Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment

gear iconFuture ready curriculum, instruction, and assessment begins with involved and innovative leaders who support educators and learners in using data to create a learner-centered environment. Educators ensure equity in opportunity, and design academic content and instruction by leveraging adaptive technologies, tools, pedagogies, and resources to ensure relevance and deep understanding of complex topics. Access to multimodal, multiformat, and multi-sourced high-quality academic content greatly improves learner experience and promotes equitable academic opportunities. Educators apply innovative approaches to content design to accommodate for learner variability. Learner-centered, culturally relevant instruction creates opportunities to provide multiple perspectives on and around content, engage locally and globally with peers and experts, personalize learning for students, and encourage learner reflection on their own work and that of others. Educators assess competencies more fully as learners leverage technology to offer multiple pathways to demonstrate and deliver learning outcomes. Intentional collection of learners’ understanding and progress is central to a responsive learner-centered environment. Learner data provides countless avenues of insight, serving as building blocks of assessment (diagnostic, formative, and summative); indicators of interest; and metrics of progress. Future ready educators rely upon data to inform instruction and improve the efficacy, expediency, and efficiency of learning. Similarly, future ready students develop data familiarity and fluency as well as the skills to better self-assess content mastery progress.

Future Ready Skills for Deeper Learning

Future ready curriculum, instruction, and assessment are based on clear expectations that all students will leave the K–12 education system sufficiently and successfully prepared for college acceptance, career pathways, and workplace readiness. These expectations not only mandate solid grounding in standards-based content but also require intentional integration and support of future ready skills like critical thinking, problem solving, creativity, innovation, and self-direction. Instructional leaders emphasize a comprehensive and inclusive K–12 digital citizenship curriculum designed to introduce and support the complexities of media literacy. A robust digital citizenship curriculum addresses three comprehensive themes: (1) respect, (2) educate, and (3) protect.

Respect includes the following topics:

  • digital accessadvocating for learners rights and access;
  • digital etiquettepracticing appropriate online conduct; and
  • digital lawunderstanding legalities of digital work, identity, and/or property.

Educate includes the following topics:

  • digital communicationdeveloping awareness and fluency of multiple digital communication media and making appropriate decisions for use;
  • digital literacylearning in a digital society; and
  • digital commercebecoming informed and effective consumers.

Protect includes the following topics:

  • digital rights and responsibilitiesinforming and protecting basic digital rights (e.g., privacy, freedom of speech);
  • digital safety and securityunderstanding how best to protect information housed online and/or in digital media; and
  • digital health and wellnessunderstanding the health and wellness implications (e.g., physical, mental, emotional) of technology.

Future ready classrooms embed culturally relevant literacy into course content and provide opportunities for authentic learning in the context of today’s diverse, globally and digitally connected society.

Personalized Learning

Personalization involves tailoring content, pacing, and feedback to the academic, social, and emotional needs of each learner. This includes developing multiple pathways through which learners are empowered to design, approach, and solve complex issues. Educators feature anti-racist, diverse and inclusive learning resources and materials, leverage technologies, and employ data collection and analyses to personalize learning experiences for each student. In doing so, conditions are created for learner autonomy, increased engagement, and individual goal setting.

Collaborative, Relevant, and Applied Learning

In future ready learning environments, curricula and content are embedded authentically within global and problem-based challenges, similar to the work of professionals in the larger society. Students collaborate with educators, fellow students, and others outside of the school environment on projects that often (1) involve the creation of knowledge-related products, (2) foster deep learning, and (3) have value beyond the classroom walls. Technology is used as a tool to enhance learning, such as when students connect with a school across the country on a community issue to identify and create solutions collaboratively.

Leveraging Technology

Future ready educators support and challenge student learning by integrating adaptive and emerging technologies appropriately and seamlessly into teaching and learning cycles and processes. Educators skillfully evaluate, adopt, and integrate multiple highly effective learning technologies to support a diverse range of learners, and ensure equity in access in the process. As content structures and needs fluctuate, educators respond with agility, fluency, and confidence assuring chosen pedagogical practices, instructional resources, and tools best reflect intended learning goals.

Assessment—Analytics Inform Instruction

Districts and schools use technology where appropriate to diagnose students’ learning differences. Through authentic formative and summative assessment, educators use performance data to change the pace and breadth of content to meet students’ needs. School systems have mechanisms such as team data meetings that result in clear next steps after analyzing data (i.e., processes and digital environments) that help educators use data to improve, enrich, and guide the learning process for all students. Educators actively use data to guide decisions that impact all students to improve learning most effectively. Similarly, students use data as confident self-directed learners, analyzing and assessing metrics to inform next tasks, resource acquisition, and content engagement strategies to meet personalized learning goals.

Featured Resource

CIA support image

[Blog] Supporting Exceptional Students Through Student-Centered Learning Strategies

Learn the unique approaches educators and leaders can apply to ensure that students with disabilities have the resources they need to engage in personalized student-centered learning

Implementation Guide

Alignment to Learning Sciences and Evidence

Implement instructional strategies that align with and build on learning and human development research.

Cited References
  • A. Bain and M. E. Weston, The Learning Edge: What Technology Can Do to Educate All Children (New York, NY: Teachers College Press, 2012).
  • D. Bebell and R. Kay, One to One Computing: A Summary of the Quantitative Results from the Berkshire Wireless Learning Initiative,” The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment 9, no. 2 (2010).
  • R. E. Bennett et al., Measuring Problem Solving with Technology: A Demonstration Study for NAEP,” The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment 8, no. 8 (2010).
  • J. D. Bransford, A. L. Brown, and R. Cocking, How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999).
  • B. Bray and K. McClaskey, Make Learning Personal: The What, Who, WOW, Where, and Why (Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2014).
  • A. C. Cheung and R. E. Slavin, The Effectiveness of Educational Technology Applications for Enhancing Mathematics Achievement in K12 Classrooms: A Meta-Analysis,” Educational Research Review 9, (2013): 88113.
  • D. B. Clark, E. E. Tanner-Smith, S. S. Killingsworth, Digital Games, Design, and Learning: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” Review of Educational Research 86, no. 1 (2014): 79–122.
  • Council of Chief State School Officers, “Roadmap for Competency-Based Systems: Leveraging Next Generation Technologies,” (accessed June 16, 2020).
  • L. Darling-Hammond, The Flat World and Education: How Americas Commitment to Equity Will Determine Our Future (New York, NY: Teachers College Press, 2010).
  • C. Dede, The Scaling-Up Process for Technology-Based Educational Innovations,” in Learning with Technology, ed. C. Dede, 199215 (Alexandria, VA: ASCD, 1998).
  • S. Downes, Models for Sustainable Open Educational Resources,” Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects 3 (2007).
  • C. Dweck, Carole Dweck Revisits the ‘Growth Mindset,Education Week Opinion (blog), Editorial Projects in Education, September 22, 2015,
  • R. Farrow et al., Impact of OER Use on Teaching and Learning: Data from OER Research Hub (2013–2014),” British Journal of Educational Technology 46, no. 5 (2015): 972976.
  • A. J. Fletcher and G. Shaw, How Does Student-Directed Assessment Affect Learning? Using Assessment as a Learning Process,” International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches 6, no. 3 (2012).
  • M. Fullan and K. Donnelly, Evaluating and Assessing Tools in the Digital Swamp (Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree, 2015).
  • E. Gonzalez, I. Kirsch, and K. Yamamoto, The Role of International Large-Scale Assessments: Perspectives from Technology, Economy, and Educational Research (Dordrecht: Springer, 2013).
  • J. A. Fredricks, P. C. Blumenfeld, and A. H. Paris, School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence,” Review of Educational Research 74, no. 1 (2004): 59.
  • E. A. Hanushek and L. Woessmann, Do Better Schools Lead to More Growth? Cognitive Skills, Economic Outcomes, and Causation (NBER Working Papers 14633) (Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., 2009).
  • K. F. Hew and W. S. Cheung, Use of Web 2.0 Technologies in K12 and Higher Education: The Search for Evidence-Based Practice,” Educational Research Review 9 (2013): 4764.
  • L. Hamilton et al., Using Student Achievement Data to Support Instructional Decision Making (NCEE 2009-4067) (Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, 2009).
  • J. Hattie, Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement (Oxford, England: Routledge, 2009).
  • ——, Visible Learning for Teachers: Maximizing Impact on Learning (Oxford, England: Routledge, 2012).
  • A. Powell et al., Blending Learning: The Evolution of Online and Face-to-Face Education from 2008–2015 (Vienna, VA: iNACOL, 2015),

  • International Society for Technology in Education, “ISTE Standards,” (accessed June 16, 2020).
  • J. Johnston and L. T. Baker, Assessing the Impact of Technology in Teaching and Learning (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, 2002).
  • D. W. Johnson and R. T. Johnson, Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Learning (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1991).
  • P. Kyllonen, Measurement of 21st Century Skills within the Common Core State Standards,” paper presented at the Invitational Research Symposium on Technology Enhanced Assessments, May 7-8, 2012, Washington, DC.
  • C. Fadel and C, Lemke, Technology in Schools: What the Research Says (San Jose, CA: Cisco Systems, 2006),
  • C. Lehmann and Z. Chase, Building School 2.0: How to Create the Schools We Need (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2015).
  • C. Lemke, Intelligent Adaptive Learning: An Essential Element of 21st Century Teaching (Bellvue, WA: Dreambox Learning, 2010),
  • ———, Assessment: Driving Education Transformation (Santa Clara, CA: Intel Corporation, Commissioned and published by Cisco Systems, 2011)
  • R. J. Marzano, A New Era of School Reform: Going Where the Research Takes Us (Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning, 2000).
  • B. Means et al., Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, 2010).
  • Metiri Group. Dimensions 21: A framework for Digital Readiness.
  • Metiri Group and NCREL, enGauge: 21st Century Skills for 21st Century Learners (Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, 2003).
  • National Research Council, Copyright in the Digital Era: Building Evidence for Policy (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2013).
  • National Research Council, Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2012).
  • Office of Educational Technology, Expanding Evidence Approaches for Learning in A Digital World (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 2012).
  • Partnership for 21st Century Learning, Framework for 21st Century Learning(Washington, DC: Battelle for Kids, 2007),
  • D. B. Reeves, Accountability for Learning: How Teachers and School Leaders Can Take Charge (Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development 2004).
  • M. Russell, D. Bebell, and J. Higgins, Laptop Learning: A Comparison of Teaching and Learning in Upper Elementary Classrooms Equipped with Shared Carts of Laptops and Permanent 1:1 Laptops,” Journal of Educational Computing Research 30, no. 4 (2004): 313330.
  • M. Scardamalia, B. Kozma, and E. Quellmalz, New Assessments and Environments for Knowledge Building,” in Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills, ed. P. Griffin, B. McGaw, and E. Care, 231–300 (Dordrecht: Springer, 2012).
  • L. Schrum and B. B. Levin, Leading 21st Century Schools: Harnessing Technology for Engagement and Achievement (Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, 2009).
  • U.S. Department of Education, “National Education Technology Plan,” (accessed June 16, 2020).
  • T. Wagner and T. Dintersmith, Most Likely to Succeed: Preparing Our Kids for the Innovation Era (New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Digital Sales Inc., 2015).
  • D. Wiliam, The Role of Formative Assessment in Effective Learning Environments,” in The Nature of Learning: Using Research to Inspire Practice, ed. H. Dumont, D. Instance, and F. Benavides (Paris: OECD Publishing, 2010).
  • ———,Changing Classroom Practice,” Educational Leadership 65, no. 4 (2007): 36.
  • M. Wilson and K. Scalise, Measuring Collaborative Digital Literacy,” paper presented at the Invitational Research Symposium on Technology Enhanced Assessments, May 7-8, 2012, Washington, DC.
  • M. A. Wolf, Innovate to Educate: System [Re]Design for Personalized Learning: A Report from the 2010 Symposium (Washington, DC: Software & Information Industry Association, 2010).
  • B. J. Zimmerman,Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: An Overview,” Educational Psychologist 25, no. 1 (1990): 317.