curriculum-review-pedagogy

name	curriculum-review-pedagogy
description	Verify constructive alignment between objectives, activities, and assessments; validate instructional design quality and learning science principles. Use when reviewing curriculum quality, checking alignment, or validating pedagogical soundness. Activates on "review alignment", "check pedagogy", "validate curriculum", or "quality review".

Pedagogical Review & Alignment Verification

Conduct expert review of curriculum to ensure pedagogical soundness, constructive alignment, and evidence-based practices.

When to Use

• Review completed curriculum materials
• Verify objective-activity-assessment alignment
• Validate Bloom's taxonomy application
• Check backwards design principles
• Ensure learning science integration

Required Inputs

• Curriculum Artifacts: Design, lessons, assessments to review
• Review Focus: Full review or specific aspects
• Standards (optional): Framework to validate against

Workflow

1. Gather All Artifacts

Load and analyze:

• Learning objectives (from design)
• Lesson plans (from develop-content)
• Assessment items (from develop-items)
• Assessment blueprint (from assess-design)

2. Verify Constructive Alignment

Check Objective ↔ Activity Alignment:

For each objective, verify:

• ✅ Learning activities directly support the objective
• ✅ Cognitive level of activities matches objective's Bloom's level
• ✅ Students practice the exact skill they'll be assessed on
• ❌ No activities that don't map to objectives
• ❌ No objectives without supporting activities

Check Objective ↔ Assessment Alignment:

For each objective, verify:

• ✅ Assessment directly measures the objective
• ✅ Assessment Bloom's level matches objective
• ✅ Assessment format appropriate for skill type
• ❌ No objectives without aligned assessments
• ❌ No assessments that don't map to objectives

3. Review Bloom's Taxonomy Application

Analyze each objective:

• ✅ Uses appropriate action verb for intended level
• ✅ Level appropriate for educational grade
• ✅ Distribution across levels matches expectations
• ❌ Avoid "understand" without observable indicator
• ❌ Avoid using high-level verbs for low-level tasks

4. Validate Backwards Design

Check that curriculum follows:

1. ✅ Objectives written first
2. ✅ Assessments designed to measure objectives
3. ✅ Instruction designed to prepare for assessments
4. ✅ Clear path from start to end of unit

5. Assess Learning Science Integration

Review for evidence-based practices:

Retrieval Practice: ✅/❌ Frequent low-stakes quizzing Spaced Repetition: ✅/❌ Concepts revisited over time Interleaving: ✅/❌ Mixed practice, not blocked Elaboration: ✅/❌ Students explain concepts Concrete Examples: ✅/❌ Abstract ideas grounded Dual Coding: ✅/❌ Visual + verbal representations

6. Check Cognitive Load Management

Verify appropriate difficulty progression:

• ✅ Prerequisites addressed before new content
• ✅ Complexity builds gradually
• ✅ Adequate practice before assessment
• ✅ Scaffolding provided where needed
• ❌ Not too much new information at once
• ❌ Not skipping foundational steps

7. Generate Review Report

# Pedagogical Review Report: [TOPIC]

**Review Date**: [Date]
**Reviewed By**: Curriculum Review System
**Artifacts Reviewed**: [List]

## Executive Summary

**Overall Rating**: [Excellent | Good | Needs Revision | Poor]

**Key Strengths**: [2-3 items]

**Critical Issues**: [Priority improvements needed]

**Recommendation**: [Ready for implementation | Minor revisions | Major revisions]

## Constructive Alignment Analysis

### Objective-Activity Alignment

| Objective | Activities | Alignment Score | Issues |
|-----------|-----------|-----------------|--------|
| LO-1.1 | Intro lecture, guided practice | ✅ Strong | None |
| LO-1.2 | Reading, discussion | ✅ Strong | None |
| LO-1.3 | Independent problem set | ⚠️  Moderate | Needs more scaffolding first |

**Alignment Summary**: [X/Y objectives fully aligned]

**Gaps Identified**:
- [Objective without adequate activity support]
- [Activity that doesn't map to objective]

**Recommendations**:
- [Specific fixes needed]

### Objective-Assessment Alignment

| Objective | Assessment | Alignment Score | Issues |
|-----------|------------|-----------------|--------|
| LO-1.1 | MC items 1-5 | ✅ Strong | None |
| LO-1.2 | Short answer 1-3 | ✅ Strong | None |
| LO-1.3 | Problem set | ❌ Poor | Assessment is Remember level but objective is Apply |

**Assessment Validity**: [Comments on whether assessments measure what they claim]

**Recommendations**:
- [Specific assessment revisions]

## Bloom's Taxonomy Review

**Distribution Analysis**:
- Remember: X% (target: Y% for this level)
- Understand: X% (target: Y%)
- Apply: X% (target: Y%)
- Analyze: X% (target: Y%)
- Evaluate: X% (target: Y%)
- Create: X% (target: Y%)

**Issues**:
- ⚠️  Too many Remember-level objectives for grade 10
- ✅ Good balance of Apply and Analyze
- ❌ LO-2.3 uses "understand" without observable indicator

**Recommendations**:
- Revise LO-2.3 to: "Students will demonstrate understanding by..."
- Add 2 more Analyze-level objectives
- Reduce Remember objectives from 5 to 3

## Backwards Design Validation

✅ **Objectives First**: Clear learning goals established
✅ **Assessments Aligned**: Assessments measure objectives
⚠️  **Instruction Gaps**: Unit 2, Lesson 3 doesn't prepare for assessment
❌ **Summative Focus**: Heavy on final exam, lacking formative checks

**Recommendations**:
- Add formative assessments in Weeks 2, 4, 6
- Revise Unit 2, Lesson 3 to include practice with analysis tasks

## Learning Science Principles

| Principle | Present | Quality | Evidence |
|-----------|---------|---------|----------|
| Retrieval Practice | ⚠️  | Moderate | Only 2 quizzes; needs more frequent checks |
| Spaced Repetition | ✅ | Strong | Concepts revisited in Weeks 1, 3, 5 |
| Interleaving | ❌ | Poor | All practice is blocked by topic |
| Elaboration | ✅ | Strong | Multiple explain/justify prompts |
| Concrete Examples | ✅ | Strong | Real-world applications throughout |
| Dual Coding | ⚠️  | Moderate | Some visuals but could add more |

**Recommendations**:
- Add weekly retrieval practice quizzes
- Interleave practice problems (mix topics)
- Include more diagrams and visual representations

## Cognitive Load Assessment

**Lesson-by-Lesson Analysis**:

**Lesson 1.1**: ✅ Appropriate load
- Single new concept
- Builds on known prerequisites
- Adequate practice time

**Lesson 1.2**: ⚠️  High load
- Three new concepts introduced
- May overwhelm students
- **Recommendation**: Split into 2 lessons

**Lesson 2.1**: ❌ Excessive load
- Five new vocabulary terms
- Two new procedures
- No scaffolding provided
- **Recommendation**: Pre-teach vocabulary, add worked examples, reduce content

## Differentiation Quality

✅ **Advanced Learners**: Extensions provided
⚠️  **Struggling Learners**: Some scaffolding but needs more
❌ **ELL Support**: Minimal language supports
⚠️  **Accessibility**: Basic accommodations but missing UDL principles

**Recommendations**:
- Add graphic organizers for struggling learners
- Include vocabulary pre-teaching for ELLs
- Implement UDL principles (multiple means of representation/engagement/expression)

## Engagement Strategies

✅ **Hooks**: Compelling lesson openings
✅ **Real-World Connections**: Authentic applications
⚠️  **Student Choice**: Limited opportunities
❌ **Collaboration**: Mostly independent work

**Recommendations**:
- Add choice boards for practice activities
- Include more partner and group work
- Consider project-based learning option

## Overall Recommendations

### Priority 1 (Must Fix Before Implementation)
1. [Critical issue 1]
2. [Critical issue 2]

### Priority 2 (Should Fix Soon)
1. [Important improvement 1]
2. [Important improvement 2]

### Priority 3 (Nice to Have)
1. [Enhancement 1]
2. [Enhancement 2]

## Next Steps

1. Address Priority 1 issues
2. Re-review after revisions
3. Proceed to bias and accessibility review
4. Finalize for delivery

---

**Artifact Metadata**:
- **Artifact Type**: Pedagogical Review Report
- **Topic**: [Topic]
- **Overall Rating**: [Rating]
- **Next Phase**: Address issues, then Review (Bias & Accessibility)

8. CLI Interface

# Full curriculum review
/curriculum.review-pedagogy --design "photosynthesis-design.md" --lessons "lessons/*.md" --assessments "assessments/*.md"

# Alignment check only
/curriculum.review-pedagogy --focus "alignment" --artifacts "curriculum-artifacts/"

# Quick quality check
/curriculum.review-pedagogy --quick --design "design.md"

# Help
/curriculum.review-pedagogy --help

Composition with Other Skills

Input from:

• /curriculum.design
• /curriculum.develop-content
• /curriculum.develop-items
• /curriculum.assess-design

Output to:

• User for revisions
• /curriculum.review-bias (if pedagogy passes)
• /curriculum.review-accessibility (if pedagogy passes)

Exit Codes

• 0: Success - Review complete, excellent quality
• 1: Review complete, major issues found
• 2: Cannot load required artifacts
• 3: Invalid review focus