Sequence projects across years and subjects

Where the evidence comes from

• Gold Standard: Teaching Practices | PBLWorks
• Implementation and process evaluation (IPE) for interventions ineducation settings: An introductory handbook

Moderate for curriculum coherence; AI benefit unvalidated.

1. Bound the progression link

   Choose two projects across two years and subjects. Bring standards, project plans and timetable extracts. Optional curriculum maps and reusable project packs can supply these; equivalent teacher documents work. Remove learner data before using AI.

   Prompt 1 · Inventory Copy

   CONTEXT
   Scope and teacher-checked source extracts with IDs, versions, exact standards, concepts, practices, assessment requirements and timetable constraints: [sources].
   Private human checks summarised without learner data, including readiness evidence limits: [checks].
   REQUEST
   Inventory this single progression link and flag repetition, gaps and conflicting requirements for teacher review.
   QUALITY BAR
   Use only supplied text. Never infer mastery from exposure or equate standards or subjects. Keep readiness judgements attributed to teachers. Missing or stale standards, readiness checks or timetable constraints mean HOLD; do not draft a sequence. Do not grade or request individual evidence.
   FORMAT
   Table: Item ID | Year and subject | Source ID and version | Exact evidence | Gap or repetition | Status.
   End with Human checks needed. Use HOLD or Supplied only for Status.

2. Compare bounded options

   Open the originals and validate the inventory with both subject teachers. Record corrections and prerequisite judgements. A prerequisite is knowledge needed before the next task. If checks remain unresolved, stop this link rather than guessing.

   Prompt 2 · Options Copy

   CONTEXT
   Exact approved inventory: [inventory].
   Versioned teacher corrections and checks against original standards, subject concepts, readiness and timetable: [decisions].
   REQUEST
   Propose two options for this link, preserving the distinct requirements of each subject. Identify what repeats intentionally and what changes in independence or complexity.
   QUALITY BAR
   Apply only explicit teacher edits. Preserve source IDs and evidence limits. Transfer means applying learning in a different context, not automatic competence. Do not select an option, remove required content or invent capacity. Missing human validation means HOLD and no options. No institutional commitment.
   FORMAT
   Table: Option ID | Sequence | Prerequisites and readiness | Subject-specific transfer | Planned variation | Timetable tradeoff | Evidence IDs | Status.
   Use O1 and O2 when options are possible; Status is Proposal or HOLD. End with Teacher choice needed.

3. Record the selected map

   Teachers choose, remove or defer the link after checking subject accuracy and feasibility. Record their decision separately. Keep assessment evidence private; give AI only non-identifying requirements and the limits of the readiness judgement.

   Prompt 3 · Map Copy

   CONTEXT
   Exact approved options: [options].
   Versioned teacher selection, edits and confirmed requirements, including evidence limits: [selection].
   REQUEST
   Build the selected two-project progression map. Include standards, concepts, practices, prerequisites, transfer, assessment evidence requirements and planned variation.
   QUALITY BAR
   A proposal is never approval. Use only the explicit selection and edits. Attribute verification to the supplied human record, not your own review. Keep unknowns HOLD. Do not infer mastery, interchange subjects, grade, or turn a proposed timetable into an institutional commitment. Without selection return HOLD only.
   FORMAT
   Table: Project ID | Year and subject | Standards and concepts | Practices | Prerequisites | Transfer | Assessment evidence required | Planned variation | Timetable | Evidence IDs | Status.
   End with Deferred or unresolved items. Status is Teacher-selected proposal or HOLD.

4. Audit the teacher-selected result

   Teachers check the map against originals and record edits before this audit. They decide actual use afterwards. Stop and re-scope if active work exceeds 60 minutes; retain unresolved links instead of presenting a full curriculum.

   Prompt 4 · Audit Copy

   CONTEXT
   Exact map and versioned teacher edits: [map].
   Source extracts and versioned human verification record, including the selected option: [verification].
   REQUEST
   Audit the teacher-selected map for unsupported standards, sequence, readiness, transfer, assessment and timetable claims. Do not rewrite it.
   QUALITY BAR
   Quote exact map text and compare only with supplied evidence. Label supplied human decisions separately from verified facts. Missing, stale or conflicting checks mean HOLD. Stop if exposure becomes mastery or subjects are interchangeable. Never approve release or claim educational impact.
   FORMAT
   Table: Check | Exact map quote | Evidence ID | Finding | Human action.
   Cover Scope, Standards, Readiness, Transfer, Assessment, Timetable. End with Unresolved holds and Human release remains required.

Check before you use it

• Have both subject teachers checked the exact standards and subject-specific concepts against originals?
• Is readiness a bounded human judgement supported by assessment, rather than inferred from exposure?
• Does the map retain each subject's requirements and test transfer separately?
• Have teachers checked timetable feasibility and kept unconfirmed commitments on HOLD?
• Are the chosen variation, evidence requirements and deferred links traceable to explicit teacher decisions?
• Have you removed learner data and kept release with the responsible teachers?