teaching-design

name teaching-design description Comprehensive course and teaching design assistant. Supports backward design (Wiggins & McTighe), constructive alignment (Biggs), Bloom's taxonomy alignment, rubric generation, assessment design (formative/summative), syllabus drafting, lesson planning, inclusive pedagogy, and online/hybrid course architecture. Triggers on: course design, syllabus, learning outcomes, rubric, assessment design, lesson plan, backward design, constructive alignment, Bloom's taxonomy, curriculum mapping, course redesign, inclusive pedagogy, hybrid course, online course design. license MIT metadata {"skill-author":"AlterLab","version":"1.0.0","last_updated":"2026-03-18"} Teaching Design — Course & Curriculum Design Agent A comprehensive teaching design tool for faculty at all career stages. Covers the full course design lifecycle: from articulating learning outcomes through backward design, to constructing aligned assessments, building rubrics, drafting syllabi, and planning individual lessons. Supports face-to-face, online, and hybrid modalities with inclusive pedagogy principles throughout. Overview Teaching design is the systematic process of creating educational experiences that lead to measurable learning. This skill guides faculty through evidence-based frameworks for course design, helping transform disciplinary expertise into effective, equitable, and engaging learning experiences. The skill integrates three foundational frameworks: Backward Design (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005) — Start with desired results, then determine acceptable evidence, then plan learning experiences Constructive Alignment (Biggs & Tang, 2011) — Align intended learning outcomes, teaching/learning activities, and assessment tasks Bloom's Revised Taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001) — Classify cognitive complexity of learning outcomes across six levels When to Use This Skill This skill should be used when: Designing a new course from scratch Redesigning or revising an existing course Writing or refining learning outcomes and objectives Creating assessment instruments (exams, projects, portfolios) Building rubrics for grading consistency Drafting or updating a course syllabus Planning individual class sessions or lesson sequences Transitioning a face-to-face course to online or hybrid format Conducting curriculum mapping across a program Implementing inclusive and accessible pedagogy Preparing for course accreditation reviews Mentoring junior faculty on teaching practices Does NOT Trigger Scenario Use Instead Writing an academic paper alterlab-paper-writer Reviewing a research paper alterlab-paper-reviewer Statistical analysis of student data alterlab-data-science skills Creating presentation slides alterlab-pptx-builder Core Capabilities 1. Learning Outcome Design with Bloom's Taxonomy Learning outcomes are the foundation of all course design. Every outcome should be specific, measurable, and aligned to an appropriate cognitive level. Bloom's Revised Taxonomy — Six Cognitive Levels: Level Category Key Verbs Example Outcome 1 Remember Define, list, recall, identify, name List the five principles of effective survey design 2 Understand Explain, summarize, paraphrase, classify Explain the difference between formative and summative assessment 3 Apply Implement, use, execute, demonstrate Apply backward design to create a course module 4 Analyze Differentiate, organize, compare, deconstruct Analyze alignment between outcomes, activities, and assessments in a syllabus 5 Evaluate Judge, critique, justify, appraise Evaluate the validity of a rubric using inter-rater reliability data 6 Create Design, construct, produce, formulate Design an inclusive assessment strategy for a hybrid graduate seminar ABCD Framework for Writing Outcomes: A — Audience: Who is the learner? (e.g., "By the end of this course, students will...") B — Behavior: What will they do? (Use observable, measurable verbs) C — Condition: Under what conditions? (e.g., "Given a dataset...", "Without references...") D — Degree: To what standard? (e.g., "with 80% accuracy", "meeting APA 7 standards") Example — Well-Written vs. Poorly Written Outcomes: POOR: "Students will understand research ethics." (Problem: "understand" is not observable or measurable) BETTER: "Students will identify three ethical violations in a given research scenario and propose corrections consistent with the Belmont Report principles." (A: Students, B: identify and propose, C: given a scenario, D: consistent with Belmont) Outcome Mapping Template: ## Course: [Title] ## Program Learning Outcome Alignment | Course Learning Outcome | Bloom's Level | Program Outcome | Assessment Method | Week(s) | |------------------------|---------------|-----------------|-------------------|---------| | CLO1: [outcome text] | Apply (3) | PLO2 | Project Phase 1 | 4-6 | | CLO2: [outcome text] | Analyze (4) | PLO3 | Case Study Report | 8-10 | | CLO3: [outcome text] | Evaluate (5) | PLO5 | Peer Review | 12-14 | | CLO4: [outcome text] | Create (6) | PLO1, PLO4 | Final Portfolio | 15-16 | 2. Backward Design Process Backward design inverts the traditional approach of starting with content and ending with a test. Instead, it begins with the end in mind. Stage 1 — Identify Desired Results Ask: What should students know, understand, and be able to do? What enduring understandings should they retain years later? What essential questions will guide inquiry? ## Desired Results Template ### Established Goals - [Institutional/program goals this course addresses] ### Enduring Understandings Students will understand that... 1. [Big idea that transcends the course] 2. [Transferable principle] ### Essential Questions 1. [Open-ended question that provokes deep thinking] 2. [Question that recurs throughout the course] ### Knowledge and Skills Students will know... Students will be able to... - [Key facts/concepts] - [Key skills/processes] - [Vocabulary/definitions] - [Procedures/techniques] Stage 2 — Determine Acceptable Evidence Ask: How will I know students have achieved the outcomes? What performances or products will demonstrate understanding? What criteria distinguish levels of quality? ## Evidence Plan | Learning Outcome | Assessment Type | Format | Weight | Timing | |-----------------|-----------------|--------|--------|--------| | CLO1 | Summative | Research proposal | 25% | Week 8 | | CLO2 | Formative | Weekly reflections | 10% | Ongoing | | CLO3 | Summative | Peer review exercise | 20% | Week 12 | | CLO4 | Summative | Final portfolio | 35% | Week 16 | | CLO1-4 | Formative | In-class activities | 10% | Ongoing | Stage 3 — Plan Learning Experiences (WHERETO) W — Where is the course headed? Help students see the big picture. H — Hook students early. Engage curiosity with a provocative question or problem. E — Equip students with knowledge, skills, and tools. R — Rethink. Provide opportunities to revise and reflect. E — Evaluate. Let students self-assess and get feedback. T — Tailor. Differentiate for diverse learners. O — Organize. Sequence for maximum coherence and engagement. 3. Constructive Alignment Constructive alignment (Biggs & Tang, 2011) ensures that what you teach, how you teach it, and how you assess it are all pointing in the same direction. Alignment Audit Template: ## Alignment Check | Learning Outcome | Teaching/Learning Activity | Assessment Task | Aligned? | |-----------------|---------------------------|-----------------|----------| | CLO1: Analyze... | Case study discussions, worked examples | Case analysis report | Yes | | CLO2: Create... | Lectures only | Multiple-choice exam | NO — misaligned | Common Misalignment Patterns: Problem Symptom Fix Outcome says "create" but assessment is MCQ Students memorize instead of producing Replace with project-based assessment Activities are passive but outcome requires application Students cannot transfer to new contexts Add active learning: problem sets, simulations High-level outcomes but only low-level activities Students plateau at remember/understand Scaffold activities up Bloom's levels progressively Assessment tests content not in outcomes Students feel blindsided; grade disputes Map every assessment item to a specific CLO 4. Assessment Design Formative Assessment (Assessment FOR Learning) Purpose: Monitor learning in progress, provide feedback, adjust teaching. Techniques by Class Size: Technique Small (<30) Medium (30-100) Large (100+) Digital? Muddiest Point Write on cards Poll Everywhere LMS poll Yes Think-Pair-Share Verbal With microphone With clickers Optional Concept Maps Paper, share in groups Digital (Miro) LMS submission Yes One-Minute Paper End of class End of class LMS auto-collect Yes Exit Tickets Paper slips Google Form LMS quiz Yes Peer Instruction Clickers + discussion Clickers + discussion Clickers + discussion Yes Draft Submissions Written feedback Rubric + comments Peer review + spot-check Yes Summative Assessment (Assessment OF Learning) Purpose: Evaluate achievement at the end of a learning period. Assessment Type Selection Guide: Does the outcome require PRODUCTION of an artifact? ├── Yes → Project, portfolio, paper, presentation, design │ Does it require COLLABORATION? │ ├── Yes → Group project with individual accountability │ └── No → Individual project with milestones └── No → Does the outcome require PERFORMANCE in real-time? ├── Yes → Oral exam, demonstration, simulation, practicum └── No → Does it require ANALYSIS or JUDGMENT? ├── Yes → Case study, essay, critique, problem set └── No → Selected-response (MCQ, matching, T/F) Use ONLY for Remember/Understand outcomes Exam Blueprint Template: ## Exam Blueprint: [Course] Midterm | Topic | Weight | CLO | Bloom's Level | # Items | Item Type | |-------|--------|-----|---------------|---------|-----------| | Topic A | 25% | CLO1 | Remember (1) | 10 | MCQ | | Topic B | 30% | CLO2 | Apply (3) | 3 | Short answer | | Topic C | 25% | CLO3 | Analyze (4) | 2 | Case analysis | | Topic D | 20% | CLO4 | Evaluate (5) | 1 | Essay | | **Total** | **100%** | | | **16** | | 5. Rubric Design Rubrics communicate expectations and ensure grading consistency. Analytic Rubric Template: ## Rubric: [Assignment Name] | Criterion (Weight) | Exemplary (4) | Proficient (3) | Developing (2) | Beginning (1) | |--------------------|---------------|-----------------|-----------------|----------------| | Thesis/Argument (30%) | Original, nuanced argument with clear position; anticipates counterarguments | Clear argument with identifiable position; acknowledges alternatives | Argument present but vague or inconsistent; limited engagement with alternatives | No clear argument; position unclear or absent | | Evidence Use (25%) | Integrates 5+ scholarly sources; evidence directly supports claims; synthesizes across sources | Uses 3-4 scholarly sources; evidence supports most claims | Uses 1-2 sources or relies on non-scholarly sources; evidence loosely connected | No evidence or evidence does not support claims | | Analysis (25%) | Deep analysis connecting evidence to argument; identifies implications and limitations | Adequate analysis; connects evidence to argument | Surface-level analysis; describes rather than analyzes | No analysis; summary only | | Writing Quality (20%) | Clear, precise, professional prose; no errors; appropriate disciplinary register | Generally clear writing; minor errors; appropriate tone | Unclear in places; multiple errors; inconsistent tone | Difficult to follow; pervasive errors | Holistic Rubric Template (for quick grading): | Score | Description | |-------|-------------| | A (90-100) | Exceeds expectations. Demonstrates mastery of all learning outcomes. Work is original, well-supported, and professionally presented. | | B (80-89) | Meets expectations. Demonstrates competence across all outcomes. Work is solid with minor areas for improvement. | | C (70-79) | Approaches expectations. Demonstrates partial competence. Significant areas need development. | | D (60-69) | Below expectations. Demonstrates limited competence. Major revisions needed. | | F (<60) | Does not meet expectations. Fails to demonstrate competence in core outcomes. | Single-Point Rubric (for feedback-rich contexts): | Areas for Growth | Criterion | Evidence of Excellence | |-----------------|-----------|----------------------| | [Specific feedback] | **Clear research question** — The paper articulates a focused, researchable question appropriate to the discipline | [Specific feedback] | | [Specific feedback] | **Methodological rigor** — Methods are appropriate, clearly described, and reproducible | [Specific feedback] | | [Specific feedback] | **Critical analysis** — Findings are interpreted with nuance, connected to literature, and limitations acknowledged | [Specific feedback] | 6. Syllabus Design A syllabus serves as a learning contract, a course map, and a motivational document. Essential Syllabus Components: ## [Course Code]: [Course Title]