PROPOSED PROJECT
Course Coverage Checker
Show course leaders where each learning goal is covered in lessons, practice tasks, and assessments. Link to the relevant material, flag missing coverage, and prepare a list of revisions for educators to review.
Taught. Practiced. But never assessed.
3 learning goals
8 linked cells / 1 open gap
Find the missing evidence
behind a course claim.
The fictional fractions unit has three goals: make equivalent fractions, add unlike fractions, and explain why equal-sized parts are needed. The first two have teaching, practice, and quiz evidence. The explanation goal appears in lesson L03 and practice P03 but has no assessment item. The map therefore shows eight evidence links and one assessment gap, with a new explanation question drafted for course-lead review.
WHAT IS USUALLY DONE
A course map lists learning goals beside lesson titles, but a matching keyword can be mistaken for actual teaching or assessment. A goal may appear in notes and practice yet never be tested. Reviewers must open several files to find the relevant evidence.
WHAT SOVRUN CAN DO FOR YOU
Sovrun would build a course review map connecting each supplied learning goal to specific teaching passages, practice tasks, and assessment questions. Models propose candidate links; reviewers inspect the actual material and confirm whether it covers the intended skill at the right level. Gaps and weak links remain visible, with revision drafts tied to the missing evidence.
A topic mention
is not the same as a skill check.
The existing quiz asks learners to calculate a sum. It does not ask why the method works. The missing assessment needs to make that reasoning visible, with a marking guide that accepts equivalent explanations.
Calculate 1/3 + 1/4.
This can support G2: add unlike fractions. A correct number alone does not show an explanation of equal-sized parts.
Why isn’t the answer 2/7?
A learner says 1/3 + 1/4 = 2/7. Explain the mistake using equal-sized parts of the same whole.
Draft / course-lead review pending- Explains that thirds and quarters are different-sized pieces.
- Rewrites them as equal-sized pieces without changing the quantities.
- Connects four twelfths plus three twelfths to seven twelfths.
Accept a valid diagram or equivalent explanation. The course lead approves the task and marking guide before the gap is closed.
A map with sources.
A gap with an owner.
The first build covers a defined course version and its approved learning goals. The review produces evidence links and proposed changes; it does not certify a course or automatically publish new assessments.
G3 / assessment evidence missing
Ask for the explanation.
- Teaching
- L03 / p. 4
- Practice
- P03
- Assessment
- No item supplied
- Owner
- Course lead
Explain why 2/7 is wrong.
Use equal-sized parts to explain the method. Keep the draft separate from the approved assessment until the course lead signs it off.
Gap remains openHow we’d make it happen.
Index the goals and current materials
Read the designated course versions and learning goals. Preserve page, task, and assessment references so every proposed link can be opened.
Check the evidence for each goal
Suggest links across teaching, practice, and assessment. Reviewers confirm the actual skill covered and reject superficial topic matches.
Close the gaps deliberately
Draft a missing task or revision, attach the intended goal, and route it to the course lead. Update the map only after the revised material is reviewed.
Where AI helps
Document and language models locate possible matches between learning goals and supplied materials. They distinguish a topic mention from a candidate demonstration or question, but do not certify alignment. The review retains page and item references, source versions, and uncertainty. Counts are based on reviewer-confirmed links rather than keyword matches alone.
What people approve
Course leaders and subject specialists decide whether a passage teaches the intended skill, whether practice develops it, and whether the assessment actually tests it. They approve revisions and any formal curriculum claims. The tool does not certify accreditation, educational quality, or learner mastery.
What we’d need to start
- The approved learning goals with intended skill levels and identifiers
- Current lessons, practice tasks, assessment items, and marking guidance with version references
- Course-review criteria, subject reviewers, and the format for approved revisions
How we’d test it
Test goals that share vocabulary but require different skills, outdated lesson versions, missing assessments, and ambiguous questions. Review precision and missed links against subject-specialist judgments. Verify that every confirmed link opens the correct passage and that gaps remain open until the actual revision is approved. Coverage does not establish mastery.
Prepared for Education & learning. We would agree on the work after reviewing your brief, materials, and requirements.
This is a proposed project, not completed client work. The visuals and numbers show example outputs, not measured results.
