Education Model¶
Learning Structure, Depth Model, and Career Explorer
Working document. Exploratory but stabilised. Preserves the current state of educational thinking so it does not have to be rediscovered.
1. Purpose of This Document¶
This document captures the current agreed mental model for how educational content is structured in UCCA.
It exists to:
- preserve decisions already made
- prevent re-litigating foundational ideas
- provide stable conceptual input to architecture and generator work
This is not:
- a final curriculum
- an implementation specification
- a prompt design
- a commercial or pricing document
It is a working education model. It may evolve, but changes should be intentional and explicit.
2. Core Insight: Same Competency, Different Cognitive Frames¶
A single unit of competency can generate multiple, equally valid learning experiences depending on the learner's depth, role, and responsibility.
This is not difficulty scaling. It is perspective scaling.
The learner is not "less capable" at Entry and "more capable" at Strategic. They are operating at different decision horizons.
This insight underpins the entire UCCA education engine.
3. The Four-Level Learning Matrix (Canonical)¶
The learning model is defined by the question the learner is trying to answer.
| Level | Question |
|---|---|
| Entry | "What do I do?" |
| Practitioner | "How do I handle this?" |
| Advanced | "How do we navigate ambiguity?" |
| Strategic | "How do we design systems so this doesn't happen?" |
These four levels:
- apply to the same unit of competency
- are not difficulty tiers
- are not sequential requirements
- can exist as independent products
The competency remains constant. The cognitive frame changes.
4. What Changes Across Levels (Invariants)¶
Across levels, content varies along predictable axes. These are generator invariants, not content examples.
| Axis | Entry | Practitioner | Advanced | Strategic |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Decision scope | Individual actions | Situational judgment | Trade-offs and competing truths | Organisational and systemic design |
| Time horizon | Immediate moment | Shift or day | Sustained patterns | Months, quarters, years |
| Autonomy | Guided and protocol-driven | Judgment within bounds | Discretionary authority | Authority to change rules |
| Consequence scale | Personal performance | Guest or client outcomes | Team and experience integrity | Cost, retention, reputation, safety |
| Tone and voice | Instructional and reassuring | Experienced peer | Reflective and nuanced | Analytical and systems-oriented |
| Assessment intent | Recognition and correct response | Diagnosis and adaptation | Reasoning under ambiguity | Prevention and system redesign |
At no point does the competency become invalid. Only the frame of application changes.
5. Career Explorer: A Separate Product Class (Canonical)¶
Career Explorer answers a different question entirely:
"Should I do this job?"
It is designed for:
- workforce re-entry
- career changers
- people exploring a field without commitment
It is experiential and diagnostic, not instructional.
Success is decision clarity. A "no" outcome is a valid success.
6. What Career Explorer Is Not¶
Career Explorer is not:
- Entry-level training
- a prerequisite for learning
- part of the four-level matrix
- a competency assessment
It does not teach how to do the job. It shows what the job actually feels like.
7. Structural Differences: Explorer vs Learning Levels¶
| Dimension | Learning Levels | Career Explorer |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose | Build capability | Enable decision-making |
| Style | Instructional | Scenario-driven |
| Assessment | Competency | Self-assessment |
| Outcome | Uncertainty → confidence | Uncertainty → clarity |
They must not be collapsed into a single ladder.
8. Placement and Friction Considerations¶
Career Explorer should not automatically sit in front of courses.
Forcing it as "step one" introduces friction for motivated learners.
Career Explorer should exist as:
- a parallel surface
- a separate entry point
- an optional decision tool
It may lead into Entry learning, but must never block it.
9. Implications for the Generator (High Level Only)¶
The generator must support:
- depth as a first-class input
- same unit producing multiple depth outputs
- depth influencing narrative framing, tone, examples, and assessment style
Career Explorer requires:
- a separate generation mode
- scenario-led content
- reflective questioning
- no competency claims
Explorer content must never be confused with accredited learning.
10. Role of Human Review¶
The intended workflow is:
- generator produces a strong, coherent base
- human performs light editorial refinement
- refinements are documented
- patterns inform future generator tuning
Human intervention should decrease over time. The goal is trustworthy generation, not perfect automation.
11. What Is Intentionally Out of Scope¶
This document does not define:
- pricing
- bundling
- accreditation strategy
- LMS presentation
- marketing funnels
- prompt syntax
- API contracts
Those belong downstream.
12. Status and Change Discipline¶
This document reflects the current stable understanding of the education model.
Change only when:
- a limitation is discovered
- a contradiction emerges
- a better abstraction replaces an old one
Rewrite for clarity freely. Re-decide fundamentals deliberately.
End of working education model.
Version History¶
| Version | Date | Change | Author |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.0 | 2026-03-11 | Migrated from engine/ucca-engine/docs/education/00_EDUCATION_MODEL__working.md | Claude Code |