Students will launch the studio by locating communication hotspots in CTE case files, analyzing how structure and language guide readers in a mentor text, and setting up the first audience-thinking moves they will need for later drafting and revision.

Students will gather user-centered evidence from CTE case files and class interviews, organize communication hotspots into an empathy-based planning artifact, and use that evidence to define a focused How Might We statement, team roles, and next-step goals for iterative writing work.

Students will generate multiple audience-centered communication concepts for a CTE ethical dilemma, choose one direction using user evidence and a decision matrix, build a low-fidelity prototype with a structural map, and test it with classmates to identify confusion before deeper revision.

Students will complete two documented revision cycles, test their audience-specific communication choices with classmates and the teacher as representative users, and assemble a concise stakeholder-facing presentation that explains how feedback changed their structure, tone, evidence, and final design decisions.

Students will present their final audience-specific communication products and process artifacts to classmates and the teacher, explain how user feedback shaped revision decisions, and complete a brief reflection conference that names growth in writing and collaboration.