This table provides a comprehensive overview of Unit 5's learning targets, aligned standards, cognitive complexity (DOK), and key assessments:
| Learning Target | Standards | DOK | Key Assessments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design campaign structures that support multiple story paths | W.9-10.3a, W.9-10.4, SL.9-10.4 | DOK 2 – DOK 3 | Campaign Basics Check (5.1a) |
| Create NPCs with distinct personalities, motivations, and roles | W.9-10.3b, W.9-10.3d, RL.9-10.3 | DOK 2 – DOK 3 | NPC Practice (5.2a), NPC Gallery (5.6a) |
| Design quests that challenge players and advance narrative | W.9-10.3a, W.9-10.3c, W.9-10.5 | DOK 2 – DOK 3 | Quest Practice (5.3a), Quest Design Check (5.3b) |
| Write branching narratives with meaningful choices | W.9-10.3a, W.9-10.3d, W.9-10.4, RL.9-10.5 | DOK 3 – DOK 4 | Branching Scenario (5.4a) |
| Give and receive constructive feedback | SL.9-10.1a, SL.9-10.1c, SL.9-10.1d, W.9-10.5 | DOK 2 – DOK 3 | Peer Review (5.4b) |
| Evaluate AI-generated DM content | RI.9-10.8, W.9-10.5, SL.9-10.3 | DOK 3 | AI DM Evaluation (5.5a) |
Unit DOK distribution: ~10% DOK 1 (formative checks), ~35% DOK 2 (analysis activities, structured practice), ~40% DOK 3 (assignments, evaluation activities), ~15% DOK 4 (Branching Scenario capstone). This meets the 9–12 grade band targets.
Standards: W.9-10.3a (engage reader/hook), W.9-10.4 (clear/coherent production), SL.9-10.4 (presentation/structure)
DOK: Lesson instruction DOK 1–2; Campaign Basics Check DOK 2
The Self-Awareness moment asks students to reflect on the kinds of stories they like. Watch for students who worry their preferences aren't "valid" — validate all storytelling preferences. Some students may gravitate toward combat-heavy campaigns; others prefer intrigue or exploration. Both are valid campaign designs.
If short on time: Focus on the core campaign structure (hook, acts, climax). Skip the extended sandbox vs. branching discussion for now (students will experience both through practice).
If students need more: Show a 15-minute clip of an actual-play D&D session (Critical Role, Dimension 20, or Brennan Lee Mulligan's D&D video) to contextualize how sessions flow.
Campaign structure provides the framework for all subsequent lessons. Lesson 5.2 (NPCs) and 5.3 (Quests) populate the campaign. Lessons 5.4–5.5 develop specific campaign moments. Lesson 5.6 prepares students to run a campaign they've designed.
Standards: W.9-10.3b (develop characters), W.9-10.3d (use language to convey character), RL.9-10.3 (analyze character motivation)
DOK: Lesson DOK 2; NPC Practice DOK 2–3; Check DOK 2
The Social-Awareness component of this lesson asks students to consider how NPCs experience the world differently based on their backgrounds. This creates an opening to discuss representation and stereotyping without feeling preachy. Some students may create NPCs that reflect their own identities; others may stretch into unfamiliar perspectives. Both are valuable.
If short on time: Have students complete only the Quick NPC Method (one NPC) rather than creating three for the Practice activity. They'll create more during the Unit.
If extending: Ask students to create a "matching" scenario: given a quest, which NPC would lead the player to it? This bridges to Lesson 5.3.
NPCs connect directly to quests (5.3) — NPCs give quests, reward players, create obstacles. NPCs populate branching scenarios (5.4). The NPC Gallery (5.6) is a formative collection that shows growth across the unit. All campaign sessions (5.1 and 5.6) rely on memorable NPCs.
Standards: W.9-10.3a (hook/engaging narrative), W.9-10.3c (sequence/pacing), W.9-10.5 (revise for clarity/purpose)
DOK: Lesson DOK 2; Quest Practice DOK 2–3; Quest Design Check DOK 3
The Self-Awareness moment asks students to reflect on what kinds of challenges appeal to them. Some students are motivated by combat; others by puzzles, moral dilemmas, or exploration. Validate these diverse preferences. The quest design should reflect what actually engages the player group, not just the DM's preference.
If short on time: Focus on one complete quest using the Five-Part Structure rather than requiring multiple drafts. Quality over quantity.
If extending: Have students design a quest chain where completing one quest opens access to another. This shows how quests connect in a larger campaign.
Quests are core campaign content (5.1 provides structure; 5.3 populates it). Quest-giving NPCs (5.2) deliver quests (5.3). Branching scenarios (5.4) are advanced quests with multiple paths. Quests are tested in the mini-campaign (5.6).
Standards: W.9-10.3a–d (narrative craft across both branches), W.9-10.4 (clear/coherent production), RL.9-10.5 (plot structure/choices), SL.9-10.1a, 1c, 1d (collaborative discussion/feedback)
DOK: Branching Scenario DOK 3 – DOK 4 ; Peer Review DOK 2 – DOK 3
Peer review requires Responsible Decision-Making and Relationship Skills. Students must give honest feedback without being hurtful. Watch for students who are defensive about feedback or who give only praise to avoid conflict. Create a classroom norm: "Feedback is a gift. The goal is to help each other make stronger work." Model receiving feedback gracefully: "Thank you for pointing that out. That's something I'll revise."
If short on time: Assign peer review asynchronously on the LMS rather than in real-time discussion. This allows more thoughtful feedback and works better for online asynchronous courses.
If extending: Have students revise their branching scenarios based on peer feedback and resubmit. This models the real writing process.
Branching scenarios are advanced applications of quest design (5.3) combined with narrative choice (5.1). Peer review connects to earlier peer review work in Unit 1 and Unit 4. The branching scenario serves as a capstone for campaign design before the final unit project (5.6).
Standards: RI.9-10.8 (evaluate reasoning/claims), W.9-10.5 (develop writing through revision/feedback), SL.9-10.3 (evaluate information/credibility/bias)
DOK: DOK 3 (analyzing, evaluating, comparing)
This lesson touches on Self-Awareness and Responsible Decision-Making. Students are reflecting on the role of AI in their own work and thinking ethically about when and how to use it. Some students may have used AI in previous assignments. This is a moment to discuss responsible use, not shame students. The conversation is about understanding the tool's limitations and maintaining human creativity as the core of this course.
If short on time: Focus on the NPC evaluation activity. Skip the extended discussion of AI bias and limitations (though these are valuable).
If extending: Have students generate a DM encounter using an AI tool, then evaluate and revise it. This provides hands-on experience with AI as a tool vs. solution.
This lesson connects to AI evaluation work in Unit 1 and Unit 4, building students' critical thinking about AI-generated content across the course. It connects forward to Lesson 5.6, where students will run a campaign they designed themselves (not AI-generated).
Standards: SL.9-10.4 (organize/present information), W.9-10.5 (revise/refine writing), SL.9-10.6 (use appropriate register/language)
DOK: Campaign Planning DOK 2–3; Campaign Execution DOK 3 ; Reflection DOK 2 – DOK 3
Running a campaign requires multiple SEL competencies: Self-Awareness (reflecting on their strengths as a facilitator), Self-Management (managing anxiety about "doing it right"), Social Awareness (reading the room, understanding what players want), and Relationship Skills (keeping the group engaged and safe). This lesson is an application of SEL in action. Normalize anxiety ("This is new, so feeling nervous makes sense") and emphasize that mistakes are learning opportunities.
If short on time: Have students prepare and "run" a single session with one focus quest rather than a full campaign. Clarity of execution matters more than length.
If extending: Have students conduct a post-campaign debrief with their players. Ask players what they enjoyed most and what surprised them. This provides valuable feedback for future campaigns.
This is the capstone lesson that integrates all previous unit learning: campaign structure (5.1), NPCs (5.2), quests (5.3), branching narratives (5.4), and critical evaluation (5.5). Running the campaign demonstrates mastery of the unit's learning targets. The reflection connects back to the course's broader SEL and creative writing goals.
Students who demonstrate mastery can:
Students needing additional scaffolding can:
Advanced students can:
This is the major assignment demonstrating learning target mastery. Grade for two primary dimensions:
A '3' (Proficient) represents a branching scenario with clear choice, two distinct paths, and comparable craft quality in both. A '4' (Exemplary) represents a scenario that surprises the reader with unexpected choices, NPCs that feel genuinely motivated, and consequences that feel organic to the narrative.
Grade this collection looking for GROWTH across the unit. The first NPCs (created in Lesson 5.2) may be simpler; later NPCs (from Lessons 5.3–5.4) should show increasing sophistication. Look for:
A student who starts simple and progresses to complexity deserves credit for growth, even if the Tier 3 NPC isn't perfect. This is a portfolio assessment, not a single-performance assessment.
Grade this on depth of reflection and evidence of learning from experience, not on whether the campaign was "perfect."
A student who had a challenging campaign but reflects deeply on the experience demonstrates stronger learning than a student with a smooth campaign and superficial reflection.
These shorter assessments are designed to check understanding and provide feedback before major assignments. Grade on:
Use feedback to direct students toward revision or review before they tackle the major assignment. If multiple students struggle with the Meaningful Choice Test on 5.3a, re-teach that concept before assigning 5.3b or 5.4a.
For asynchronous online courses, proper setup is critical. Students should only see their assigned peer's work. Use your LMS peer review tool (Canvas Peer Review, Blackboard Assignment Groups) to ensure privacy and prevent students from viewing all submissions. If your LMS doesn't have a built-in peer review tool, use individual discussion boards or Google Docs with restricted sharing.
Some students may prefer recording their campaign session or a reflection audio instead of writing. Recommend free tools:
Establish clear expectations for audio submissions: audio should be as thoughtful and complete as written work. Vague rambling doesn't replace careful writing; audio should still show evidence of planning and reflection.
A key challenge: students are playing campaigns asynchronously, not synchronously. Options:
Be flexible. The goal is for students to run the campaign they designed and reflect on what they learned. The format of play can vary.
Recommend submission formats:
For graphic elements (maps, NPC character sheets with images), Google Drawings or Canva are more accessible than Adobe tools. Provide links to free or school-licensed versions.