Module 10 Teacher Reflection & Capstone
The closing module. Teachers write the practicum up as a short case study structurally identical to CBSE’s Format F1 case paper — context, objectives, methodology with teacher and student roles, implementation, evidence-based impact, inclusivity, scalability and replicability, sustainability and cost, reflection — present it to peers in ten minutes plus five of questions, and reflect using a simple protocol: kept, changed, dropped, and one decision the teacher made that the AI did not. A capstone written this way can be adapted into a case paper for a District Level Deliberation that a Lead School hosts through the Sahodaya complex; whether to do that is the school’s decision. PrepGraph does not run or certify any CBSE activity. The illustrative Class VIII example used in the session is labelled as such throughout.
By the end, teachers can…
- 1 Write a case study in the CBSE Format F1 structure from the practicum log, with every number traceable to the log’s evidence page.
- 2 State the impact section as before/after evidence on named competencies, labelled as the teacher’s own classroom evidence, without causal over-claim.
- 3 Present the case in ten minutes and answer five minutes of peer questions on methodology, inclusivity and replicability.
- 4 Give peer feedback on the five criteria — impact and evidence, methodology, inclusivity, replicability, reflection — with one observable reason for each.
- 5 Write a reflection that names one thing kept, one changed, one dropped, and one decision the teacher — not the AI — made.
- 6 Explain how the capstone could be adapted into a DLD case paper and what the school, not PrepGraph, would need to do to host or join a DLD.
Session plan — 2 hours
| Time | Activity | Format |
|---|---|---|
| 0:00 15 min | The case study as a Format F1 paper The F1 sections from the CBSE Guidelines 2026 for District Level Deliberations, read in order, with the practicum-log page that feeds each one: design page → background and objectives; weekly entries → methodology and implementation; evidence page → evidence-based impact. The ILLUSTRATIVE Class VIII Linear Equations case is read through as a model of shape, not of results. Claim language for the impact section: "in my class, on these competencies, after this sequence" — never "AI improved results". | Input |
| 0:15 20 min | Impact section first: evidence, not adjectives Teachers rewrite their own evidence-based impact section from the evidence page: before/after by competency, by student code; who received which intervention; what the reassessment showed. Partner check: every number traceable to the log; every claim scoped to this class; one sentence saying what is not claimed. Adjectives come out; a table goes in. | Hands-on |
| 0:35 15 min | Peer review against five criteria Drafts swap. Each reader scores the paper on the peer-review sheet — impact and evidence, methodology (teacher, student and AI roles visible), inclusivity, replicability, reflection — with one observable reason per criterion, and returns it with two questions they would ask in the Q&A. | Group work |
| 0:50 45 min | Presentations: ten minutes plus five of questions Pods of three, as many as the cohort needs, run in parallel in rooms and corners — a 30-teacher cohort is ten pods. Each teacher presents for ten minutes — context, what was done, the before/after table, what they decided — and takes five minutes of questions; listeners score on the same sheet. Coordinators and the principal may sit in. Three full rounds fill the 45 minutes whatever the cohort size; it needs space, not extra hours. | Group work |
| 1:35 15 min | Reflection protocol Individually, on the protocol card: one thing I kept doing; one thing I changed; one thing I dropped; one decision I made that the AI did not (or against what it suggested); what I will do next term with a different class. The answers become the paper’s learnings-and-reflections section, in the teacher’s own words. | Reflection |
| 1:50 10 min | From capstone to DLD case paper — and what comes next What changes if a capstone becomes a DLD case paper: the same F1 sections, a sub-theme named, presenter details, and the DLD’s own presentation slot; a DLD is a one-day offline forum hosted by a volunteering Lead School through the Sahodaya complex, judged by an Appreciation Committee — the organiser’s call, recorded by the school. Then the programme’s own close: capstone submission date, the end-of-programme assessment in Week 11, Level 3 decisions, and AI Champion nominations for the school. | Input |
| Total 2 h · timings are a default; facilitators adapt to the group. | ||
Key ideas
Same structure as the CBSE case paper, on purpose
The capstone follows the F1 sections exactly so a teacher writes once and the school can use it twice: as the programme capstone and its own CPD record, and — if the school chooses — as a case paper for a District Level Deliberation hosted by a Lead School. The school decides; PrepGraph does not organise, judge or certify any CBSE activity.
Impact is a before/after table, not a feeling
Before and after on the same competencies, by student code; who received what; what the reassessment showed. Labelled as the teacher’s own classroom evidence, with one sentence on what is not claimed. That honesty is what makes the paper worth listening to — and what the F4 committee scores most heavily.
Methodology has three roles
F1 asks for the role of the teacher and the role of students. Add the role of the AI — what it analysed, suggested, practised, tracked — and the decisions the teacher made at each step. Written that way, the methodology section is the programme’s principle on one page: AI recommends, the teacher decides.
Reflection is the Domain III task
The CBSE CPD Guidelines 2025 name reflective journals and classroom research among the developmental tasks a school may record under Domain III. The capstone is both at once: a small classroom study and the teacher’s honest account of what they will keep, change and drop.
Worked example
ILLUSTRATIVE — Improving understanding of Linear Equations in One Variable using AI-assisted diagnostic intervention in Class VIII
Illustrative throughout: this case is constructed to show the shape of a capstone in the F1 sections. Its numbers are invented for the example; they are not a claim about any class or about the product.
Background and context: Class VIII, section B, 35 students; NCERT Class 8 Mathematics, Linear Equations in One Variable; a four-week practicum — diagnostic in week 1, named practice and one reteach in weeks 2–3, reassessment in week 4. Objectives: students solve equations with the variable on both sides; the teacher identifies and addresses transposition errors. Methodology: the teacher taught the chapter normally and logged each lesson; a 10-item diagnostic was built from teacher-approved questions; the teacher diagnosed; practice was AI-drafted and teacher-approved; students’ tutors re-explained at home; a whole-class reteach; a reassessment. Teacher role: diagnose, decide, reteach. Student role: attempt, practise, ask. AI role: results by question and student, practice at each student’s level.
Evidence-based impact (illustrative): before — 54% mastery on the tracked competencies; key weakness, variable transposition; 17 of 35 needing remediation. After — 78% mastery; 6 of 35 still needing remediation, who received a second reteach. The teacher’s own classroom evidence, on these competencies, after this sequence; no wider claim is made.
Inclusivity: four students without a phone in the evening received the paper version and ten minutes in class; three worked in Hindi by voice with their tutor. Scalability and replicability: two minutes of class log per lesson; the diagnostic reused by two other sections. Sustainability and cost: about forty minutes of teacher time a week beyond normal teaching; no cost beyond the school’s platform. Reflection: the diagnosis was the teacher’s; the AI drafted and tracked; the decision to reteach the whole class came from the reassessment, not the first test.
Assignment — counts towards certification
The capstone case study
Using the capstone case-study template (resource: Capstone case-study template), write your practicum up in the CBSE Format F1 structure: presenter details, title and sub-theme, background and context, objectives, methodology with teacher, student and AI roles, implementation, evidence-based impact, novelty and relevance, inclusivity and equity, scalability and replicability, sustainability and cost, learnings and reflections, conclusion. Four to six pages; no student names; every number from your practicum log. Present it in ten minutes plus five of questions.
Deliverable: The capstone as a PDF (4–6 pages, F1 sections in order, codes not names), the peer-review sheets you received, and — optionally — a deck of ten slides or fewer.
| Criterion | Meets the standard when… |
|---|---|
| Impact and evidence | Before/after on the same competencies for the tracked students, traceable to the practicum log, labelled as the teacher’s classroom evidence, with one sentence on what is not claimed; no "AI improved results". |
| Methodology | Teacher, student and AI roles are stated; the sequence teach → assess → diagnose → intervene → verify → review is visible; the teacher’s decisions at each step are named. |
| Inclusivity and replicability | Says what was done for students who could not use the tutor at home or needed another language or level; another teacher could repeat the practice from the paper with the school’s platform and a timetable. |
| Reflection | Names one thing kept, one changed, one dropped; one decision the teacher made beyond or against an AI suggestion; and what the teacher will do next term. |
Where this lands in the PrepGraph workflow
Each certification task corresponds to a behaviour in the teacher portal — so the programme produces a working habit, not a slide deck. The pedagogy comes first; the surface implements it.
| Certification task | Pedagogical move | PrepGraph surface |
|---|---|---|
| Pull the before/after results for the impact section | Before/after evidence on the same competencies for the capstone | Assignments & resultsSet a short diagnostic or homework from the question bank; see who attempted, how each question went, and give feedback. |
| Check which tracked students received which practice | Student-level record of intervention for the methodology section | Student profilesOpen one student and see their practice, weak concepts and recent work in one place. |
| Cite the signals behind a check-in or reteach decision | Early-warning review as part of the teacher’s decision trail | Early-warning signalsNightly signals per group — engagement dropping, scores slipping — so you know who needs a check-in this week. |
Materials
- •Capstone case-study template (printed and digital), with the F1-section → practicum-log-page map on its first page
- •Peer-review sheet: five criteria, one observable reason each, two questions for the Q&A
- •The ILLUSTRATIVE Class VIII Linear Equations case, printed with "illustrative" in the header
- •Reflection protocol card: kept / changed / dropped / a decision I made / next term
- •Timers, and enough rooms or corners for pods of three — one pod per three teachers in the cohort
- •CBSE Guidelines 2026 — DLD Formats F1 and F4, for reference only
Facilitator notes
- •Label the Class VIII example as illustrative every time it appears — on the slide, on the handout, aloud. It is a model of the structure, not evidence about any class or about the product.
- •Police claim language in the impact sections. "AI improved results" becomes "on these competencies, in my class, after this sequence". A teacher’s own before/after, labelled as theirs, is exactly right; anything wider is not.
- •The presentations are the point. Protect the 45 minutes, run as many pods of three in parallel as the cohort needs, and invite the principal or coordinator to sit in; the school may record attendance for its CPD records.
- •Be precise about the DLD: a one-day offline forum hosted by a volunteering Lead School through the Sahodaya complex or a group of schools, judged by an Appreciation Committee using Format F4, counted by the school as 6 hours of Domain II school-based CPD (CBSE Guidelines 2026 — District Level Deliberations on CT & AI). PrepGraph helps a school prepare; it does not organise, judge or certify.
- •Set the dates before anyone leaves: capstone submission, the Week 11 end-of-programme assessment and portfolio review, and Level 3 decisions. Capstones are read against the rubric by two reviewers.
Bring the programme to your school
Tell us your board, grades and teacher count. We’ll reply within two working days with a cohort plan and the CPD record templates.