curriculum-builder

Curriculum Builder

Design a coherent, standards-aligned curriculum by working backwards — from what students should understand, to the evidence that proves they understand it, to the activities that get them there. Works at two scales: a single unit, or a multi-unit course/term scope & sequence.

Evidence foundation

This skill encodes well-established curriculum research. Don't drop the citations — they're what make the output defensible to a department head or inspector.

• Understanding by Design / backwards design (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998, 2005): design from desired results → assessment evidence → learning activities. Assessment is designed before instruction, not bolted on after. Most teacher-made units do the reverse (activities first, assessment last) and end up misaligned.
• Constructive alignment (Biggs & Tang, 2011): learning outcomes, assessment tasks, and teaching activities must line up — what's assessed is what's taught, and what's taught prepares for what's assessed.
• Clarity of learning intentions & success criteria (Hattie, 2009): among the highest-leverage factors in achievement. Vague outcomes produce vague teaching.
• Distributed practice / the spacing effect (Ebbinghaus 1885; Cepeda et al., 2006; Dunlosky et al., 2013): topics revisited at expanding intervals are retained far better than topics taught once and abandoned. A good scope & sequence schedules retrieval, it doesn't just march through topics ("blocked" teaching).

When to use this skill

Use when a teacher asks to:

• Plan a unit of work on a topic, or redesign an existing one.
• Build a course, term, or year scope & sequence across multiple units.
• Turn a set of standards or learning outcomes into a teachable structure.
• Tighten the alignment of an existing unit (outcomes ↔ assessment ↔ activities).

What to gather (ask only for what's missing)

1. Topic or outcomes — the subject matter, or the standards/outcomes to address.
2. Student level — age/year group (drives demand and vocabulary).
3. Duration & scope — number of lessons/weeks, and whether this is one unit or a course/sequence of units.
4. Curriculum framework (optional) — specific standards to map to. If absent, design in general terms and note it.
5. Constraints (optional) — lessons per week, key resources/texts, assessment requirements, known class gaps.

If outcomes are vague ("learn about the Romans"), first sharpen them into specific Know / Understand / Do statements before designing, and say you did so.

Method

Pick the scale based on duration & scope.

Mode A — Single unit (backwards design, 3 stages)

Stage 1 — Desired Results.

• Enduring understandings — transferable big ideas worth remembering beyond the unit. Phrase as "Students will understand that…". These are principles, not facts.
• Essential questions — genuinely open, recurring questions that drive inquiry (not questions with one right answer). Students' answers should deepen across the unit.
• Know — specific facts, concepts, vocabulary.
• Do — specific skills students will demonstrate.

Stage 2 — Assessment Evidence (designed before activities).

• Performance task — an authentic task requiring application/transfer, not recall. Include the scenario, what students produce, what it assesses, and brief success criteria.
• Other evidence — quizzes, exit tickets, hinge questions, observations — each mapped to a specific Stage 1 outcome.

Stage 3 — Learning Plan.

• Sequence activities that build toward the Stage 2 task. Use WHERETO as a lens: Where are we going & Why; Hook; Equip; Rethink/revise; Evaluate; Tailor; Organise for understanding.
• Build knowledge before application; scaffold before independence. Every activity should visibly connect to the assessment — if it doesn't, question whether it belongs.

Alignment check. Produce a table verifying every Stage 1 outcome is both assessed (Stage 2) and taught (Stage 3). Flag any outcome that's stated-but-not-assessed or assessed-but-not-taught.

Mode B — Course / term scope & sequence (multiple units)

1. Decompose the course into units, each with a one-line enduring understanding and its Know/Understand/Do.
2. Sequence by dependency — order units so prerequisites come first; name the prerequisite links explicitly.
3. Map a progression — show how a recurring skill or concept deepens across units (e.g. "explanation" → describe → explain → evaluate).
4. Schedule spaced retrieval — for each unit, plan when earlier units get revisited (expanding intervals: ~1–3 days, then 1–2 weeks, then 3–4 weeks later). Review = retrieval (low-stakes quiz, brain-dump, blank-diagram), not re-teaching.
5. Place assessments — formative checkpoints within units; summative tasks at natural consolidation points, each tracing back to that unit's outcomes.
6. Then apply Mode A to flesh out any single unit on request.

Core principles (apply throughout)

• Understanding > coverage. A unit that "covers" everything but builds no transferable understanding has failed.
• Assessment defines success — design it first.
• Specific, observable outcomes. If you can't tell whether a student met it, rewrite it.
• Alignment is non-negotiable. Outcomes ↔ assessment ↔ activities.
• Sequence for memory, not just logic — weave in spaced retrieval of prior content.

Output format

# Curriculum: [Title]
**For:** [level]  ·  **Subject:** [subject]  ·  **Duration:** [duration]  ·  **Framework:** [standards or "general"]
[Assumptions made, if any]

—— For a single unit (Mode A): ——
## Stage 1 — Desired Results
**Enduring understandings** · **Essential questions** · **Students will know** · **Students will be able to**
## Stage 2 — Assessment Evidence
**Performance task** · **Other evidence** (mapped to outcomes)
## Stage 3 — Learning Plan
[Lesson/phase sequence: what happens · what it builds toward · WHERETO element]
## Alignment Check
[Table: each Stage 1 outcome → assessed? → taught? → aligned?]

—— For a course (Mode B): ——
## Course Map
[Table: unit · enduring understanding · KUD · prerequisites · weeks]
## Skill/Concept Progression
[How a recurring skill deepens across units]
## Spaced Review Schedule
[When each prior unit is retrieved, at expanding intervals]
## Assessment Plan
[Formative checkpoints + summative tasks, each tied to outcomes]

Worked example (abridged, Mode A)

Request: "8-lesson Year 9 Biology unit on natural selection."

Enduring understanding: Students will understand that organisms with traits better suited to their environment survive and reproduce more, passing those traits on — so populations change over time. Essential question: "If the environment changes, what happens to organisms well-adapted to the old one?" (recurring; answers deepen across lessons) Performance task — "The Island": predict, using natural selection, how a beetle population shifts after ash covers a green island — must use all four conditions and rebut the "beetles choose to change" misconception. Stage 3: Hook (unusual adaptations) → Equip (types of adaptation; the 4 conditions) → Explore (variation practical; selection simulation) → Rethink (revisit essential question) → Evaluate (performance task) → feedback & transfer (antibiotic resistance). Alignment check: every understanding/skill mapped to an assessment and ≥1 lesson; no gaps.

Quality checklist (run before presenting)

• Enduring understandings are transferable ideas, not facts.
• Essential questions are genuinely open and recurring.
• Assessment was designed before activities, and the performance task requires transfer (not recall).
• Every outcome is both assessed and taught (alignment table has no gaps).
• Learning plan builds progressively toward the assessment.
• (Course mode) Units are dependency-ordered and spaced retrieval is scheduled.
• Outcomes are specific and observable; language fits the level.

Known limitations

• Produces curriculum structure, not full lesson plans (timing, scripts, differentiation). Chain into a lesson-design step for those.
• Output quality depends on input specificity — sharpen vague outcomes first.
• The performance task is context-specific; teachers should check it against their own assessment requirements and adapt the scenario while keeping the design principles.

Attribution

Frameworks and evidence base draw on the open Education Agent Skills library (CC BY-SA 4.0) and the primary sources it cites: Wiggins & McTighe (Understanding by Design); Biggs & Tang (constructive alignment); Hattie (Visible Learning); Cepeda et al. and Dunlosky et al. (distributed practice).