Learning Progression Builder

Build a learning progression showing prerequisite-to-mastery steps for a target skill or understanding. Use when sequencing content, designing diagnostics, or mapping prerequisite gaps.

What it does

Maps the learning progression from novice to target proficiency for a specific skill domain, identifying the sequential stages of understanding, the prerequisite relationships between them (what must come before what), common stuck points (where students typically stall and why), and diagnostic tasks that reveal which stage a student is currently at. The output is a progression map that teachers can use for three purposes: planning instruction (teaching in the right sequence), formative assessment (diagnosing where a student is), and differentiation (providing the right support for each student's current stage). AI is specifically valuable here because constructing a valid learning progression requires both deep content knowledge (understanding the logical structure of the domain) and pedagogical knowledge (knowing where students actually get stuck, which is not always where the content logic would predict).

The evidence behind it

Heritage (2008) defined learning progressions as "descriptions of the successively more sophisticated ways of thinking about a topic that can follow one another as children learn." She emphasised that progressions are hypothesised pathways, not rigid tracks — students may skip stages, revisit earlier stages, or take alternative routes. Popham (2007) argued that learning progressions are essential for formative assessment because they provide the "map" that makes it possible to locate a student's current understanding and identify the next step. Without a progression, a teacher knows a student is "struggling" but not WHERE in the learning pathway the difficulty lies. Daro et al. (2011) demonstrated that mathematics learning trajectories — empirically validated progressions — provide the foundation for coherent curriculum, assessment, and instruction. Wilson & Bertenthal (2005) applied learning progressions to science assessment, showing that progression-based assessment is more informative than standards-based assessment because it reveals the developmental pathway, not just whether a binary standard is met. Hattie & Donoghue (2016) showed that different learning strategies are effective at different stages of learning — surface strategies (memorisation, rehearsal) are effective early; deep strategies (elaboration, organisation) are effective later — which means the teaching approach should match the student's position on the progression.

Sources

• Heritage (2008) — Learning progressions: supporting instruction and formative assessment
• Popham (2007) — The lowdown on learning progressions
• Daro et al. (2011) — Learning trajectories in mathematics: a foundation for standards, curriculum, assessment, and instruction
• Wilson & Bertenthal (2005) — Systems for state science assessment
• Hattie & Donoghue (2016) — Learning strategies: a synthesis and conceptual model

How to use it in your lesson

For the best results with EvidenceLesson, give it:

• target_skill — The skill or understanding at the end of the progression — what students should be able to do
• student_level — Age/year group range the progression covers
• subject_area (optional) — The curriculum subject
• starting_point (optional) — Where students typically begin — their existing knowledge
• student_profiles (optional) — From context engine: class data showing where different students currently sit on the progression
• curriculum_framework (optional) — From context engine: relevant curriculum standards or progression documents

Known limitations

1. Learning progressions are hypothesised pathways, not fixed tracks. Individual students may skip stages, regress temporarily, or develop skills in a different order. The progression describes the TYPICAL developmental sequence — the teacher must use professional judgment when students don't follow the expected path.

1. The progression describes skill development in ONE domain. A student may be at Stage 5 for poetry analysis but Stage 3 for prose analysis, because the underlying texts present different challenges. Progressions are domain-specific — the teacher should assess each domain separately.

1. Diagnostic tasks provide a snapshot, not a comprehensive assessment. A student who passes the Stage 4 diagnostic task on one occasion may not consistently perform at Stage 4. The diagnostic locates the student's approximate position — ongoing formative assessment provides the more complete picture.

Pairs well with