Use Pedagogical Assessment Prover with your AI.

Validate pedagogical assessment

You must: (1) state learning OBJECTIVES using observable Bloom's verbs at the correct cognitive level. "understand" is not observable, "evaluate" is. Verb + content + condition, (2) design ASSESSMENT tasks that match the objective's cognitive demand. if the objective says "analyze," the assessment must require analysis, not recall, (3) provide explicit RUBRIC criteria. observable, measurable, distinct performance levels, shared with learners BEFORE assessment. If students do not know how they will be graded, they cannot target their learning, (4) design SCAFFOLDING. diagnose prior knowledge, identify prerequisites, graduated release (I do → We do → You do), multiple representations per UDL, (5) plan FEEDBACK per Hattie: Feed Up + Feed Back + Feed Forward. Task-specific, process-oriented, forward-looking. Not praise, not criticism, (6) AUDIT for bias. cultural, linguistic, accessibility. Not "it is fair". a structured analysis with specific mitigations. If rejected, the pedagogical design has a structural deficiency. Fix before implementing. Structured reflection capability for pedagogical reasoning and assessment design. forces Bloom's taxonomy alignment, explicit rubric construction, scaffolded instruction design, Hattie-model feedback planning, and systematic bias auditing before any educational assessment, lesson plan, or instructional intervention ships. Grounded in Bloom's Revised Taxonomy, Vygotsky's ZPD, Hattie & Timperley (2007), and Universal Design for Learning (UDL). Catches Taxonomy Misalignment (objective says one cognitive level, assessment tests another. objective: "Students will EVALUATE competing hypotheses about climate change." Evaluate = Bloom's Level 5 (highest analytical level). Assessment: a 40-question multiple-choice test asking "Which gas is the primary greenhouse gas?" This tests REMEMBER (Level 1), not EVALUATE (Level 5). The students who can recall facts but cannot construct an evidence-based argument score 95%. The students who can evaluate but struggle with recall score 60%. The assessment measures the wrong skill. it is structurally invalid. If the objective says "evaluate," the assessment must require students to compare, weigh evidence, and defend a position. not select from predetermined answers), Rubric Absent (grading without shared, explicit criteria. "I'll know good work when I see it" is not assessment. it is subjectivity. Two teachers grade the same essay. Teacher A: 82%. Teacher B: 67%. Neither is wrong. they simply weighted different things. A rubric with explicit dimensions (thesis clarity, evidence use, counter-argument, writing mechanics), observable indicators at each level (exemplary: "thesis makes a debatable claim supported by 3+ sources" vs. developing: "thesis restates the prompt"), and shared with students BEFORE the assignment. that produces inter-rater reliability > 0.85 and student performance gains of d = 0.70 (Hattie). Without it, grades measure the teacher, not the student), Scaffolding Gap (teaching at the target level without bridging from prior knowledge. Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development: learning happens between what a student can do alone and what they can do with guidance. Teaching ABOVE the ZPD produces frustration. Teaching BELOW produces boredom. A physics teacher assigns orbital mechanics problems to students who have not yet mastered vector addition. 40% of students fail. not because they cannot learn orbital mechanics, but because they are missing the prerequisite. Graduated release: I do (model) → We do (guided) → You do (independent). Multiple representations: diagram + equation + verbal explanation + simulation), Feedback Vacuum (empty praise or criticism instead of actionable guidance. "Good job!" has an effect size of d = 0.09. nearly zero impact on learning. "Your thesis identifies the claim but lacks the counter-argument required by the rubric. Review the opposing evidence in Source 3 and add a paragraph addressing it". that is task-specific, process-oriented, forward-looking feedback (d = 0.70). Hattie & Timperley (2007): Feed Up (where am I going?), Feed Back (how am I doing?), Feed Forward (where to next?). "Needs improvement" answers none of these questions), and Bias Blind (assessment that systematically disadvantages specific learner groups. a science assessment uses a baseball scenario to test physics (trajectory, velocity). Students familiar with baseball (predominantly US, male, middle-class) outperform students unfamiliar with the sport. not because of physics knowledge, but because of cultural context familiarity. The assessment measures cultural exposure, not scientific understanding. Bias audit: cultural relevance, linguistic accessibility for ELL, UDL compliance, and accessibility for students with disabilities). Call once per assessment, lesson plan, or educational intervention design