teach at three colleges and could not attend anything synchronous.
Students. A student government survey (n = 612) found 71% used generative AI for coursework at least monthly; 48% said they were unsure whether their use was allowed; 29% had received contradictory instructions from different instructors in the same term.
Existing resources. The library had run four well-attended "AI 101" webinars. Three faculty (in English, business, and computer information systems) had already redesigned assignments around AI and were willing to share. The CTL's LMS could host self-paced modules with completion tracking. A vendor had pitched a "turnkey AI literacy course for faculty" (12 hours of video modules, generic across disciplines, $28,000 per year, completion certificates included). Dr. Castillo liked that it "solves the reporting problem."
Accreditation. The accreditor's request was open-ended: describe what the college is doing to prepare students for the workforce, including with respect to emerging technologies. There was no requirement that every faculty member complete anything.
Governance. The Faculty Senate had formed an AI committee that met twice and produced no recommendations. Its chair told Jordan, "If Academic Affairs mandates a training, we will fight it. If you ask us to help design it, we will."
In October, a well-publicized incident occurred: an adjunct instructor accused nine students of AI-generated work based on a detection tool's score; three of the accusations were later withdrawn after the students produced drafts and version histories. The college newspaper ran the story. Dr. Castillo emailed Jordan: "This is exactly why we need everyone trained, and soon. Can we move the faculty completion deadline to March? I would like to see a plan by the end of next week. The vendor option is still on the table and honestly it would be simplest."
Jordan has $40,000, a part-time technologist, a director with a full teaching load, a divided faculty, three willing champions, a hostile-but-persuadable Senate, a vendor, and eight days to produce a plan.
Use the six-step framework. Additional prompts specific to this case: