agentic-team-templates 0.14.0 → 0.16.0

package/templates/educator/.cursorrules/assessment.md

@@ -0,0 +1,215 @@
+# Assessment Design
+
+Evidence-based approaches to measuring learning and guiding instruction.
+
+## Assessment Types
+
+### Formative vs. Summative
+
+| Aspect | Formative | Summative |
+|--------|-----------|-----------|
+| Purpose | Guide instruction, identify gaps | Evaluate achievement |
+| Timing | During learning | After learning |
+| Stakes | Low (practice, not grading) | Higher (grading, certification) |
+| Frequency | Continuous (every 10-15 min) | Periodic (end of unit/course) |
+| Feedback | Immediate, specific, actionable | Evaluative, comparative |
+| Analogy | GPS during the journey | Final destination photo |
+
+### Formative Assessment Techniques
+
+| Technique | Time | Description |
+|-----------|------|-------------|
+| Exit tickets | 2-3 min | Brief written response to a prompt at end of lesson |
+| Think-pair-share | 3-5 min | Individual think → partner discuss → share with class |
+| Muddiest point | 1-2 min | "What was most confusing today?" |
+| One-minute paper | 1-2 min | "Summarize the most important idea from today" |
+| Polling/clickers | 1 min | Real-time multiple choice with immediate data |
+| Whiteboards | 2-3 min | All students display answers simultaneously |
+| Fist-to-five | 30 sec | Self-assess confidence (0=lost, 5=mastered) |
+| Misconception check | 2-3 min | Present common error; ask if correct and why |
+
+### Summative Assessment Types
+
+| Type | Best For | Bloom's Level |
+|------|----------|---------------|
+| Multiple choice | Recall, comprehension, discrimination | Remember–Analyze |
+| Short answer | Recall, explanation, application | Remember–Apply |
+| Essay | Analysis, evaluation, synthesis | Analyze–Create |
+| Problem sets | Application, analysis | Apply–Analyze |
+| Projects | Synthesis, creation, real-world transfer | Apply–Create |
+| Portfolios | Growth over time, reflection, metacognition | All levels |
+| Performances | Demonstration of skills in context | Apply–Create |
+| Oral exams | Depth of understanding, reasoning process | Understand–Evaluate |
+
+## Rubric Design
+
+### Analytic vs. Holistic Rubrics
+
+```markdown
+Analytic Rubric: Scores each criterion separately
+  → Use when: Detailed feedback needed, skills are independent
+  → Example: Writing rubric (thesis, evidence, organization, grammar scored separately)
+
+Holistic Rubric: Single overall score based on general impression
+  → Use when: Quick scoring needed, overall quality matters more than components
+  → Example: Art portfolio (overall artistic merit)
+```
+
+### Analytic Rubric Template
+
+```markdown
+| Criterion | Exemplary (4) | Proficient (3) | Developing (2) | Beginning (1) |
+|-----------|---------------|-----------------|-----------------|----------------|
+| [Criterion 1] | [Description of exemplary performance] | [Description of proficient performance] | [Description of developing performance] | [Description of beginning performance] |
+| [Criterion 2] | [Description] | [Description] | [Description] | [Description] |
+| [Criterion 3] | [Description] | [Description] | [Description] | [Description] |
+```
+
+### Rubric Best Practices
+
+1. **Share rubrics before the assessment** — students should know the target
+2. **Use descriptive language, not evaluative** — describe what the work looks like at each level
+3. **Include examples** — anchor each level with sample work
+4. **Limit criteria to 3-6** — more than 6 creates cognitive overload for assessors
+5. **Use consistent scale** — same number of levels across criteria
+6. **Involve learners** — co-create rubrics when appropriate
+
+### Writing Rubric Descriptors
+
+```markdown
+❌ Vague: "Good use of evidence"
+✅ Specific: "Integrates 3+ relevant sources with proper citations,
+    using evidence to directly support each claim in the argument"
+
+❌ Comparative: "Better than average analysis"
+✅ Absolute: "Identifies the underlying assumptions in the argument
+    and evaluates their validity using logical reasoning"
+```
+
+## Mastery-Based Progression
+
+### Principle
+
+Learners advance when they demonstrate mastery of objectives, not when a calendar date arrives.
+
+### Mastery Learning Model (Bloom)
+
+```
+Instruction → Formative Assessment → Mastery?
+                                        │
+                              ┌─────────┴──────────┐
+                              ▼                     ▼
+                          Yes: Advance          No: Corrective
+                          to next unit          instruction →
+                                                Re-assess →
+                                                Loop until mastery
+```
+
+### Mastery Criteria
+
+```markdown
+Define mastery BEFORE instruction:
+- Criterion-referenced (not norm-referenced)
+- Typically 80-90% accuracy on core objectives
+- Must demonstrate on novel problems (not repeated items)
+- Allow multiple attempts (learning from errors is the point)
+```
+
+### Mastery Gradebook
+
+| Objective | Attempt 1 | Attempt 2 | Attempt 3 | Status |
+|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|--------|
+| Identify logical fallacies | 60% | 75% | 90% | Mastered |
+| Construct valid arguments | 70% | 85% | — | Mastered |
+| Evaluate source credibility | 55% | 65% | 70% | In Progress |
+
+## Authentic Assessment
+
+### Principle
+
+Assessments should mirror real-world tasks that professionals or citizens actually perform.
+
+### Authentic vs. Traditional
+
+| Traditional | Authentic |
+|-------------|-----------|
+| Select a response | Construct a response |
+| Contrived context | Real-world context |
+| Recall/recognition | Application/transfer |
+| Teacher as sole audience | Authentic audience |
+| Single correct answer | Multiple valid approaches |
+| One-time event | Ongoing process |
+
+### Authentic Assessment Examples
+
+| Subject | Traditional | Authentic |
+|---------|-------------|-----------|
+| Science | Multiple choice on lab procedures | Design and conduct an experiment |
+| Writing | Grammar worksheet | Write a letter to the editor about a local issue |
+| Math | Solve textbook problems | Create a budget for a community event |
+| History | Memorize dates and events | Analyze primary sources to argue a historical thesis |
+| Programming | Syntax quiz | Build a working application that solves a user need |
+
+## Writing Effective Test Items
+
+### Multiple Choice Best Practices
+
+```markdown
+✅ Good Item:
+  Stem: "Which of the following best explains why spaced practice
+         improves long-term retention?"
+  A) It reduces the total amount of study time needed
+  B) It forces repeated retrieval from long-term memory  ← correct
+  C) It allows students to re-read material more times
+  D) It groups similar topics for efficient review
+
+✅ Why it's good:
+  - Stem is a complete question
+  - All options are plausible
+  - No "all of the above" or "none of the above"
+  - Tests understanding, not just recall
+  - Options are parallel in structure and length
+```
+
+### Common Item-Writing Errors
+
+| Error | Example | Fix |
+|-------|---------|-----|
+| Stem clue | "An unbiased sample is one that is NOT..." | Rephrase positively |
+| Longest correct answer | Correct option has 3x the detail of distractors | Equalize length |
+| Absolute terms | "always," "never" in distractors | Use qualified language |
+| "All of the above" | Guessing 2 correct implies all correct | Remove; use select-all |
+| Trivial content | "What year was X published?" | Test concepts, not trivia |
+| Grammatical cue | "An ___" eliminates options starting with consonants | Check grammar |
+
+## Feedback Design
+
+### Effective Feedback Principles
+
+1. **Timely** — as close to the performance as possible
+2. **Specific** — points to exact elements, not just "good job"
+3. **Actionable** — tells the learner what to do next
+4. **Focused** — 2-3 points maximum per feedback instance
+5. **Growth-oriented** — focuses on the work, not the person
+
+### Feedback Framework
+
+```markdown
+1. What was done well (specific): "Your thesis statement clearly
+   states a debatable claim supported by your three main arguments."
+
+2. What needs improvement (specific): "The second body paragraph
+   presents evidence but doesn't explain how it supports your thesis."
+
+3. Next step (actionable): "Add 2-3 sentences after each piece of
+   evidence explaining the connection to your central argument."
+```
+
+### Feedback Timing
+
+| When | Type | Purpose |
+|------|------|---------|
+| Immediate | Correct/incorrect with explanation | Factual knowledge, procedures |
+| Delayed (hours) | Detailed written feedback | Complex tasks, essays, projects |
+| Self-paced | Model answers for self-comparison | Building self-assessment skills |
+| Peer | Structured peer review with rubric | Developing evaluative judgment |

package/templates/educator/.cursorrules/curriculum.md

@@ -0,0 +1,286 @@
+# Curriculum Design
+
+Frameworks for designing coherent, well-sequenced curricula that build deep understanding over time.
+
+## Curriculum Mapping
+
+### Scope and Sequence
+
+```
+Scope: WHAT content and skills are taught
+Sequence: WHEN and in WHAT ORDER they are taught
+
+Together: A complete map of the learning journey
+```
+
+### Curriculum Map Template
+
+```markdown
+| Unit | Duration | Standards | Essential Questions | Key Knowledge | Key Skills | Assessment |
+|------|----------|-----------|--------------------| --------------|------------|------------|
+| Unit 1 | 3 weeks | [Standard IDs] | "Why does X matter?" | [Concepts] | [Skills] | [Assessment type] |
+| Unit 2 | 2 weeks | [Standard IDs] | "How does Y work?" | [Concepts] | [Skills] | [Assessment type] |
+| Unit 3 | 4 weeks | [Standard IDs] | "What if Z changed?" | [Concepts] | [Skills] | [Assessment type] |
+```
+
+### Vertical Alignment
+
+```
+Grade/Level N-1: Foundational concepts (prerequisites)
+    ↓
+Grade/Level N: Current course (builds on N-1)
+    ↓
+Grade/Level N+1: Next course (builds on N)
+
+Each level should:
+- Know what came before (don't re-teach from scratch)
+- Know what comes after (prepare learners for the next stage)
+- Explicitly build on prior knowledge and skills
+```
+
+## Spiral Curriculum (Bruner)
+
+### Principle
+
+Revisit key concepts at increasing levels of complexity throughout the curriculum.
+
+```
+Complexity
+    ▲
+    │           ╭─── Topic A (advanced application)
+    │      ╭────╯
+    │ ╭────╯        ╭─── Topic A (analysis & evaluation)
+    │ │         ╭───╯
+    │ │    ╭────╯        ╭─── Topic A (application)
+    │ │    │        ╭────╯
+    │ │    │   ╭────╯        ╭─── Topic A (introduction)
+    │ │    │   │        ╭────╯
+    ├─┴────┴───┴────────┴──────────────────►
+    0   Unit 1  Unit 3   Unit 6   Unit 10     Time
+```
+
+### Spiral Design Principles
+
+1. **Each revisit adds depth** — not just repetition, but new complexity
+2. **Prior knowledge is activated** — explicitly connect to previous encounters
+3. **Spacing is built in** — revisits are naturally spaced over time
+4. **Multiple representations** — each revisit offers a different angle
+5. **Assessment reflects growth** — later assessments expect higher Bloom's levels
+
+### Spiral Curriculum Example
+
+```markdown
+Topic: Statistical Reasoning
+
+Unit 2 (Remember/Understand):
+  → Define mean, median, mode
+  → Calculate measures of central tendency from a dataset
+
+Unit 5 (Apply):
+  → Choose the appropriate measure for different data distributions
+  → Identify when mean is misleading (skewed data)
+
+Unit 8 (Analyze):
+  → Compare distributions using statistical measures
+  → Analyze how sample size affects reliability
+
+Unit 12 (Evaluate/Create):
+  → Critique statistical claims in media reports
+  → Design a study with appropriate statistical methods
+```
+
+## Prerequisite Mapping
+
+### Dependency Graphs
+
+```
+                    [Advanced Topic D]
+                     ↑            ↑
+              [Topic B]      [Topic C]
+                 ↑    ↑        ↑
+          [Topic A]   [Topic A] [Topic A]
+              ↑
+      [Prerequisite Knowledge]
+```
+
+### Creating Prerequisite Maps
+
+```markdown
+For each learning objective, ask:
+1. What must the learner already KNOW to access this?
+2. What must the learner already be able to DO?
+3. What MISCONCEPTIONS might interfere?
+
+Then:
+1. Order objectives so prerequisites come first
+2. Verify prerequisite skills with diagnostic assessment
+3. Provide remediation paths for missing prerequisites
+4. Make dependencies explicit to learners
+```
+
+### Prerequisite Verification
+
+| Method | When | Purpose |
+|--------|------|---------|
+| Diagnostic pre-test | Start of unit/course | Identify missing prerequisites |
+| Knowledge check | Start of each lesson | Verify yesterday's learning |
+| Skills inventory | Start of course | Map individual readiness |
+| Concept inventory | Start of unit | Identify misconceptions |
+
+## Sequencing Principles
+
+### Ordering Strategies
+
+| Strategy | Description | When to Use |
+|----------|-------------|-------------|
+| Simple → Complex | Start with basic concepts, build toward complex ones | Skill-building, mathematics |
+| Concrete → Abstract | Start with tangible examples, move to general principles | Conceptual understanding |
+| Known → Unknown | Start with familiar context, extend to new territory | Connecting to prior knowledge |
+| Chronological | Follow the historical or process timeline | History, procedures, narratives |
+| Whole → Part → Whole | Overview first, then details, then synthesis | Systems thinking, complex topics |
+| Problem-centered | Start with a problem, learn what's needed to solve it | Professional training, PBL |
+
+### Chunking and Pacing
+
+```markdown
+Guidelines:
+- 3-5 new concepts per session maximum (cognitive load)
+- 15-20 minutes of new input before active processing
+- Each chunk builds on the previous one
+- Provide "landing points" where learners consolidate
+
+Pacing Signals to Watch:
+- Formative check shows < 60% comprehension → slow down, re-teach
+- Formative check shows > 90% comprehension → accelerate or extend
+- Mixed results → differentiate (some need support, some need extension)
+```
+
+## Continuous Improvement
+
+### Data-Driven Curriculum Revision
+
+```
+Teach → Assess → Analyze → Adjust → Re-teach
+  ↑                                      │
+  └──────────────────────────────────────┘
+```
+
+### Curriculum Review Cycle
+
+| Frequency | Activity | Data Source |
+|-----------|----------|-------------|
+| Daily | Adjust lesson pacing | Formative assessment results |
+| Weekly | Identify struggling objectives | Quiz/exit ticket analysis |
+| Per Unit | Evaluate unit effectiveness | Summative assessment data |
+| Semester | Review scope and sequence | Cumulative performance data |
+| Annually | Major curriculum revision | Year-end data + student/teacher feedback |
+
+### Questions for Curriculum Evaluation
+
+```markdown
+Effectiveness:
+- Are learners meeting stated objectives? (assessment data)
+- Which objectives have the lowest mastery rates? (identify gaps)
+- Are there persistent misconceptions? (error analysis)
+
+Alignment:
+- Does each assessment measure its stated objective? (backward design check)
+- Does each activity build toward an assessed objective? (activity audit)
+- Are objectives appropriately sequenced? (prerequisite check)
+
+Engagement:
+- Where do learners disengage? (attendance, participation data)
+- Which activities produce the deepest engagement? (observation, surveys)
+- Are learners finding relevance? (student feedback)
+
+Equity:
+- Are achievement gaps present across groups? (disaggregated data)
+- Are materials and examples inclusive? (content audit)
+- Are all learners accessing support? (intervention data)
+```
+
+### Curriculum Documentation
+
+```markdown
+# Course: [Name]
+
+## Course-Level Outcomes
+By the end of this course, learners will be able to:
+1. [Outcome aligned to program goals]
+2. [Outcome aligned to program goals]
+3. [Outcome aligned to program goals]
+
+## Unit Map
+
+### Unit 1: [Title] (Weeks 1-3)
+- Objectives: [List]
+- Prerequisites: [List or "None"]
+- Key Vocabulary: [List]
+- Assessments: Formative: [List], Summative: [Description]
+- Spiral Connections: "Revisited in Unit 5 at Analyze level"
+
+### Unit 2: [Title] (Weeks 4-5)
+- Objectives: [List]
+- Prerequisites: [Unit 1 objectives X and Y]
+- ...
+
+## Assessment Calendar
+| Week | Formative | Summative |
+|------|-----------|-----------|
+| 1 | Daily exit tickets | — |
+| 2 | Quiz 1 (Units 1a-1b) | — |
+| 3 | Peer review | Unit 1 Project |
+| ... | ... | ... |
+
+## Revision Log
+| Date | Change | Rationale | Evidence |
+|------|--------|-----------|----------|
+| [Date] | Moved Topic X before Topic Y | Students lacked prerequisite skills | Unit 2 pre-test data: 40% below threshold |
+| [Date] | Added scaffolding to Unit 3 | High failure rate on summative | 35% of students scored below proficiency |
+```
+
+## Common Curriculum Pitfalls
+
+### 1. Coverage Over Depth
+
+```markdown
+❌ "We need to cover 15 chapters this semester"
+✅ "We need students to deeply understand 8 essential concepts"
+
+Research (Schwartz et al.): Depth produces better transfer than breadth.
+```
+
+### 2. Activity-Driven Planning
+
+```markdown
+❌ "I found a great activity—let me build a lesson around it"
+✅ "What's the objective? What assessment shows mastery? Now, what activity supports that?"
+
+Activities serve objectives, not the other way around.
+```
+
+### 3. Teaching Topics Instead of Skills
+
+```markdown
+❌ "Week 4: World War II" (topic, not learning)
+✅ "Week 4: Analyze how economic factors contributed to the rise of
+    authoritarian regimes in the 1930s" (skill + content)
+```
+
+### 4. Ignoring Prerequisite Gaps
+
+```markdown
+❌ Start unit → students fail → blame students
+✅ Start unit → diagnostic pre-test → address gaps → proceed
+
+You cannot build on a foundation that doesn't exist.
+```
+
+### 5. No Revision Process
+
+```markdown
+❌ Same curriculum year after year without data review
+✅ Annual review cycle with student data driving changes
+
+"The curriculum is a living document, not a monument."
+```