Curriculum Alignment Check
Triggering Contexts
- •User has completed (or partially completed) session designs
- •User feels the course is "drifting" or inconsistent
- •User wants to verify course quality before teaching
- •User asks "does this course make sense as a whole?"
Core Principle
Alignment = Every piece connects to the whole. If a topic doesn't serve an outcome, cut it. If an outcome has no assessment, add one. If a session has no purpose, redesign it.
Alignment Checks
Check 1: Outcome Coverage Matrix
Map every session to the outcomes it serves:
| Session | Out. 1 | Out. 2 | Out. 3 | Out. 4 | Out. 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | I | ||||
| S2 | P | I | |||
| S3 | P | P | I | ||
| S4 | P | P | I | ||
| S5 | A | P | P | I | |
| S6 | A | A | P | P | |
| S7 | A | A |
Legend: I = Introduce, P = Practice, A = Assess
Red flags:
- •❌ Outcome column is empty → Outcome never taught
- •❌ Outcome has I but no P → Introduced but never practiced
- •❌ Outcome has no A → Never assessed
- •❌ Session row is empty → Session serves no outcome (cut it)
- •⚠️ A appears before P → Assessing before students practiced
Check 2: Prerequisite Chain
Verify no session requires knowledge not yet taught:
code
Session 3 requires: [concept from S1] ✅, [concept from S2] ✅ Session 5 requires: [concept from S3] ✅, [concept from S7] ❌ NOT YET TAUGHT
Fix: Resequence sessions or move prerequisites earlier.
Check 3: Difficulty Progression
Plot the difficulty curve:
code
Difficulty ▲ │ ╱──╲ │ ╱──╱ ╲──╲ │ ╱──╱ ╲ │╱ └──────────────────────→ Sessions S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6
Red flags:
- •❌ Flat line → No progression, students get bored
- •❌ Spike → Session is too hard relative to neighbors
- •❌ Drop after spike → Inconsistent difficulty
- •✅ Gradual incline with occasional plateaus → Healthy
Check 4: Format Distribution
Count format types across all sessions:
| Format | Count | % of Total | Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lecture | 12 | 40% | ⚠️ Too high if > 40% |
| Workshop | 8 | 27% | ✅ Good |
| Discussion | 4 | 13% | ✅ OK |
| Project | 3 | 10% | ✅ Good |
| Assessment | 3 | 10% | ✅ Good |
Red flags:
- •⚠️ Lecture > 40% → Course is too passive
- •⚠️ Workshop < 20% → Not enough practice
- •⚠️ Assessment < 5% → Not enough feedback loops
Check 5: Persona Balance
For each persona, check their experience across the course:
markdown
### Beginner Persona: [Name] - Sessions where they might struggle: [list] - Sessions where they'll feel confident: [list] - Overall: ✅ Balanced / ⚠️ Too hard / ⚠️ Too easy ### Advanced Persona: [Name] - Sessions where they might be bored: [list] - Sessions where they'll be challenged: [list] - Overall: ✅ Balanced / ⚠️ Under-challenged / ⚠️ Frustrated
Check 6: Assessment Coverage
| Outcome | Assessment Type | Session | Format |
|---|---|---|---|
| Outcome 1 | Project | S5 | Individual |
| Outcome 2 | Quiz | S4 | Written |
| Outcome 3 | Presentation | S6 | Group |
| Outcome 4 | ❌ MISSING | — | — |
Every outcome must be assessed. No exceptions.
Check 7: Coherence Test
Answer these questions:
- •Can you explain the course in one sentence?
- •Does every session advance that sentence?
- •If you removed any session, would students miss a critical step?
- •Does the final session/assessment prove the one-sentence promise?
If any answer is "no," the curriculum needs adjustment.
Output: Alignment Report
markdown
# Alignment Report: [Course Name] ## Overall Score: [X/7 checks passed] ### ✅ Passed Checks - [List] ### ⚠️ Issues Found 1. [Issue]: [Description] → [Recommended fix] 2. [Issue]: [Description] → [Recommended fix] ### Action Items - [ ] [Specific fix with session/outcome reference] - [ ] [Specific fix]
When to Run This Check
- •✅ After completing all session designs (full review)
- •✅ After modifying any session (targeted review)
- •✅ Before teaching the course (final validation)
- •✅ After teaching, using student feedback (iterative improvement)
Cross-References
- •Issues with course structure → Back to
planning-courses - •Issues with specific sessions → Back to
designing-classes