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