KUD Chart Author

Authors or reviews Know/Understand/Do charts for competency-based learning targets across developmental bands. Handles seven input types from raw curriculum documents to existing LT sets. Routes to upstream skills when stronger inputs are available.

Sources

• Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2005) — Understanding by Design (2nd ed.), ASCD: KUD (Know/Understand/Do) as the canonical unit-level planning architecture; backward design from desired results.
• Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2011) — The Understanding by Design Guide to Creating High-Quality Units, ASCD: KUD as the bridge from standards to assessment; distinction between teaching layer and assessment layer.
• Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998) — Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards Through Classroom Assessment, Phi Delta Kappan 80(2): formative assessment and the critical distinction between content students need to hold (Know), conceptual understanding they carry forward (Understand), and demonstrated capability (Do).
• Anderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001) — A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy, Longman: the Know/Understand distinction maps directly onto the remembering/understanding levels of the revised taxonomy.
• Bandura, A. (1997) — Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, Freeman: dispositional capabilities develop through enactment over time and cannot be adequately evidenced in a single performance occasion — the theoretical basis for the performance vs disposition distinction in Do cells.
• Heritage, M. (2008) — Learning Progressions: Supporting Instruction and Formative Assessment, CCSSO: progressions are developmental trajectories, not content calendars; progression levers must describe what learners can do with content, not just harder content.

How to use it in your lesson

For the best results with EvidenceLesson, give it:

• input_type — One of: existing_lt_with_do, competency_only, harness_output, crosswalk_data, unit_plan, existing_kud_upgrade, raw_curriculum_document. Determines routing check and authoring approach.
• primary_input — The main input content. For existing_lt_with_do — the existing Do statements/observation indicators. For competency_only — the competency definition and programme purpose. For harness_output — the structured KUD/LT JSON or markdown from the harness pipeline. For crosswalk_data — the relevant rows from a framework-neutral matrix. For unit_plan — the unit plan document. For existing_kud_upgrade — the existing KUD chart. For raw_curriculum_document — the source curriculum text.
• lt_name (optional) — LT name if known. e.g. "Self-Awareness & Regulation
• lt_definition (optional) — LT definition if known. One sentence beginning "I can...
• knowledge_type (optional) — T1, T2, or T3 if already classified. If not supplied, the skill classifies it.
• band_scope (optional) — Which bands to author. Default A-F. Use N/A notation for developmentally inappropriate bands. e.g. "A-F" or "B-F (Band A N/A — content inappropriate before age 8)
• competency_context (optional) — Which competency this LT belongs to, and whether Know content lives in a designated knowledge competency by design rather than in this LT. e.g. "Competency 1 — Emotional Intelligence. Know content lives in Competency 6 by design — cross-reference, do not duplicate.
• crosswalk_data (optional) — Relevant rows from a framework-neutral crosswalk matrix for this theme. Used to inform band-level progression against field consensus. Paste the relevant CSV rows or table excerpt.
• prerequisite_lts (optional) — Known prerequisite LTs by ID and suspected type. e.g. "LT 6.1 — suspected soft enabler
• programme_purpose (optional) — Why this competency matters for this school or programme's mission. Informs the Understand layer.
• mode (optional) — author (default) — produce a new KUD chart. review — assess an existing KUD chart against quality checks and propose specific cell-level improvements.

Pairs well with