LEAD6001 Week 1 help and planning guide
A positional Week desk for the live Introduction to Advanced Studies classroom—not a guessed syllabus.
ACE Volume 69 verifies a 5-week format for LEAD6001 in at least one mapped program context. It does not publish a universal Week 1 topic or assessment. Open Canvas first and replace every planning placeholder below with the registered section's exact language.
Capture the live Week 1 identity
Record the module or Week label, learning objectives, required readings or media, every graded and ungraded activity, rubric links, template, group or presentation rules, accessibility requirements, attempt or revision policy, and the deadline with its time zone. Check announcements and instructor clarifications after the initial capture.
Write the deliverable name exactly as Canvas displays it. If the item is a discussion, presentation, simulation, practicum checkpoint, research milestone, or capstone artifact, preserve that identity; do not relabel every task “Assessment 1.” The name determines the correct production and quality checks.
Turn the Week 1 rubric into tests
Rewrite each performance criterion as a question the final artifact must answer. Add the required evidence, planned section or slide, method, source or calculation, and quality test. Mark dependencies: a table may feed a recommendation, a discussion may prepare a later project, or an instructor approval may be required before a research step.
Resolve conflicts before drafting. If the rubric, prompt, template, and announcement differ, preserve screenshots or saved copies and ask the instructor which instruction controls. Never fill an ambiguity with a borrowed answer from another section or catalog year.
Produce the student-owned work
Start with the highest-risk unit: the calculation, evidence table, method, clinical or organizational decision, research alignment, or required artifact. Once it is correct, draft the surrounding explanation. Keep examples de-identified and never invent patient, participant, organizational, placement, or research data.
A tutor may model a parallel problem, explain the method, help the student evaluate sources, question assumptions, and give feedback on a student-authored draft. The student performs any clinical, practicum, field, proctored, group, presentation, research, or identity-controlled activity and submits through their own account.
Run the Week 1 quality gate
Content check: each criterion is answered at the requested depth. Evidence check: citations resolve and claims match their sources. Method check: calculations, tables, figures, and prose agree. Presentation check: format, accessibility, privacy, grammar, and file requirements are satisfied. Then compare the final artifact against the live rubric one last time.
Check the upload package as carefully as the argument. Open the final file, confirm every table and image renders, remove comments or tracked changes unless requested, verify the filename and file type, and preserve a time-stamped copy of the submitted version. A correct draft in the wrong or broken artifact is still an avoidable process failure.
After the grade posts, record the score and feedback. Classify each miss as interpretation, evidence, method, application, presentation, or process. Correct the smallest complete unit if revision is allowed, trace dependent changes, and write one prevention rule for Week 2.