11 skills.
Use when asked to design a curriculum structured around demonstrated mastery of defined competencies rather than seat time or fixed pacing, as distinct from [[curriculum-design]], whose general sequence-and-pacing model assumes a fixed calendar that this is a specific alternative structural approach to.
Use when asked to write the student- or parent-facing document describing a course — policies, grading scheme, unit schedule, expectations — as distinct from [[curriculum-design]], the internal instructional planning this document communicates outward rather than substitutes for.
Use when asked to design the overall sequence and structure of a course or training program — outcomes, unit sequence, assessment points, pacing — made up of individual [[lesson-plan]]s, as distinct from planning a single session.
Use when asked to audit curriculum across multiple courses or grade levels for standards coverage, gaps, redundancy, and vertical alignment, as distinct from [[curriculum-design]], which designs one course, and [[learning-standards-alignment]], which maps one curriculum to a standards document rather than comparing across curricula.
Use when asked to evaluate and choose textbooks, resources, or materials for a course or curriculum against learning objectives, cost, and accessibility, as distinct from [[classroom-technology-integration]], which is focused specifically on digital tools — one category within this broader selection process.
Use when asked to map lessons, units, or a curriculum to external learning standards (state standards, Common Core, NGSS) and document where each one is addressed, as distinct from [[curriculum-mapping]], which audits alignment and coverage gaps across multiple courses or grade levels rather than against a single external standards document.
Use when asked to evaluate, after implementation, whether a curriculum or educational program actually achieved its intended outcomes, as distinct from [[curriculum-design]], which designs the program beforehand, and [[training-needs-analysis]], which identifies a gap before any program exists.
Use when asked to build a scoring rubric — criteria and performance-level descriptors for grading student work consistently — as distinct from [[formative-assessment]] and [[summative-assessment]], which decide when and what to assess; a rubric is the scoring instrument used once that decision is already made.
Use when asked to design an end-of-unit or end-of-course assessment (test, final project, exam) that evaluates whether mastery was reached, as distinct from [[formative-assessment]], which is an ongoing, low-stakes check during instruction meant to inform teaching rather than assign a grade.
Use when asked to identify the actual gap between current and needed skills or knowledge before building training — root cause, target audience, success measure — so training solves a real, specific gap rather than being commissioned on a generic assumption; distinct from [[curriculum-design]], which designs the program once a genuine training need is confirmed.
Use when planning a sequence of related lessons that share a unit-level objective and build to a unit assessment — the layer between a single [[lesson-plan]] and the whole-course [[curriculum-design]] it belongs to.