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
| 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 --helpComposition 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