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:

• ✅ Objectives written first

• ✅ Assessments designed to measure objectives

• ✅ Instruction designed to prepare for assessments

• ✅ 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

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

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

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