kud-knowledge-type-mapper

# AGENT SKILLS STANDARD FIELDS (v2)name: kud-knowledge-type-mapperdescription: "Classify curriculum content into Know, Understand, and Do categories to align teaching and assessment approaches. Use when planning units, writing objectives, or selecting assessment methods."disable-model-invocation: falseuser-invocable: trueeffort: medium# EXISTING FIELDSskill_id: "curriculum-assessment/kud-knowledge-type-mapper"skill_name: "KUD Knowledge Type Mapper"domain: "curriculum-assessment"version: "1.0"evidence_strength: "moderate"evidence_sources:   - "Wiggins & McTighe (2005) — Understanding by Design: Know/Understand/Do as the unit-level planning architecture"  - "Wiggins & McTighe (2011) — The Understanding by Design Guide to Creating High-Quality Units: KUD as the bridge from standards to assessment"  - "Bernstein (1999) — Vertical and horizontal discourse: hierarchical vs horizontal knowledge structures"  - "Bernstein (2000) — Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity: recontextualisation and knowledge type"  - "Hattie (2009) — Visible Learning: surface, deep, and transfer as learning phases with distinct assessment needs"  - "Hattie & Timperley (2007) — The power of feedback: feedback must be calibrated to the type of learning"  - "Wiliam (2011) — Embedded Formative Assessment: assessability as a design constraint, not an afterthought"  - "Deci & Ryan (1985, 2000) — Self-Determination Theory: autonomy-supportive assessment for dispositional development"  - "Muller (2009) — Forms of knowledge and curriculum coherence: conceptual vs contextual coherence"  - "Maton (2014) — Knowledge and Knowers: Legitimation Code Theory (Semantics dimension)"input_schema:   required:     - field: "curriculum_input"      type: "string"      description: "Description of the unit, competency, or project — what students will learn and do"    - field: "learner_stage"      type: "string"      description: "Age range, year group, or developmental band"  optional:     - field: "knowledge_architecture_output"      type: "string"      description: "From context engine or prior run: the epistemic diagnosis output from Curriculum Knowledge Architecture Designer"    - field: "existing_learning_targets"      type: "string"      description: "Any existing LTs, competency statements, or curriculum standards already written for this unit"    - field: "competency_framework"      type: "string"      description: "The school's competency or dispositional framework in use"    - field: "programme_purpose"      type: "string"      description: "Why this unit or competency matters for the school's mission — the upstream 'why'"output_schema:   type: "object"  fields:     - field: "kud_chart"      type: "object"      description: "Complete Know/Understand/Do chart with every element labelled by knowledge type (Hierarchical, Horizontal, or Dispositional)"    - field: "do_split"      type: "object"      description: "Explicit separation of Do into Skills (assessable by rubric on task) and Dispositions (assessable by multi-informant observation over time)"    - field: "assessment_routing_plan"      type: "object"      description: "For each KUD element: which assessment skill to invoke next and why"    - field: "sequencing_notes"      type: "object"      description: "Prerequisite dependencies, flexible-order elements, and continuous-thread dispositions"    - field: "gap_analysis"      type: "object"      description: "If existing LTs provided: mapping of KUD elements to existing LTs, identification of gaps and mismatches"    - field: "design_flags"      type: "object"      description: "Compound elements, misclassified elements, unassessable elements, and routing conflicts"chains_well_with:   - "curriculum-knowledge-architecture-designer"  - "learning-target-authoring-guide"  - "coherent-rubric-logic-builder"  - "dispositional-knowledge-assessment-designer"  - "developmental-band-system-designer"teacher_time: "5 minutes"tags: ["KUD", "knowledge-type", "assessment-routing", "Wiggins-McTighe", "Bernstein", "curriculum-mapping", "hierarchical", "horizontal", "dispositional", "backwards-design"]

KUD Knowledge Type Mapper

What This Skill Does

Takes a curriculum input — a unit description, competency set, or project brief — and produces a complete Know/Understand/Do chart where every element is labelled with its knowledge type (Hierarchical, Horizontal, or Dispositional) and routed to the correct assessment approach. This is the operational bridge between the Curriculum Knowledge Architecture Designer (which diagnoses what types of knowledge are present) and the assessment skills that build the actual instruments: Coherent Rubric Logic Builder for skills, Dispositional Knowledge Assessment Designer for dispositions. Most KUD charts treat all three columns as equivalent. They are not. A Hierarchical Know element (facts with right/wrong answers) and a Horizontal Know element (contested conceptual knowledge) require fundamentally different assessment — the first can be auto-assessed, the second requires interpretive judgment. A Do that is a skill (assessed by rubric against criteria on a specific task) and a Do that is a disposition (assessed through multi-informant observation over time) cannot be assessed the same way — and routing a disposition to a rubric actively undermines it. This skill makes those distinctions explicit so that every element in the KUD chart has a clear, defensible assessment pathway before teaching begins. AI is specifically valuable here because producing a knowledge-typed KUD chart requires simultaneously applying curriculum epistemology (Bernstein's knowledge structures), assessment design logic (Wiliam's assessability constraints), learning science (Hattie's surface/deep/transfer distinction), and motivation theory (Deci & Ryan's autonomy conditions) — a combination that is rare in any single educator and that most planning processes skip entirely.

Evidence Foundation

Wiggins & McTighe (2005, 2011) established Know/Understand/Do as the canonical unit-level planning architecture within Understanding by Design. The KUD framework distinguishes three types of learning: Know (factual and conceptual knowledge that students should acquire), Understand (enduring understandings — transferable insights that survive beyond the unit), and Do (skills and processes that students should be able to perform). The framework's power lies in forcing curriculum designers to specify all three before designing assessment — backwards design requires knowing what you are assessing before you decide how. However, the original UBD framework treats the three columns as internally homogeneous: all Know elements are treated alike, all Understand elements are treated alike, and all Do elements are treated alike. This is the gap the present skill addresses.

Bernstein (1999, 2000) demonstrated that knowledge is not a single substance. Hierarchical knowledge is coherent, explicitly principled, and cumulative — lower-level concepts must be mastered before higher-level ones are accessible, and there are right and wrong answers that can be tested. Horizontal knowledge is organised as specialised interpretive lenses, each with its own criteria for valid analysis — content can be entered from multiple points, and quality is judged by analytical depth rather than factual correctness. These two types exist within the Know and Understand columns of a KUD chart, and they demand different assessment. A Hierarchical Know element ("The water cycle has five stages: evaporation, condensation, precipitation, runoff, infiltration") can be assessed by a quiz — there is a correct answer. A Horizontal Know element ("Different historians interpret the causes of WWI through different lenses — nationalism, imperialism, militarism, alliance systems") cannot be assessed by a quiz, because knowing the lenses is not the same as being able to apply them analytically. The same distinction applies within the Understand column: a Hierarchical understanding ("Energy is conserved — it transforms between forms but is never created or destroyed") has a canonical formulation, while a Horizontal understanding ("Historical events have multiple causes, and the causes you emphasise depend on the interpretive framework you apply") is inherently perspectival.

Hattie (2009) identified three phases of learning — surface (acquiring new knowledge and skills), deep (integrating and consolidating, making connections), and transfer (applying learning to new contexts and problems). Each phase requires different teaching and different assessment. Surface learning aligns with Hierarchical Know elements — facts, vocabulary, procedures that can be tested directly. Deep learning aligns with the Understand column — making connections, seeing patterns, building conceptual structures. Transfer aligns with the most sophisticated Do elements — applying capability in genuinely new contexts. Hattie & Timperley (2007) extended this by showing that feedback must be calibrated to the learning phase: task-level feedback works for surface learning, process-level feedback works for deep learning, and self-regulation feedback works for transfer. A KUD chart that does not distinguish knowledge types cannot calibrate feedback correctly, because the teacher does not know whether a given element requires task-level or process-level feedback.

Wiliam (2011) argued that assessment is only useful if it generates evidence that can be acted upon — and that the design of assessment must begin from the question "What would count as sufficient evidence that this student has learned this?" This assessability constraint is where the KUD knowledge-typing becomes operationally critical. Some KUD elements are directly assessable through a single task (Hierarchical facts, procedural skills). Some require sustained evidence across multiple tasks (Horizontal analytical capabilities, transferable understandings). And some — dispositional elements — are not assessable through tasks at all, because they exist only in patterns of enacted behaviour over time. A KUD chart that does not make these distinctions produces assessment designs that are either invalid (applying rubric criteria to dispositions) or incomplete (failing to plan for the sustained evidence that horizontal and dispositional elements require).

Deci & Ryan (1985, 2000) established through Self-Determination Theory that assessment contexts experienced as controlling — where the learner perceives judgment rather than support — undermine the autonomy and competence needs that are prerequisites for dispositional development. This creates a hard constraint on assessment routing: any KUD element identified as dispositional MUST be routed to an assessment approach that preserves autonomy — multi-informant observation, coaching-modality feedback, developmental conversation — rather than to a rubric that rates and scores. Routing a disposition to a rubric is not merely inefficient; it is actively harmful, because the evaluative frame suppresses the authentic expression that dispositional development requires.

Input Schema

The educator must provide:

• Curriculum input: Description of the unit, competency, or project. e.g. "Band D Wellbeing unit on emotional regulation and self-care — students explore the science of emotions, develop personal self-regulation strategies, and build habits that support their own wellbeing and the wellbeing of others" / "Year 9 History — causes and consequences of WWI" / "D2R project: Smart Water Systems for a local wetland"
• Learner stage: Age range or year group. e.g. "Band D (ages 12-14)" / "Year 9" / "Grade 7-8"

Optional (injected by context engine if available):

• Knowledge architecture output: The epistemic diagnosis from a prior Curriculum Knowledge Architecture Designer run
• Existing learning targets: Any LTs, competency statements, or standards already written for this unit
• Competency framework: The school's dispositional or competency framework
• Programme purpose: Why this unit or competency matters for the mission

Prompt

You are an expert in curriculum design, knowledge epistemology, and assessment architecture. You combine deep knowledge of Wiggins & McTighe's (2005, 2011) Understanding by Design KUD framework with Bernstein's (1999, 2000) theory of knowledge structures, Hattie's (2009) surface/deep/transfer learning phases, Hattie & Timperley's (2007) feedback calibration, Wiliam's (2011) assessability constraints, and Deci & Ryan's (1985, 2000) Self-Determination Theory.

Your task is to produce a complete, knowledge-typed KUD chart for the following curriculum input — one where every element is classified by knowledge type and routed to the correct assessment approach.

**Curriculum input:** {{curriculum_input}}
**Learner stage:** {{learner_stage}}

The following optional context may or may not be provided. Use whatever is available; ignore any fields marked "not provided."

**Knowledge architecture output:** {{knowledge_architecture_output}} — if provided, use the epistemic diagnosis as the starting point for knowledge-typing. If not provided, conduct the knowledge-typing from the curriculum input directly.
**Existing learning targets:** {{existing_learning_targets}} — if provided, run a gap analysis mapping each KUD element to existing LTs.
**Competency framework:** {{competency_framework}} — if provided, use it to identify dispositional elements.
**Programme purpose:** {{programme_purpose}} — if provided, use it to check alignment between the KUD and the school's mission.

## The Three Knowledge Types

You MUST classify every KUD element as one of these three types. The classification determines the assessment route.

**Hierarchical Knowledge (Bernstein, 1999)**
Cumulative, prerequisite-ordered knowledge with right/wrong answers or demonstrable procedures. Assessment can be criterion-referenced and often automated. Surface-level feedback (Hattie & Timperley, 2007) is appropriate.

In a KUD chart, Hierarchical elements appear as:
- **Know:** Facts, definitions, vocabulary, formulae, named processes with canonical descriptions
- **Understand:** Principles, laws, or cause-effect relationships with established correct formulations
- **Do (Skill):** Procedures, techniques, and methods with demonstrable correctness

**Horizontal Knowledge (Bernstein, 1999)**
Perspectival, lens-based knowledge where quality is judged by analytical depth and sophistication, not factual correctness. Assessment requires interpretive judgment and analytical criteria. Process-level feedback (Hattie & Timperley, 2007) is appropriate.

In a KUD chart, Horizontal elements appear as:
- **Know:** Frameworks, perspectives, interpretive lenses, contested concepts
- **Understand:** Insights that depend on analytical stance — enduring understandings that admit multiple valid formulations
- **Do (Skill):** Analysis, interpretation, critical evaluation, argumentation — skills where quality exists on a continuum

**Dispositional Knowledge (extended from Bernstein; Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000)**
Enacted capacities, orientations, and developing competencies that exist only in patterns of behaviour over time. Cannot be assessed through a single task. Assessment MUST use multi-informant observation and coaching-modality feedback. Self-regulation feedback (Hattie & Timperley, 2007) is appropriate. Rubric-based assessment is PROHIBITED — it undermines the autonomy that dispositional development requires (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000).

In a KUD chart, Dispositional elements appear as:
- **Know:** Self-knowledge — awareness of one's own patterns, triggers, strengths
- **Understand:** Developmental self-awareness — understanding that dispositions grow, that context matters, that setbacks are part of development
- **Do (Disposition):** Enacted patterns of behaviour — agency, collaboration, self-regulation, empathy, persistence, regenerative mindset

## Critical Rules

1. **The Do column MUST be split into Skills and Dispositions.** Every Do element must be explicitly classified as either a Skill (assessable by rubric on a task) or a Disposition (assessable by multi-informant observation over time). If this split is not made explicit, the assessment design will fail.

2. **No Dispositional element may be routed to a rubric.** Dispositions are assessed through observation protocols, student self-reflection, and developmental conversation — never through scoring criteria applied to a single task. If a Dispositional element appears to need a rubric, it has been misclassified: either it is actually a Skill, or the assessment approach must change.

3. **Knowledge type determines assessment route.** The routing is not optional — it is a logical consequence of what the knowledge IS:
   - Hierarchical Know/Understand → quiz, test, structured response, auto-assessable
   - Horizontal Know/Understand → analytical task assessed by teacher judgment using criteria
   - Hierarchical Do (Skill) → procedural demonstration, criterion-referenced rubric
   - Horizontal Do (Skill) → performance task, rubric with qualitative descriptors (Emerging → Developing → Competent → Extending)
   - Dispositional Do (Disposition) → multi-informant observation protocol, developmental conversation, student self-reflection (invoke Dispositional Knowledge Assessment Designer)
   - Dispositional Know/Understand → embedded in developmental conversation, not separately tested

4. **Flag compound elements.** If a KUD element contains multiple knowledge types ("Understands how emotions work AND manages their own emotional responses"), flag it for splitting. The first part is Hierarchical/Horizontal Know; the second is Dispositional Do.

5. **Flag unassessable elements.** If a KUD element cannot be assessed validly with any available approach (too vague, too internal, or too context-dependent), flag it and suggest reformulation.

## Process

Step 1: Read the curriculum input carefully. Identify every distinct learning element — what students will know, understand, and be able to do.

Step 2: Classify each element by knowledge type (Hierarchical, Horizontal, or Dispositional). Justify each classification.

Step 3: For every Do element, make the Skill/Disposition split explicit.

Step 4: Assign the assessment route for each element.

Step 5: Identify sequencing constraints — which elements are prerequisites for which? Which can be taught in flexible order? Which dispositions run as continuous threads? For each dispositional Do element identified, ask: is this disposition knowledge-contingent? That is, does it require a sufficient base of hierarchical Know and horizontal Understand elements before it can meaningfully manifest? If yes, identify which specific Know and Understand elements from the KUD chart are prerequisites for this disposition to be operable — not just supportive, but genuinely prerequisite. Include these in the sequencing notes as hard prerequisites for the dispositional element, not just as parallel threads. A disposition that is treated as a continuous thread when it is actually knowledge-contingent will be under-developed because teachers will assume it is developing in parallel rather than recognising that foundational knowledge must come first.

Step 6: If existing LTs are provided, run the gap analysis: map each KUD element to existing LTs, identify gaps (KUD elements with no corresponding LT) and mismatches (LTs that don't align with any KUD element or that are routed to the wrong assessment type).

Step 7: Flag design issues — compound elements, misclassified elements, unassessable elements, and any routing conflicts.

Return your output in this exact format:

## KUD Knowledge Type Map: [Unit/Project Name]

**Curriculum input:** [Summarised]
**Learner stage:** [Age/year/band]
**Programme purpose:** [If provided; otherwise "Not specified"]

### 1. Know

| Element | Knowledge Type | Assessment Route | Justification |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Factual/conceptual element] | Hierarchical / Horizontal / Dispositional | [Route] | [Why this type] |

### 2. Understand

| Element | Knowledge Type | Assessment Route | Justification |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Enduring understanding] | Hierarchical / Horizontal / Dispositional | [Route] | [Why this type] |

### 3. Do — Skills

| Element | Knowledge Type | Assessment Route | Justification |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Skill element] | Hierarchical / Horizontal | [Route — which rubric skill to invoke] | [Why this type] |

### 4. Do — Dispositions

| Element | Knowledge Type | Assessment Route | Justification |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Dispositional element] | Dispositional | Multi-informant observation → Dispositional Knowledge Assessment Designer | [Why this is a disposition, not a skill] |

### 5. Assessment Routing Plan

[For each KUD section, specify:
- Which assessment skill to invoke next
- What inputs that skill needs from this KUD chart
- The assessment mode (auto-assessable / rubric / observation protocol / mixed)
- The feedback type (task-level / process-level / self-regulation)]

### 6. Sequencing Notes

**Hard prerequisites:** [Elements that must be taught before others — hierarchical chains]
**Flexible-order elements:** [Elements that can be taught in any order — horizontal lenses]
**Continuous threads:** [Dispositional elements that develop across the entire unit, not in specific lessons]
**Convergence points:** [Where different knowledge types must come together — e.g. applying hierarchical knowledge through a horizontal lens]

### 7. Gap Analysis

[If existing LTs provided:]

| KUD Element | Matched LT | Match Quality | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Element] | [LT if matched] | Full / Partial / No match | [What's missing or misaligned] |

**Gaps:** [KUD elements with no corresponding LT]
**Orphan LTs:** [Existing LTs that don't map to any KUD element]
**Routing mismatches:** [LTs where the current assessment approach doesn't match the knowledge type]

[If no existing LTs provided: "No existing LTs provided. To generate LTs from this KUD chart, invoke the Learning Target Authoring Guide with each Do element as input."]

### 8. Design Flags

**Compound elements:** [Elements that contain multiple knowledge types and should be split]
**Misclassified elements:** [Elements that appear to be one type but are actually another — e.g. a "skill" that is actually a disposition]
**Unassessable elements:** [Elements too vague, too internal, or too context-dependent to assess validly — with suggested reformulations]
**Routing conflicts:** [Cases where the assessment route for one element conflicts with another — e.g. a rubric task that would undermine a dispositional goal being developed simultaneously]

**Self-check before returning output:** Verify that (a) every Do element is classified as either Skill or Disposition with no ambiguity, (b) no Dispositional element is routed to a rubric, (c) every element has a knowledge type AND an assessment route, (d) sequencing notes identify ALL prerequisite dependencies, (e) the gap analysis (if applicable) catches genuine misalignments not just superficial mismatches, and (f) design flags are specific and actionable.

Example Output

Read references/worked-examples.md when you need the complete emotional-regulation KUD example, including Know/Understand/Do tables, assessment routing and gap analysis.

Compact excerpt — skill, disposition and private habits:

---

Known Limitations

1. The three knowledge types are a simplification, not an ontology. Real knowledge elements often sit on boundaries between types. A skill like "selecting a calming technique with justification" has Hierarchical components (knowing the techniques), Horizontal components (justifying the selection), and Dispositional components (actually using it). The classification captures the PRIMARY type for assessment routing purposes — it does not claim the element is purely one type.

2. Assessment routing assumes the downstream skills exist. This KUD chart routes elements to the Coherent Rubric Logic Builder and the Dispositional Knowledge Assessment Designer. If neither has been run for these elements, the routing is a plan, not an accomplished fact. The KUD chart tells the teacher WHAT to assess and HOW — the downstream skills produce the actual assessment instruments.

3. The gap analysis depends on the quality of existing LTs. If the existing LTs are poorly written (unobservable verbs, compound constructs, vague language), the gap analysis will flag problems that are really LT writing issues, not KUD mapping issues. In such cases, the recommendation is to invoke the Learning Target Authoring Guide before attempting to resolve the gaps.

4. Dispositional elements are the hardest to assess and the easiest to neglect. The KUD chart makes them visible and routes them to appropriate assessment — but a teacher under time pressure may still default to assessing only the Hierarchical and Horizontal elements because they are easier. The chart cannot solve this problem; it can only make the choice visible.

5. The KUD chart is a planning tool, not a teaching sequence. The sequencing notes provide guidance on prerequisite dependencies and flexible-order elements, but the actual lesson-by-lesson sequence depends on the teacher's judgment about pacing, student needs, and contextual factors that the chart cannot anticipate.