Skip to content

curriculum-design-peer-review

Directory actions

More options

Directory actions

More options

Latest commit

 

History

History

curriculum-design-peer-review

README.md

Curriculum Design Peer Review Workspace

A Claude agent workspace for designing, aligning, and iteratively improving educational curricula through structured peer review workflows. Built on evidence-based instructional design principles including backward design, Bloom's Revised Taxonomy, and Webb's Depth of Knowledge.

Why This Workspace Exists

Curriculum design is often done in isolation — a single instructor or designer drafts objectives, builds assessments, and creates activities without structured feedback loops. Research consistently shows that peer review improves alignment, reduces blind spots, and produces more rigorous learning experiences. This workspace operationalizes that research by embedding peer review directly into the curriculum design workflow.

The agent acts as both a design collaborator and a peer review facilitator, helping educators move from vague goals to measurable, standards-aligned learning objectives with matched assessments and activities.

Getting Started

  1. Clone this workspace into your Claude agent environment
  2. Run /onboard to configure your teaching context, subject area, learner demographics, and institutional standards
  3. Start designing with /design-unit or bring existing curriculum materials for review with /peer-review

Prerequisites

  • A clear sense of your subject area and learner audience
  • Any institutional standards or frameworks you need to align with (Common Core, NGSS, ISTE, AP, IB, etc.)
  • Existing curriculum documents (optional — you can start from scratch)

Command Reference

Command Purpose Input Output
/onboard Initialize workspace context Interactive interview Populated context files
/design-unit Create a new curriculum unit Topic, duration, learner level Unit plan with objectives, assessments, activities
/peer-review Run peer review on materials Curriculum document or unit plan Structured feedback with revision recommendations
/align-standards Map objectives to frameworks Learning objectives list Standards alignment matrix
/rubric-gen Generate assessment rubrics Learning objectives + assessment type Analytic or holistic rubric

Directory Structure

curriculum-design-peer-review/
├── CLAUDE.md                    # Agent identity and command index
├── README.md                    # This file
├── CREATION_REPORT.md           # Build rationale and domain notes
├── context/
│   ├── project.md               # Course/program details (via /onboard)
│   ├── role.md                  # Your role and institution (via /onboard)
│   ├── constraints.md           # Design boundaries and preferences
│   └── for-agent/
│       ├── domain-knowledge.md  # Instructional design frameworks
│       ├── workflows.md         # Peer review and design workflows
│       ├── environment.md       # Toolchain and platform details
│       └── tools.md             # Recommended integrations
├── .claude/commands/            # Slash commands
│   ├── onboard.md
│   ├── design-unit.md
│   ├── peer-review.md
│   ├── align-standards.md
│   └── rubric-gen.md
├── prompts/                     # Reusable prompt templates
│   ├── bloom-objective-writer.md
│   ├── constructive-feedback.md
│   └── backward-design-planner.md
├── resources/
│   ├── blooms-taxonomy-verbs.md
│   ├── webbs-dok-guide.md
│   └── peer-review-checklist.md
├── planning/                    # Active design plans
├── outputs/                     # Generated curriculum artifacts
├── user-docs/                   # Reference documentation
├── work-log/                    # Session tracking
└── .gitkeep files               # Preserve empty directories

Core Design Frameworks

Backward Design (Wiggins & McTighe)

The workspace follows the Understanding by Design (UbD) framework:

  1. Identify desired results — What should learners know and be able to do?
  2. Determine acceptable evidence — How will we know they learned it?
  3. Plan learning experiences — What activities will get them there?

Bloom's Revised Taxonomy

All learning objectives are drafted using measurable verbs from Bloom's cognitive process dimensions: Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyze, Evaluate, Create.

Peer Review Workflow

The structured peer review process follows four phases:

  1. Submission — Designer submits unit plan or objectives
  2. Criteria-based review — Reviewer evaluates against alignment checklist
  3. Feedback synthesis — Actionable recommendations with evidence
  4. Revision cycle — Designer iterates based on feedback

Example Use Cases

  • K-12 teacher building a new unit on climate science aligned to NGSS
  • University instructor redesigning a course for active learning
  • Corporate L&D designer creating competency-based training modules
  • Curriculum committee reviewing and standardizing department-wide objectives
  • Instructional designer ensuring QM (Quality Matters) rubric compliance for online courses

Recommended MCP Servers / Tools

  • Filesystem MCP — Read/write curriculum documents locally
  • Google Docs MCP — Collaborate on shared curriculum drafts
  • Notion MCP — Track curriculum mapping in database views
  • Git MCP — Version control curriculum iterations

Ethical Considerations

  • Learning objectives should be inclusive and avoid cultural bias
  • Peer review must be constructive, never punitive
  • Assessment design should accommodate diverse learner needs (UDL principles)
  • AI-assisted curriculum design should be transparent to stakeholders
  • This workspace supports human designers — it does not replace professional judgment

License

This workspace template is open source. Curriculum content you create with it belongs to you.