---
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

```markdown
# 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

```bash
# 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