This learning contract template connects the learning objective with each person's responsibilities, a weekly schedule, and the evaluation terms. A proposed change belongs beside the agreed terms until both people have agreed to the revision.
Start with a complete agreement to discuss
The original example is a fictional four-week independent study of local-history sources. Specimen V1 represents agreed terms inside the teaching example. It is not a record of an actual student or signed course agreement.
| Contract field | Specimen V1 |
|---|---|
| Learning objective | Compare how three permitted sources describe the same local-history topic, explaining differences and uncertainty. |
| Final work | An annotated comparison of three sources, with a source list and references connecting each interpretation to its evidence. |
| Student responsibilities | Bring source notes to each weekly discussion, identify questions, and submit the comparison at the end of week 4. |
| Adviser responsibilities | Discuss the source choices, meet weekly, and review the submitted comparison using the stated criteria. |
| Evaluation criteria | Source attribution; comparison of interpretations; explanations of uncertainty supported by the available evidence. |
| Change process | Discuss proposed changes to sources, deliverables, schedule, or evaluation; record a revised agreement before treating the changed terms as agreed. |
The University of Waterloo's learning-contract guidance describes a student-developed agreement reviewed with an advising instructor. It calls for both parties to sign the final contract and approve and sign modifications. It also separates student and instructor responsibilities.
Use your course's required agreement and signing process. The HTML example helps you prepare and compare the wording.
Make the weekly responsibilities specific
“Work on the project” gives neither person much to review. The specimen uses the following schedule:
| Week | Student prepares | Adviser discussion |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Proposed topic and three permitted source references. | Check that the sources and topic can support the objective. |
| 2 | Notes attributing each source's account and relevant evidence. | Discuss missing context and questions about interpretation. |
| 3 | Draft comparison with references and marked uncertainties. | Review where comparisons need clearer evidence. |
| 4 | Final annotated comparison and source list. | Evaluate using the agreed criteria. |
These are planned responsibilities. The actual source references, meeting dates, submitted work, and feedback records remain fields to complete. A weekly plan is useful because each discussion has an artifact to examine.
Compare a proposed change with the current terms
The learner proposes replacing the third source with an interview. In Compare versions, inspect the consequences before writing V2 as if it were settled:
| Area | Specimen V1 | Proposed V2 | Question to resolve |
|---|---|---|---|
| Source material | Three permitted sources. | Two existing sources and one interview. | Is the interview suitable and permitted for this study? |
| Preparation | Locate and examine the source material. | Also arrange and prepare an interview. | Is the additional work feasible within four weeks? |
| Submitted evidence | Annotated comparison with source references. | Comparison using interview evidence as well. | What interview record can be used and submitted? |
| Evaluation | Attribution, contrasting interpretations, justified uncertainty. | Same proposed criteria, applied to a different evidence type. | What will adequate attribution and evidence look like for the interview? |
The example leaves the interview arrangements and the adviser's response unresolved. Select a comparison area to see which terms the proposal affects. You can write a local proposal note without changing Specimen V1.
For a real study, take those questions to the adviser before arranging the replacement activity. Agree on the revised source, evidence, and schedule together. Record the decision through the course's process, including any required signatures.
Leave a readable record of the revision
A useful revision note identifies the earlier version, the proposed change, why it is requested, and the terms affected. Keep the response and effective version separate from the request.
For this example, the note can begin:
Proposal against Specimen V1: replace the third source with an interview. The source's suitability, interview arrangements, submitted evidence, and schedule need discussion. Proposed V2 is awaiting agreement.
The blank contract includes places for student and adviser names, actual agreement dates, and references to the completed agreement. Those fields remain empty until supplied. Build discussion copy organizes the terms and identifies missing fields; it does not sign the contract or approve a change.
Make a contract for your own independent study
Create one complete, self-contained HTML learning-contract discussion copy.
Student and adviser details: [FILL IN OR LEAVE BLANK]
Learning objective: [PASTE]
Current contract version and agreement reference, if any: [PASTE]
Deliverables and permitted source material: [PASTE]
Student responsibilities: [PASTE]
Adviser responsibilities: [PASTE]
Weekly activities and discussion dates: [PASTE]
Evaluation criteria and required evidence: [PASTE]
Required course signing and change process: [PASTE]
Proposed change, reason, and affected terms, if any: [PASTE]
Actual response to the proposal, if received: [PASTE OR LEAVE BLANK]
Arrange the terms into a readable contract with a weekly schedule.
Keep the current agreement separate from proposed terms. Show a
comparison of objective, resources, evidence, evaluation, and schedule.
Identify unresolved questions without inventing a decision or person.
Provide a blank discussion copy with labeled fields. Build discussion
copy must name missing objective, deliverable, responsibilities, or
evaluation terms. Preserve the original version while editing a local
proposal note. Mark an old generated review stale after changes and
ask before resetting typed work.
Leave actual signatures, received agreement, and dates blank unless
supplied. Do not simulate signing, approval, adviser feedback, submitted
work, grades, or completed learning. Keep input only in the open page;
do not claim it has been saved or sent.
Use keyboard-accessible controls, body text of at least 16px, and a
layout readable at 360px without horizontal page scrolling. Put CSS
and JavaScript inline and use no external dependencies. Return the
complete HTML.
Before taking the draft to the adviser, check that someone could identify what is due, what each person will do, and which evidence will be evaluated. A broad objective needs those concrete terms around it.
Bring the unresolved terms to the next discussion
For the interview proposal, send the adviser the comparison and the specific questions about evidence and timing. The next discussion can then focus on the proposed changes instead of reconstructing the original terms.
If you use an HTML discussion copy, NOS lets you revise its static contract wording on the page and share a reading link. A correction to the saved discussion copy appears when the adviser reopens the existing active link. Complete the actual agreement and any required signatures through your course's process.