Skip to content

Responsive Teaching

Principle · All principles
Evidence · 26 claims (14 for, 10 mixed, 2 against) · 43 studies (12 review, 9 quant-synthesis, 9 qualitative, 8 causal, 2 associational, 2 theoretical, 1 design), q1–q4 · 5 of 43 report an effect size · 17 claims rest on one study

Conditional relationship

This page owns the teacher's in-the-moment departure from the plan: what a teacher does with the ideas learners actually voice during a lesson, and the knowledge that lets the teacher read those ideas and choose among them. For learners working toward a concept or principle (or toward choosing and explaining a strategy) whose partial or mistaken ideas are likely to diverge from the planned path, a teacher who (1) makes each learner's thinking visible at planned points in the episode, (2) reads it against a prepared model of the ideas learners typically hold (a learning trajectory, or the reasons a curriculum sequences its activities as it does), and (3) chooses the next move from what was read (press for reasoning, contrast cases, confront the idea, give task- or process-level feedback, hold back, re-sequence) is expected to produce better conceptual-understanding and near-transfer than the same plan delivered unchanged. The expected change is at the horizon of the next aligned task or unit (immediate-performance, general-achievement); nothing here bears on delayed-retention.

No claim in the wiki tests responsive teaching against delivering the same plan unchanged. The nearest evidence tests parts of the relationship: support contingent on a learner's last response against fixed or no support (one-to-one tutoring of children), classroom formative assessment against instruction without it (K-12 meta-analyses with small average effects), the level that feedback addresses, contrasting correct with erroneous examples, confronting misconceptions, and one case study in which novice instructors who learned why a curriculum was designed as it was made six kinds of responsive move. That case study measured the instructors' moves, not their students' learning. The earlier page cited Carpenter et al. (1989), the Cognitively Guided Instruction experiment, for larger achievement gains; no claim page records that study, so it is not used as evidence here.

The relationship is conditional on four things: whether learners' thinking is actually visible (an idea not voiced cannot be responded to); whether the teacher has a model of likely ideas to read it against (without one, responses become generic praise or re-explanation, as the earlier page warned); whether the teacher has the time and authority to depart from the plan; and whether the class is diverging at all (where learners are already on track, departures add little and cost coverage).

How the converted siblings sit beside this page. The formative assessment principle and pattern own the general loop of eliciting a response, interpreting it against rival explanations, acting and re-observing; this page is that loop run by a teacher inside one episode, and adds the teacher's idea map and the triage of which idea to pursue. Assessment for Learning owns who uses the evidence, against what criteria and under what stakes. Scaffolding and Fading owns how support is raised, lowered and withdrawn for one learner. Check-ins owns self-reports about a learner's state. Adaptive Learning owns selection of the next task by a system from a learner's answers. Cognitive Activation owns the tasks whose outputs make reasoning visible. This page does not repeat their models.

Default design, while the relationship is untested

The earlier page's guidance, made concrete. Each step is a design proposal with its evidence status beside it.

  1. Before the unit, build an idea map. For each planned task, write down the two or three ideas learners most often bring (including the misconception the materials were designed to confront) and one prepared move for each. If a research-based curriculum is in use, read why each activity is placed where it is: which idea it is meant to surface, which later section resolves it. Dose: about 15 minutes of preparation per lesson (an untested proposal). Basis for the curricular part: Developing curricular design knowledge enables small-scale responsive adaptations within a structured curriculum [+M] (14 undergraduate Learning Assistants in introductory physics; moves documented, student learning not measured).
  2. Plan two or three elicitation points per lesson where every learner's thinking becomes visible, not only that of volunteers: a prediction before a demonstration, a one-line explanation, a worked attempt on a mini-whiteboard, a poll with a "why" box. Place the first within the first 10 minutes. Basis: classroom formative assessment, which elicits and uses evidence of learning, raised achievement by a small average amount in K-12 meta-analyses (Assessment for learning improves achievement [+M]); the number and timing of points are untested proposals.
  3. Sort the responses against the map in under two minutes: on track; an expected idea (which one); unexpected. Count roughly how many hold each. Untested proposal.
  4. Triage before moving. Pursue an idea when it bears on today's goal and several learners hold it. Note and set aside an idea that is tangential, and tell the learner when it will come back. Hold back when a later section of the sequence is designed to confront that very idea. Basis for holding back: one of the six moves in the Learning Assistant case study (curricular knowledge [+M]); the triage rule itself is untested. Waiting before stepping in can leave room for learners to solve the problem themselves (Effective intervention timing in AI-based instruction does not always mean immediate response [~W], a review citing one study).
  5. Choose the move from a short menu matched to the idea.
  6. Press for reasoning with a question or hint rather than an explanation, and raise the support only if the learner still cannot go on: Contingent scaffolding improves learning more than fixed or absent support. [+M] (one-to-one tutoring; contingent prompting matched explaining on immediate learning and did better on transfer in one small study).
  7. Contrast a correct and an incorrect solution, using the class's own error (anonymised) as the incorrect one, and ask learners to find and fix it: Erroneous examples improve conceptual understanding by forcing comparison with correct models. [+M] (fourth and fifth graders, decimal magnitude, brief tutoring).
  8. Confront the idea: a discrepant demonstration whose outcome the idea predicts wrongly, or an explicit statement of the idea followed by its refutation: Instruction that confronts science misconceptions produces conceptual change more often than standard exposition [+M] (two syntheses, science and reading education, read from abstracts).
  9. Give feedback on the task and the process, not on the person: say what in the work meets the goal, what does not, and which strategy to change: Feedback is most effective at task and process levels. [+S] (two meta-analyses; the levels were not coded directly).
  10. Re-sequence or reteach one part, when most of the class shares a gap the plan assumed was closed. Untested proposal.
  11. Re-observe before going on. After the move, give one new item on which the idea and the target predict different answers; go back to the plan when most responses are on track. Untested here; the re-observation step is modelled in the formative assessment pattern.
  12. Cap each departure. In a 50-minute lesson, give an unplanned departure no more than about 10 minutes before returning to the plan or carrying the idea into the next lesson, and record what was cut. The earlier page warned that pursuing every idea fragments instruction; the cap is an untested proposal.
  13. Fade the teacher's role across sessions. Weeks 1–3: the teacher runs the idea map and the menu, and names the ideas aloud. Weeks 4–8: learners compare and name ideas in pairs before the teacher responds; the teacher adds new ideas met in class to the map after each lesson (5 minutes). Later: learners check their own work against a worked contrast and ask for help only when stuck. Move a learner off teacher-led elicitation when two consecutive elicitation items are on track. Basis: Fading support promotes the transfer of responsibility from instructor to learner. [+M] (example-to-problem fading, near transfer); the weekly arc and its thresholds are untested proposals.
  14. For a teacher or tutor who is still learning this (a new teacher, a Learning Assistant, a volunteer): build curricular knowledge over a term, not in one workshop. Weekly preparation of about an hour that asks why the coming activities are sequenced as they are, plus a short written reflection on one interaction where that knowledge changed a response. The case study documented the knowledge developing over about 30 weeks (curricular knowledge [+M]); the weekly dose is the study's programme, carried here as a proposal.

When a condition is not met: if learners' thinking cannot be seen during the lesson (a lecture to hundreds, self-paced online work), use items whose answers can be checked automatically plus one free-text explanation reviewed between sessions, and respond in the next session; if the teacher has no idea map and no time to build one, keep the plan and use only steps 2, 5 (task and process feedback) and 6.

Fitting the design to a situation

The three facts that most change the decision:

  • Can every learner's thinking be seen during the lesson, and by whom? Most evidence for contingent response is one-to-one; with one teacher and thirty learners, or no teacher, elicitation must reach everyone at once and the response must target the commonest idea. If unstated, ask: during the lesson, how will the teacher see each learner's reasoning, and how soon?
  • Does the teacher have a model of likely ideas for this content? Without one, responses become generic. If unstated, ask: what ideas do learners usually bring to this task, and does the curriculum say which misconception each activity targets?
  • How much freedom to depart from the plan, and how much time? A scripted pacing guide, a fixed short session or a shared exam date limits the moves to small ones inside the sequence. If unstated, ask: what must be covered by when, and what may be moved?
If the brief says… Then change… Basis
Learners are advanced, or already on track at the first elicitation point Keep the plan; one elicitation point to confirm, then move to harder or transfer items; drop the detour menu Instructional guidance that helps novices can become redundant or counterproductive as expertise grows. [~M] (cognitive-load studies; carried from guidance formats to teacher responsiveness)
Learners are child (primary age), or emergent bilinguals Elicit by doing, drawing or pointing as well as speaking; accept home-language explanations; read the idea, not the wording untested; from the earlier page (reasoning may be ahead of expression)
Goal is a concept or principle with known misconceptions Use the contrast and confrontation moves first; re-observe with an item the misconception gets wrong Erroneous examples improve conceptual understanding [+M]; Instruction that confronts science misconceptions [+M]
Goal is fluency or recall (verbal-association, a practised procedure) Keep the planned practice sequence; respond to error rate (more items, worked feedback) rather than to individual ideas untested; from the earlier page
classroom, one teacher, a large group Elicit from all at once (mini-whiteboards, a poll with a reason box, a quick form); respond to the commonest idea with the whole class; go to the small group still off track while others work untested at class scale: teachers using real-time response tools report changing lessons (Teachers reported that CRS-and-TEFA use gave them more information about student thinking [+W]; Teachers use Microsoft Forms for real-time formative assessment [+W]); contingent support is shown one-to-one only (contingent scaffolding [~M])
Mixed modes: some learners remote, some in the room, or phone-only Run every elicitation through one channel all can use (a poll or chat answer with a reason); read remote answers aloud with the room's so both are in the sort; avoid moves that rely on seeing a whiteboard untested proposal
online-self-paced, no teacher present, or an AI tutor does the responding Use automatic checks for answers, but add one free-text explanation per lesson reviewed by a person between sessions; do not rely on the system's inference of what the learner knows Generative AI tutors currently struggle to infer student knowledge [-W] (a review citing two studies); intelligent tutors helped whether or not they modelled misconceptions (ITS effectiveness is not moderated by whether the ITS provides feedback or models student misconceptions [~M], one meta-analysis)
A single session only One idea map for the one task; two elicitation points (minute 5 and minute 30 of 45); one move per point; a final unaided item; do not claim retention untested proposal
Fixed short time budget (for example 20 minutes) 3 minutes elicit, 2 sort, 7 move, 3 re-observe, 5 continue the plan; one departure only untested proposal
Scarce facilitator time (volunteer tutors, Learning Assistants, a busy shift, one tutor checking in briefly) Give the facilitator a printed idea map with three likely ideas and one move each; one question at each check-in ("what did you predict, and why?"); a 10-minute weekly debrief on one interaction curricular knowledge [+M] (undergraduate Learning Assistants with weekly preparation; carried to volunteers untested)
Scripted pacing, a structured curriculum that must be followed, or a shared exam date Use only curriculum-embedded moves: hold back when a later section confronts the idea, refer a learner to another section, prioritise the higher-leverage exercises, explain a stuck point by the activity's purpose curricular knowledge [~M] (the study calls these small-scale adaptations); teachers report frequent small customizations of a structured curriculum (Teachers make frequent small customizations to OpenSciEd materials [~W])
The brief names its own routine for eliciting thinking (its own exit ticket, check-in, rubric or prompt) Keep it as given; change only what is read from it (sort responses against the idea map) and add one move per common idea untested proposal
The brief gives its own categories, criteria or rubric Use them as the idea map's headings and as the feedback's terms; do not substitute this page's menu labels untested proposal
Learners with low confidence or low literacy Collect responses privately (cards, anonymous poll); never put a named learner's error up as the contrast case; let learners show reasoning by doing before explaining untested proposal
Private or sensitive material (personal experience, health, identity) The learner decides what is shared and with whom; respond only to what they choose to share; use invented cases for contrast untested proposal
Adults in work settings, or professionals Build the idea map from the errors seen in their work; elicit with a short case from their practice; respond with task and process feedback tied to the job standard untested; feedback-level evidence is general (Feedback is most effective at task and process levels. [+S])
A whole-task performance the brief wants kept whole (a lab, a case, a draft, a performance for a real audience) Elicit at the task's decision points by watching and asking ("what will you do next, and why?") rather than splitting it into items; respond in the rehearsal, not in front of the audience untested proposal
Stakes are high, or responses could count toward a grade Keep elicitation ungraded and say so; judge readiness on a separate unaided item untested; the assessment-for-learning claim's own discussion says no recorded study tests grading stakes
Humanities or open-interpretation content rather than STEM Map ideas as lines of interpretation, not right and wrong; respond by pressing for textual evidence rather than by scaling difficulty Teachers agreed lesson plans need adjustment when student ability diverges, with STEM subjects more amenable to difficulty scaling [~W] (interviews with teachers)

Eight of the nineteen rows cite a claim; most carry a neighbouring finding (one-to-one tutoring, cognitive-load studies, a case study of physics Learning Assistants, teacher interviews) to the setting named and say so. The others are untested proposals.

Observation, state and explanation

What can be observed is a response under stated conditions: the prompt, who answered (all, or volunteers), the words, drawing or worked steps, and what the learner did after the teacher's move. "Holds misconception X", "is on track" and "understood the contrast" are inferred states. A teacher's sort of responses is itself an inference and can be wrong in the same ways.

Response Plausible explanations Observation that could change the interpretation
A learner's answer matches an expected misconception The learner holds the idea; the learner guessed or copied a neighbour; the prompt was ambiguous and invited that answer Ask for the reason behind the answer, privately; give an item where the idea and the target predict different results.
Most of the class is right, a few are not The few share an idea the map lacks; they lack a prerequisite; they did not understand the prompt Ask one of them to say how they got it; check the prerequisite with a single item.
An idea appears that is not on the map A genuinely new idea; a familiar idea in unfamiliar words (often in a second language); off-task humour Restate it and ask the learner whether that is what they meant; add it to the map only after it recurs.
After the move, responses are right but explanations are not Learners picked up the answer, not the reasoning; the re-observation item was too close to the contrast Give a changed item that the copied answer would not solve; ask for a non-verbal explanation.
Learners stop offering ideas after a few lessons Errors felt exposed; the teacher's responses read as correction of the person; elicitation never changed anything Switch to anonymous responses for a week and compare the range of ideas offered.

These rows are proposals, untested with learners as diagnostics. Every probe is also teaching and changes the state it measures, so record each one, and keep open the explanations that remain rather than choosing the one that fits the map.

Evidence and qualifications

No claim compares responsive teaching with the same plan delivered unchanged, or varies how much the teacher departs from it. The claims below test neighbouring parts.

  • Contingent scaffolding improves learning more than fixed or absent support. [+M]: fourth and fifth graders tutored one-to-one in long division under fully contingent support solved more problems than under fixed, partly contingent or no support, at an immediate and a one-month test (8 per condition, a quasi-experiment); in a small study of eighth graders, interactive tutoring (questions and hints rather than explaining) matched on immediate learning and did better on transfer; a meta-analysis of dynamic assessment ranked explicit strategy training above scaffolding and scaffolding above coaching. Its table counts 20 distinct studies behind it and the narrower claims that bear on it, 3 with an effect size coded. The claim's own discussion says most evidence is one-to-one and that contingency is scarce in whole-class teaching. It supports the responding half of this page in tutoring, not at class scale.
  • Assessment for learning improves achievement [+M]: two K-12 meta-analyses of formative assessment with control conditions report small average effects (d = .29 over 33 studies; about .20 over 13 studies, after a published correction), and the founding narrative review reports substantial gains without a pooled estimate. Its table counts 10 distinct studies. It supports eliciting and using evidence during instruction; it does not isolate the teacher's in-the-moment departure from the other parts of formative assessment, and the feature estimates are meta-regression, not direct comparisons.
  • Feedback is most effective at task and process levels. [+S]: in an education meta-analysis of 435 studies, high-information feedback had a very large effect (d = 0.99) and reinforcement or punishment a small one (d = 0.24); a cross-setting meta-analysis found feedback effects fell as feedback drew attention toward the self, and more than a third of feedback interventions lowered performance. Neither coded the four levels directly. It governs the content of a feedback move, not when to depart from a plan.
  • Erroneous examples improve conceptual understanding by forcing comparison with correct models. [+M]: fourth and fifth graders (N = 74) comparing correct and incorrect decimal examples in a brief tutoring session learned more correct procedures and key concepts than those comparing correct examples only; a meta-analysis of prompted self-explanation is read as supporting erroneous examples (no effect size printed). It supports using a learner's error as a contrast case; the caution about learners with no prior knowledge is a precaution on the claim page, not a finding.
  • Instruction that confronts science misconceptions (conceptual-conflict interventions, refutation text) produces conceptual change more often than standard exposition [+M]: a meta-analysis of science and reading-education interventions found that those that worked shared conceptual conflict, and a review of two decades of refutation-text studies found refutation text more likely to produce conceptual change than expository text; both read from abstracts, no pooled effect recorded. Its table counts 4 distinct studies. It supports the confrontation move.
  • Developing curricular design knowledge enables small-scale responsive adaptations within a structured curriculum [+M]: 14 undergraduate Learning Assistants in one university's introductory physics sequence, over 30 weeks of teaching, weekly preparation and a pedagogy course, documented six moves they attributed to knowing why the tutorial curriculum was designed as it was (explaining a stuck section by its strategy, referring to other sections, prioritising exercises, choosing when not to intervene, anticipating targeted misconceptions, deviating when a learner's idea was not the anticipated one). A qualitative case study with no comparison group and no measure of student learning; the study calls the moves small-scale and curriculum-embedded.

Limits. Instructional guidance that helps novices can become redundant or counterproductive as expertise grows. [~M] bounds the relationship from above: support that helps learners who lack the schema can be redundant for those who hold it, so a class already on track gains little from detours. Emerging evidence indicates generative AI tutors currently struggle to accurately infer student knowledge [-W] (a review citing two studies) limits handing the reading of learners' thinking to a generative system, and ITS effectiveness is not moderated by whether the ITS provides feedback or models student misconceptions [~M] (one meta-analysis; intelligent tutors had moderate effects whether or not they modelled misconceptions) qualifies the assumption that diagnosing a specific misconception is what makes adaptive response work.

Learners, settings and outcomes differ across these claims (children tutored one-to-one, K-12 classrooms, undergraduate instructors, general feedback research), so do not rank them by effect label. None measures a teacher's in-the-moment responsiveness and its students' learning together.

Objective and learner-valued goal

The designer's objective is usually a concept or principle the learner can explain and use on a new case at the end of the unit. Elicit separately what learners want from voicing their ideas: to get the right answer quickly, to be heard, to avoid being wrong in public, or to understand something that puzzles them. Agreement and divergence are both observations. A learner who values not being wrong in public will offer the expected answer, not their own idea, and a teacher responding to that answer is responding to a performance; a learner who wants the answer quickly may read a pressing question as withholding.

For example, in an introductory physics tutorial the instructor's objective is that students can predict wave interference, while a student wants to finish the worksheet before the end of the section. Holding back on the student's early misconception (because the next section confronts it) serves the objective but slows the student down. Saying why the instructor is holding back ("the next part will test this prediction; keep it") lets both goals be seen, and the student's later explanation, not the finished worksheet, is the record of whether the objective was met.

What would revise this model?

The expectation should weaken if comparisons of teachers trained to elicit and build on learners' ideas against teachers delivering the same materials as planned, with comparable classes and aligned outcomes, show no advantage in conceptual understanding or transfer, or if the gain at the end of a unit disappears at a delay. If teacher responsiveness works only where the teacher holds a domain-specific idea map, the model should say "responsive teaching with a learning-trajectory model", not responsive teaching in general. If contingent response cannot be shown at class scale, the whole-class version reduces to formative assessment with a fixed menu of moves. If time spent on departures lowers coverage enough to lower achievement on the shared exam, the departure cap should be a requirement, not a proposal. Do not protect the model by calling every failure "not responsive enough" after the fact.

Visible thinking, the teacher's accurate reading of it, a well-chosen move, the learner's changed response, and later independent performance are separate claims. The present evidence establishes no number of elicitation points, no departure cap and no idea-map format.

The evidence by question

  • Does adjusting instruction to evidence of learners' thinking gathered during teaching raise achievement over teaching the plan unchanged? The general claim is Assessment for learning improves achievement [+M]; its table gathers the K-12 meta-analyses behind it and the narrower claims about teachers changing lessons in response to what learners show, none of which measures learning.

Further evidence, not yet read against this model

Claims

Examples

Illustrative

Cognitively Guided Instruction — A professional development program that trains elementary teachers to elicit children's informal solution strategies for arithmetic word problems, classify them against research-based strategy trajectories, and design instruction that builds from each child's current strategy. Carpenter et al. (1989) showed large achievement gains for students of CGI teachers.

Formative Assessment — Classroom cycles of eliciting evidence, interpreting it against learning goals, and adjusting instruction — the institutionalized version of responsive teaching at the lesson scale.

Class Discussion with strategic follow-up — A teacher poses a problem, polls or samples multiple student answers, then sequences and connects responses so the class confronts the key conceptual contrast — responding to the ideas actually in the room rather than the anticipated ones.

Coaching in the moment — During Practice, an instructor observes a learner's attempt, diagnoses the specific flaw in their approach, and offers a targeted hint rather than a full correction — the one-on-one form of responsiveness.

Anchored Instruction — Problem-rich anchors (e.g., The Adventures of Jasper Woodbury) generate diverse student approaches that teachers can surface and build on, making responsive moves natural rather than improvised.

Key Sources

  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. doi:10.1080/0969595980050102
  • Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Chiang, C. P., & Loef, M. (1989). Using knowledge of children's mathematics thinking in classroom teaching: An experimental study. American Educational Research Journal, 26(4), 499–531. doi:10.3102/00028312026004499
  • Robertson, A. D., Scherr, R. E., & Hammer, D. (Eds.). (2016). Responsive teaching in science and mathematics. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315689302
  • Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487
  • Robertson, A. D., Gray, K. E., Lovegren, C. E., Killough, K. L., & Wenzinger, S. T. (2021). Curricular Knowledge as a Resource for Responsive Instruction: A Case Study. Cognition and Instruction, 39(2), 149-180. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2020.1832096
  • Addison, J., Mangnus, E., Cunanan, D. J., Downward, G. S., de Jong, L., van de Kamp, J., Llamas, C. A., Guinto, R. R., & Browne, J. L. (2025). Advancing Societally Engaged and International Planetary Health Education: Innovations, Lessons, and Recommendations for Educators. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 29(2). https://openjournals.uga.edu/jheoe
  • Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Franke, M. L., Levi, L., & Empson, S. B. (1999). Children's mathematics: Cognitively guided instruction. Heinemann.
  • Empson, S. B., & Levi, L. (2011). Extending children's mathematics: Fractions and decimals. Heinemann.
  • Novak, G. M., Patterson, E. T., Gavrin, A. D., & Christian, W. (1999). Just-in-time teaching: Blending active learning with web technology. Prentice Hall.
  • Marrs, K. A., & Novak, G. (2004). Just-in-time teaching in biology: Creating an active learner classroom using the internet. Cell Biology Education, 3(1), 49-61. doi:10.1187/cbe.03-11-0022
  • Brame, C. (n.d.). Just-in-time teaching (JiTT). Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/just-in-time-teaching-jitt/
  • National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (Expanded ed.). National Academy Press. doi:10.17226/9853
  • Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64-74. doi:10.1119/1.18809
  • Arduini-Van Hoose, N. (2020). Just-in-time teaching (JiTT). In Educational psychology. Retrieved from https://edpsych.pressbooks.sunycreate.cloud. CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.
Page metadata
Field Value
type principle
id responsive-teaching
aliases curricular-knowledge-as-a-resource-for-responsiveness, curriculum-flexibility-for-responsive-student-coaches
title Responsive Teaching
description For learners whose ideas on a concept or principle may diverge from the plan, a teacher who makes their thinking visible, reads it against a prepared model of likely ideas and chooses the next move from it is expected to improve conceptual understanding and near transfer over the same plan delivered unchanged; no claim in the wiki tests this directly.
status review
moved_from pattern/cognitively-guided-instruction-cgi-for-math, pattern/just-in-time-teaching
canonical True
generated by claude/unspecified on 2026-10-15
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 2 — robertson-et-al-2021, addison-2025

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.