developmental-progression-synthesis

发展进阶综合

此技能的作用

此技能将一套已完成的 KUD 图表综合为两份相互关联的成果，供项目指南使用。

输出 1 — 发展矩阵： 一个“能力项 × 阶段”的网格，展示每个阶段中每个 LT 的关键发展里程碑。矩阵让读者能够通过一页了解整个项目的发展脉络——学生在每个发展阶段要在各项能力上达到什么目标。矩阵会以不同的视觉样式区分 Type 2 表现 Do 陈述和 Type 3 观察指标，因为它们代表不同类型的证据和不同的评估路径。将二者合并为统一的单元格格式，会错误地呈现项目的运作方式。

输出 2 — 按能力项编写的发展章节： 针对每项能力，撰写叙述性章节，展示该能力项下的 LTs 中，Know、Understand 和 Do 如何随阶段发展。这些内容可作为项目指南的章节，默认面向教师，也可调整为面向家长、研究人员或 AI 系统文档。按能力项而非单个 LT 组织内容，是经过审慎考虑的设计选择：能力项内部具有连贯性（Type 2/Type 3 的组合最适合放在一起阅读），而少量能力章节也比大量单独的 LT 章节更易于阅读。

此技能不是什么： 它不是范围与顺序工具。scope-and-sequence-designer 会生成课程安排和先修内容排序文档——说明何时教什么、按什么顺序教。此技能生成的是发展进阶文档——展示整个项目发展脉络中的成长情况。两者都不可或缺，但回答的是不同问题。

关键设计原则： 综合内容必须明确呈现进阶逻辑，而不只是复述各阶段的陈述。每个能力章节的叙述都应指出起作用的进阶杠杆（复杂度、精确度、推理、范围、迁移、独立性），并解释发展脉络对阅读内容的教师或家长意味着什么。读完某个能力章节后，读者不仅应了解学生在每个阶段会做什么，也应明白进阶为何按这种方式安排。

矩阵中的 Type 2 与 Type 3： Type 2 Do 陈述描述任务表现——学生在通过量规评估的任务中产出什么。Type 3 Do 陈述描述观察指标——教师在一段时间内会留意到什么。矩阵必须以不同的视觉样式区分二者。统一的单元格格式会让人误以为评估路径统一，但对于此框架来说并非如此。

证据基础

Wiggins & McTighe（2005）提出了支撑综合结构的逆向设计框架：必须先阐明期望结果——即项目结束时的发展图景——然后才能做出课程决策。这项技能将逆向设计中的“期望结果”列正式转化为项目级矩阵和叙述，使任何利益相关者都能读懂。Vygotsky（1978）的最近发展区理论指导每条分级描述：矩阵中的每个单元格都描述学生在相应发展阶段、获得适当支持后能够做到什么——也就是最近发展区的上限，而非独立完成的下限。Bruner（1960）的螺旋式课程是多级综合的架构原则：相同的能力会出现在每个级别中，随着能力提升而以更高的复杂度再次学习，而不是被不同内容取代。综合必须让螺旋清晰可见——读者应能沿着各级追踪同一项 LT，并看到进阶杠杆如何逐步提升。Hattie & Donoghue（2016）提出的表层学习到深度学习再到迁移的模型，可用于宏观层面的检验：整个级别范围内的进阶，是否引导学生从表层知识习得，经由深度加工，最终走向迁移？如果分级描述在太多级别中都停留在表层，这项检验便无法通过。Biggs & Collis（1982）的 SOLO 分类法提供了结构复杂度视角——从前结构到扩展抽象——这是进阶杠杆体系之一（复杂度）；在该视角发挥作用之处，综合叙述应明确点出这一体系。

输入模式

设计者必须提供：

• **KUD 图表：**项目已完成的全部 KUD 图表。每张图表应包含 LT 名称、知识类型（Type 1/Type 2/Type 3），以及各发展级别的 Know/Understand/Do 内容。所有图表应粘贴为一个输入块。
• **能力结构：**能力列表、各能力包含的 LT，以及级别范围。这是矩阵和各章节的组织框架。

可选：

• 输出重点：“matrix”表示仅输出 1，“chapters”表示仅输出 2，或“both”（默认值）。
• 知识类型筛选：“T1”、“T2”、“T3”或“all”（默认值）。将综合内容筛选为一种知识类型。
• 受众：“teachers”（默认值）、“parents”、“researchers”或“AI-systems”。调整表达风格。

提示词

You are synthesising a set of completed KUD charts into two linked programme guide artefacts: a developmental matrix and per-competency narrative chapters. Follow these rules PRECISELY.

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
TWO-OUTPUT ARCHITECTURE
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

This skill produces two outputs from the same KUD chart inputs.

**Output 1 — Developmental matrix:** A competency × band grid. One key milestone sentence per cell. Suitable for a programme overview page.

**Output 2 — Per-competency narrative chapters:** One section per competency. Synthesised prose showing K/U/Do development across bands. Suitable for programme guide chapter content.

Both outputs are produced by default unless output_focus specifies otherwise. Read ALL KUD charts in full BEFORE beginning either output.

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
PRE-SYNTHESIS READING PROTOCOL (mandatory before any output)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Before generating any output, read all provided KUD charts and build an internal map:

1. **Competency membership:** Which LTs belong to which competency.
2. **Knowledge type inventory:** Which LTs are Type 1, Type 2, Type 3, or compound hybrid.
3. **Band coverage:** Which bands each LT covers. Note any bands explicitly marked N/A.
4. **Progression levers in use:** At each band transition, which lever(s) advance the progression — independence, complexity, scope, precision, reasoning, or transfer.
5. **Assessment route per LT:** Whether each LT uses performance Do statements (Type 1/Type 2) or observation indicators (Type 3).
6. **Internal flags:** Any inconsistencies, missing bands, underdifferentiated indicators, or gaps noticed during reading. These become design notes.

Do not begin Output 1 or Output 2 until this mapping is complete.

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
OUTPUT 1 — DEVELOPMENTAL MATRIX: CONSTRUCTION RULES
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

**Structure:**
- Rows: one row per LT, grouped by competency (competency name as a spanning header row above the group)
- Columns: the band range provided (e.g. Bands A through F)
- Each cell: one sentence capturing the key developmental milestone at that band for that LT — the most important thing a reader should understand about what the student is working toward at this stage

**Cell content by knowledge type:**

*Type 1 cells:* Draw the sentence from the Know or Understand element — the key concept or knowledge milestone at this band.

*Type 2 cells:* Draw the sentence from the Do statement — what the student performs or produces at this band.

*Type 3 cells:* Draw the sentence from the observation indicators — what the teacher notices at this band. Mark every Type 3 cell with an asterisk (*). Add a legend at the foot of the matrix: * = Observation indicator (multi-informant, not rubric-assessed).

*N/A cells:* Mark N/A. No further content. Do not leave blank.

*Compound hybrid LTs (Type 2 + Type 3 elements):* Produce two sub-rows — one labelled "Performance (T2)" and one labelled "Observation (T3)*". Both rows must appear for every band.

**Whole-matrix check:** After completing the matrix, read each row as a sequence. Does the progression within each row tell a coherent developmental story? Flag in design notes any row where the arc is discontinuous or where a band transition is not clearly justified by a lever advance.

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
OUTPUT 2 — PER-COMPETENCY CHAPTERS: CONSTRUCTION RULES
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

**Structure:** One section per competency, in the order provided in competency_structure.

**Each section opens with:**
- The competency name as a heading
- Its definition (one sentence)
- The number of LTs it contains and their knowledge types
- A one-paragraph orientation: what this competency is, why it matters developmentally, and what a reader should be watching for as they read the section

**For each LT within the competency:**

*Type 1 and Type 2 LTs — narrative progression account:*
Write a synthesised narrative of K/U/Do development across bands. Do not reproduce the KUD chart as a table. Describe what develops and why. Name the progression levers explicitly. A reader finishing this narrative should know not just what students do at each band but what is advancing from band to band and why the sequence is designed the way it is.

*Type 3 LTs — dispositional arc account:*
Instead of describing task performance development, describe the developmental arc of the observation indicators. What does this disposition look like in the earliest bands — how it shows up in simple, adult-scaffolded moments? What does it look like in the later bands — how it manifests independently and across diverse contexts? What does that mean for how a teacher or parent recognises growth? This prose is observational, not performative — it describes what is noticed over time, not what is scored on a task.

*Type 2/Type 3 pairs within a competency:*
Where two LTs within a competency are a Type 2/Type 3 pair (analytical capability + enacted disposition), show them together with explicit discussion of the relationship. Name the distinction plainly: the Type 2 LT describes what the student can reason about or produce when assessed; the Type 3 LT describes whether they enact it in real contexts. A student can be strong on Type 2 and weak on Type 3 simultaneously — name this possibility explicitly so teachers and parents understand the assessment distinction and what it means about a student's development.

**Each section closes with:**
- Key prerequisites from other competencies that teachers should be aware of
- The single most important progression observation for this competency: what a teacher should be watching for as the clearest sign of genuine development

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
AUDIENCE REGISTER
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Apply the register consistently across both outputs.

**teachers (default):** Practical, grounded in classroom and observation language. Names what teachers will see students doing and what teachers will notice. Uses assessment terms as givens (rubric, observation indicators, developmental conversation). Does not over-explain the framework.

**parents:** Accessible language, no educational jargon. Focuses on what growth looks like from the outside — what a parent would notice at home or in conversation. Avoids unexplained terms (rubric, LT, KUD chart). Centres the student's visible behaviour and experience.

**researchers:** Includes progression lever terminology explicitly. References the knowledge type classification and names the theoretical warrants (SOLO, ZPD, spiral curriculum). Suitable for a programme evaluation or curriculum audit audience.

**AI-systems:** Structured, precise, complete. Names the assessment route for each LT explicitly. Identifies every progression lever at each band transition by name. Minimises interpretive prose; maximises structured labelling. Optimised for machine parsing of the developmental model.

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
DESIGN NOTES: CONSTRUCTION RULES
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

After completing both outputs, produce design notes. These are honest flags for the programme designer — not errors, but signals that further work may be needed.

Produce a note for each of the following where found:

1. **Weak or discontinuous progression arc:** Any LT where the band-to-band progression felt unclear, where the same lever repeated without advancing, or where a band transition introduced new content rather than advancing existing complexity.

2. **Delivery pressure:** Any band where multiple LTs converge in a way that may create pressure — e.g. a band where three LTs simultaneously advance on the reasoning lever for the first time.

3. **Underdifferentiated Type 3 indicators:** Any Type 3 LT where adjacent-band observation indicators are too similar — where Band C and Band D, for example, describe behaviours that would be difficult to distinguish in practice from a single observation event.

4. **Invisible Type 2/Type 3 relationship:** Any competency where the Type 2/Type 3 pair relationship is not clearly visible from the KUD chart inputs — where the analytical LT and the dispositional LT do not obviously complement each other.

5. **Input gaps:** Any LT or band where the KUD chart provided insufficient content to complete the matrix cell or narrative account. Name the specific gap: which LT, which band, which K/U/Do element is missing or underdeveloped.

If none of the above are found, state that explicitly. Do not omit the design notes section.

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
SELF-CHECK BEFORE RETURNING OUTPUT
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Before returning any output, verify:

- [ ] Does the matrix visually distinguish Type 3 cells (asterisk marking on every Type 3 cell, legend at foot)?
- [ ] Does each competency chapter name at least one progression lever explicitly by name?
- [ ] Are Type 2/Type 3 pairs shown together with the T2/T3 distinction explained?
- [ ] Does the chapter narrative synthesise rather than reproduce the KUD chart content?
- [ ] Are design notes honest about gaps and discontinuities — specific, not reassuring?
- [ ] Is the register appropriate and consistent for the specified audience throughout both outputs?
- [ ] Are N/A cells marked N/A in the matrix (not left blank)?
- [ ] Are compound hybrid LTs shown as two labelled sub-rows in the matrix?

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Your task is to synthesise:

**KUD charts:** {{kud_charts}}

**Competency structure:** {{competency_structure}}

The following optional parameters may or may not be provided. Use whatever is given; apply defaults for any not provided.

**Output focus:** {{output_focus}} — if "both" or not specified, produce both Output 1 and Output 2.

**Knowledge type filter:** {{knowledge_type_filter}} — if "all" or not specified, include all knowledge types in both outputs.

**Audience:** {{audience}} — if not specified, default to "teachers".

Return your output in this exact format:

## Developmental Progression Synthesis

### Output 1 — Developmental Matrix

[Competency × band matrix. Competency names as spanning header rows. One LT row per LT (or two sub-rows for compound hybrids). One milestone sentence per cell. Type 3 cells marked *. N/A cells marked N/A.]

* = Observation indicator (multi-informant, not rubric-assessed)

### Output 2 — Per-Competency Developmental Guide

#### [Competency Name]

**Competency definition:** [one sentence]
**LTs in this competency:** [LT names with knowledge types]

[Orientation paragraph — what this competency is, why it matters developmentally]

[LT-by-LT narrative — synthesised prose, not KUD chart reproduction. Progression levers named explicitly. Type 2/Type 3 pairs shown together with the distinction explained.]

**Prerequisites from other competencies:** [list, or "None identified"]
**Key progression observation:** [the single most important thing a teacher should watch for]

[Repeat #### section for each competency]

### Design Notes

**1. Progression arc flags:**
[LTs with weak or discontinuous progression, or "None identified"]

**2. Delivery pressure:**
[Bands with convergent demand, or "None identified"]

**3. Underdifferentiated Type 3 indicators:**
[Type 3 LTs where adjacent bands are difficult to distinguish in practice, or "None identified"]

**4. Invisible Type 2/Type 3 relationships:**
[Competencies where the T2/T3 pair relationship is not clear from the inputs, or "None identified"]

**5. Input gaps:**
[Specific LTs, bands, and K/U/Do elements where input was insufficient, or "None identified"]

示例输出

场景： 能力：“分析推理” / 学习目标（LT）：LT-AR1（类型 2——推理质量）和 LT-AR2（类型 3——倾向）/ 仅包含 A–D 级

本示例使用的 KUD 图表输入：

LT-AR1：证据分析（类型 2）

• A 级：知道——什么是主张，以及支持主张意味着什么；理解——主张需要依据才能可信；实践——识别给定文本中的主张，并判断它是否有依据
• B 级：知道——证据与断言的区别；理解——证据的可靠性并非都一样；实践——比较两条证据，并说明哪条更能支持某项主张
• C 级：知道——偏见的类型及其对证据质量的影响；理解——分析结论取决于所用证据的质量；实践——评估一组来源，并说明针对特定目的，哪一项最可信
• D 级：知道——分析框架如何跨学科运作；理解——有力的分析需要指出证据背后的假设；实践——分析相互竞争的证据，指出其潜在假设，并构建有证据支持的分析立场

LT-AR2：将推理作为实践（类型 3）

• A 级指标：学生在面对规则或主张时会问“为什么？”；教师提供解释后，学生会接受并将其联系起来
• B 级指标：学生在接受某项主张前会主动提出质疑；学生会注意到同伴的论证缺乏证据
• C 级指标：学生无需提示，便会在不同学科中运用分析性提问；学生会在论证过程中发现自己提出的主张缺乏依据
• D 级指标：学生会指出自己推理时采用的分析方法；学生会在最终确定立场前主动寻找反面证据

---

发展进阶综合

输出 1 — 发展矩阵

LT	A 级	B 级	C 级	D 级
分析推理
LT-AR1：证据分析（类型 2）	识别给定文本中的主张，并判断其是否有依据。	比较两条证据，并说明哪条更能支持某项主张。	评估一组来源，并说明针对特定目的，哪一项最可信。	分析相互竞争的证据，指出其潜在假设，并构建有证据支持的立场。
LT-AR2：将推理作为实践（类型 3）*	面对规则时会问“为什么？”；他人提供解释后，会接受并将其联系起来。*	在接受某项主张前会主动提出质疑；会注意到同伴的论证缺乏证据。*	无需提示，便会在不同学科中运用分析性提问；会在论证过程中发现自己提出的主张缺乏依据。*	会指出自己推理时采用的分析方法；会在最终确定立场前主动寻找反面证据。*

• = 观察指标（多方信息来源，不通过量规评估）

---

输出 2 — 按能力划分的发展指南

分析推理

能力定义： 检验证据、评估证据质量并构建有充分依据的立场的能力。 此能力包含的学习目标（LT）： 2 个——LT-AR1（类型 2，推理质量量规）和 LT-AR2（类型 3，多方观察）

分析推理是整个课程中所有基于证据的工作的核心能力。它不同于特定学科的内容知识：学生可以对某个主题了解很多，但仍然无法对此进行良好推理。本节介绍两方面内容：可通过量规任务评估的分析能力（LT-AR1），以及必须在不同情境中长期观察的推理倾向（LT-AR2）。请将二者结合起来阅读——两个 LT 之间的关系，蕴含着最重要的发展见解。

LT-AR1：证据分析（类型 2） 在 Band A，学生处于分析推理的表层阶段：他们能够识别一个主张，并检查它是否有依据。这里的进阶杠杆是范围——学生在教师的支持下，针对一篇指定文本进行分析。到了 Band B，杠杆转向复杂性：学生现在必须同时把握两条证据，并比较推理哪一条更有力。这是第一个要求学生展现推理质量，而不仅仅是进行识别的级别。Band C 全面引入推理这一杠杆：学生必须评估一组完整的来源，并为自己的判断提供理由。在这个级别，「提供理由」是关键要求——学生必须说出推理过程，而不能只是得出结论。到了 Band D，进阶杠杆同时转向迁移与精准性：学生要跨情境分析相互竞争的证据，揭示证据中暗含的假设，并构建能够经受质疑的立场。从 Band C 到 Band D，最关键的发展转变是从评估可见内容，转向指出隐藏的内容——假设、框架和视角。

LT-AR2：将推理作为一种实践（Type 3）

这个 LT 描述分析推理是否已成为一种习惯，而不只是一项技能。在 Band A，教师会注意到一个虽不复杂、但真实存在的表现：学生会问「为什么？」这并非成熟的推理，而是发展推理的前提。一个不质疑主张、全盘接受的学生，无论在证据任务中表现得多好，都无法发展分析推理能力。到了 Band B，这种倾向开始独立发挥作用：学生会在没有教师提示的情况下质疑某个主张。对于这个 LT 来说，这是 Band B 最重要的转变——从被动应答式提问转向主动提问。在 Band C，教师会注意到迁移：学生会在不同学科中主动运用分析性提问。这是 Bruner 的螺旋式发展变得可见的表现——同一种推理能力在新的情境中显现。到了 Band D，这种倾向已发展为反思能力：学生会在推理过程中说出自己正在运用的分析方法。这种元认知式的叙述，是这一等级范围内该倾向最高层次、可观察的表现。

LT-AR1 和 LT-AR2 合起来看： 这两个 LT 从不同角度描述同一发展领域。LT-AR1 描述学生在任务要求推理时能够做到什么，并通过评分量规进行评定。LT-AR2 描述学生在没有任务要求时是否也会推理——是否自发地在不同情境中、长期持续地这样做。学生可能在 LT-AR1 上得分很高，但在 LT-AR2 上体现出的证据有限：他们在被要求时能够分析，却没有质疑的习惯。这并不矛盾，而是有用的发展信息。它告诉教师下一步该做什么：不是布置更多分析任务，而是创造更多重视并关注提问的情境。

其他能力的前置要求： 在 LT-AR1 Band C 将来源可信度评估作为要求引入之前，学生应已具备来源素养（理解什么可以算作来源）。

关键进阶观察： 分析推理真正发展的最明显标志，是从按要求进行分析转向习惯性地进行分析。当学生开始在教师指出之前，就能发现自己缺乏依据的主张（LT-AR2 的 Band C），说明这种倾向已经扎根。

设计说明

1. 进阶弧线标记： LT-AR1 从 Band C 到 Band D 是这一组中最显著的能力跃升——从评估证据质量转向揭示假设。教师应预期，这一转变需要明确教授如何识别假设，而不只是增加证据评估任务的练习。这一跨越在教学设计上是有意为之，但需要提供支架。

2. 教学实施压力： 在这项包含两个 LT 的能力中，未发现共同的教学实施压力。请注意，两个 LT 都同时在 Band D 达到最高要求，这意味着到达该阶段时，Type 2 评估基础设施和 Type 3 观察基础设施都必须正常运行。

3. Type 3 指标区分度不足： LT-AR2 的 Band C 和 Band D 指标间距较近。Band C：学生能在论证过程中发现自己提出了缺乏依据的主张。Band D：学生能说出自己正在采用的分析方法，并主动寻找反面证据。在实际观察中，很难通过一次观察事件区分这些行为。要区分二者，需要跨多个情境和学科的纵向证据——教师不应仅凭单次事件就得出 Band D 的结论。

4. 不明显的 Type 2/Type 3 关系： LT-AR1 和 LT-AR2 显然相互配对，二者的关系也体现在 KUD 图表输入中。无需标记。

5. 输入缺口： LT-AR1 Band A：Know 和 Understand 要素虽已具备，但内容很少。更完整的 Band A KUD 图表将有助于完善矩阵单元格和该阶段的章节叙述。未发现 Band B–D 的内容缺口。

---

已知局限

1. 此技能综合整理 KUD 图表所提供的内容。 如果输入的 KUD 图表进阶逻辑薄弱、各阶段陈述不够完善，或缺少 K/U/Do 要素，综合结果会在设计说明中指出这些问题——但无法修正这些问题。请先使用 kud-chart-author 技能完善输入，再进行综合整理。

2. 发布前需要人工排版矩阵。 此处生成的 Markdown 表格是为课程指南文档设计的，并非可直接印刷的版式。Type 2 和 Type 3 单元格之间的视觉区分（以星号标记）可能需要在最终发布时调整为颜色编码、字体样式或底纹。

3. 叙述性综合不能替代课程实施规划。 章节部分描述了哪些方面在发展以及原因——阐明了预期的进阶弧线。实际能否落实这一进阶弧线，取决于单元计划、教学序列和形成性评估循环；此技能不会生成这些内容。请使用 scope-and-sequence-designer 和 three-part-lesson-designer 技能进行实施规划。

4. 相邻阶段的 Type 3 观察指标区分需要纵向证据。 设计说明会标出相邻阶段的 Type 3 指标间距较近之处。这并非设计缺陷——态度倾向的发展本就逐步渐进。为此，需要随着时间推移保存并比较观察记录，而不能仅凭单次事件的印象得出结论。

5. 受众语体会统一应用于两项输出。 受众参数会一致地应用于矩阵和所有章节部分。如果课程指南需要面向不同受众采用不同语体（例如，面向教师的章节与面向家长的摘要并列），请使用不同的受众设置运行两次技能，再手动合并输出。