Send the exact assignment or rubric from your course of study and a custom sample written to it lands in 24 to 48 hours, the first one free. D660 is WGU’s Instructional Technology and Online Pedagogy course. It centers on choosing digital tools that serve a stated learning objective, and defending the fit in writing rather than by enthusiasm for the tool. Searches like "d660 task 2 assignment example", "D660 sample paper", and "D660 task samples" land on this page.
What D660 is really about
D660 sits in the Teachers College sequence and treats instructional technology as a design problem rather than a tour of products. The competencies run through online and blended delivery, accessibility, digital citizenship, engagement at a distance, and the choice of a check that tells you whether learning happened. Written work here is planning and rationale on paper: a plan for the learners a scenario describes, and an argument for why the plan is built that way. Where a program also asks for in-person field experience, those hours and the log that records them are the student's own record and are never drafted here; this shelf covers written performance assessments only.
The plan goes to an evaluator working down the rubric aspect by aspect, and teacher preparation rubrics are unusually literal: if an aspect names alignment, accessibility or a rationale grounded in a source, the evaluator looks for those things doing real work rather than a paragraph that gestures at them. Write so every aspect has an obvious home, headed and answered in order. A submission returned with two aspects unmet is an ordinary first attempt and costs a student nothing beyond a revision. Cohort-free pacing lets a teacher already delivering online clear the competency fast, while someone designing a first remote sequence can spend the term on it. A course instructor is the person to ask when the objective itself is unclear.
What D660’s tasks ask for
A D660 task typically gives a setting, a group of learners with named needs, and a subject goal, then asks for a plan that uses technology on purpose. Expect to state the learning objective in measurable terms, choose tools and say what each one does that a simpler method could not, build accessibility into the design instead of appending it as a note, describe how learners interact with each other and not only with a screen, and specify how you will know the objective was reached. Most versions also want a short research-grounded rationale citing pedagogy rather than vendor material. Alignment, accessibility, engagement and evaluation usually carry separate scores, so a thin section drags down only the aspect it happens to sit under.
Why D660 tasks come back for revision
The failure that sends a D660 plan back is a check that does not measure what the objective claims. The objective says learners will analyze a data set and defend a reading of it; the check is a ten-item quiz on definitions, a completion badge, or a tally of minutes a video stayed open. Both halves can be strong on their own and the alignment aspect still comes back unmet, because the evaluator reads the verb in the objective, reads the evidence the check produces, and finds they do not meet. The repair is small. Keep the objective, then design the check so a learner cannot clear it without doing the thing the objective names.
The D660 drawers
D660 Task 1 example
In many versions one shape is a technology plan built around a stated learning objective. On request, free, 24-48h.
D660 Task 2 example
The other often argues why each tool and check fits the learners a scenario names. On request, free, 24-48h.
Your course of study shows something else?
Western Governors University revises courses; task counts and deliverables shift between terms. Send what your classroom shows and the desk matches it exactly.
Using a D660 sample the right way
Use the sample to test one thing in your own draft: cover the objective, read the check, and see whether you could name the objective from the check alone. A finished plan makes that possible. Read how the rationale carries each tool choice, then write your own plan for your own scenario and your own task instructions. If you want one written to the exact rubric and task instructions you were given, the first is free and comes back inside 24-48h. Treat it as a reference standard and nothing more.
How these samples are written
Every sample on this board is written the way the custom ones are: the rubric aspects decoded first, a subject-matched writer drafting each aspect visibly, format and originality checked before it ships. WGU revises courses and instruments; a custom request is always written to the aspects in YOUR portal, never from a stale template.
D660 questions, answered
Can I cite the tool's own site as support for choosing it?
Vendor material is written to agree with you, which is exactly why an evaluator discounts it. A rationale aspect wants pedagogy: a source on how learners of this age respond to the method, not a page describing what a product does. Cite the practice, name the tool as one way to deliver it, and your argument survives a change of tool.
My rationale came back as justifying nothing. What went wrong?
It probably restated the plan. Describing what you will do is not a reason for doing it, and the aspect wants the alternative you rejected and why this choice serves the named learners better. One sentence of because, tied to the learners in the scenario, outweighs a page of description that answers no question at all.
The scenario gave me performance data on the learners. Do I have to use it?
Use it or the plan floats. Figures repeated in a background section change nothing, while the aspect on responsiveness looks for the choice those figures forced: a shorter sequence, a different check, extra scaffolding for the group the data flags. Say what the number meant and what you did about it, in that order.