Skip to content

Sequencing

Principle · All principles
Evidence · 44 claims (22 for, 21 mixed, 1 against) · 39 studies (14 causal, 10 theoretical, 9 review, 2 quant-synthesis, 2 design, 1 associational, 1 qualitative), q1–q4 · 4 of 39 report an effect size · 40 claims rest on one study

Conditional relationship

This page owns the general question of order: which of a target's ideas, sub-skills, examples and tasks a learner meets first, and what follows from that learner's response. For a learner who cannot yet perform or explain a target whose parts depend on each other (a novice on that target, not necessarily in the wider domain), meeting the parts in an order that puts what is needed to understand a step before that step, and moves from what the learner can currently process toward the full complexity of the target, is expected to produce better performance on tasks that draw on the whole (immediate-performance, near-transfer, conceptual-understanding) than the same content in an order chosen for convenience (the textbook's order, the order the topics were written, all detail at one level). The order is a hypothesis about this learner's state, so it is revised from what the learner does: a learner who already has the earlier steps skips them, and one who stalls goes back to the step the stall points to.

The relationship is conditional on four things:

  • The learner's starting knowledge of this target. An order built to protect novices from overload (parts before the whole, an example before a problem, one category at a time) can be redundant for a learner who already holds the structure.
  • The kind of goal. Procedural fluency, conceptual understanding and transfer, and telling confusable categories apart are each served by a different order in the evidence below; there is no order that is best for all three.
  • How much the parts interact. Where the parts of a task can only be understood together, the whole may be too much for a novice at first; where they are loosely linked, the order matters less.
  • The horizon. Several order effects show at one test and not at another, so an order chosen on how practice looks may not be the one that shows at the delayed or transfer test.

No claim in the wiki tests "order by dependency and readiness" as a general rule against another ordering principle. One claim recorded here reports the same gap from a systematic review: an IES practice-guide panel found that none of the 23 studies behind its recommendation to teach early mathematics along a developmental progression compared progression-guided instruction with instruction not guided by one, so the recommendation rests on the panel's expertise (no direct test of a developmental progression [~M]). What the wiki holds are tests of particular order contrasts: a hierarchical organisation (general ideas above detail) against a single-level one; isolated parts before the whole for absolute novices; a short primer on a system's parts before the main lesson against none; a worked example before a problem against a problem before an example; problem solving before instruction against instruction before problem solving; and interleaved against blocked examples of categories. Each holds for some learners, goals and outcomes and not others, and two of them point in opposite directions for different goals. The default design below keeps the earlier page's guidance as labelled proposals, organised around those tested contrasts.

How the converted neighbours sit beside this page: Holistic Learning holds the stance of giving a usable whole early and keeping parts attached to it; Elaboration Theory is the reusable sequence for content (an epitome elaborated level by level) and 4C/ID the reusable sequence for whole tasks in a complex-skill; Knowledge Organization holds which organisation the learner should end up holding; Clear Structure holds making the order and organisation visible (signals, previews, outlines); Chunking holds how large one unit is and where its boundaries fall; Worked Examples holds what comes before the first attempt; Mastery Learning holds the check-and-correct gate before moving on; Scaffolding and Fading holds how support is withdrawn. This page holds the decision that joins them: which order decision a design faces, and what the learner's response and the goal say about it. Use the pattern pages for a step-by-step sequence.

Default design, while the relationship is untested

The earlier page asked for a rationale for the order (dependency, complexity, readiness) and for transitions that connect one stage to the next, and gave two examples (a statistics unit that reaches inference only after learners can reason about variation; a carpentry course that teaches tool setup and sub-skills, then a whole cabinet). Kept here as a concrete default; each step's evidence status is beside it.

  1. Map the dependencies before choosing an order. List what the learner must be able to do at the end, then for each item ask "what must they already know or do to understand this?" and draw the result as a short chain or tree (a learning hierarchy). Order the unit so nothing is taught before what it rests on. Untested proposal; from the earlier page ("order instruction around dependency and readiness rather than convenience"). A worked example of such a map, with no learner outcome: an onto-semiotic analysis of the definite integral found that reading a textbook's formal definition requires relating functions, intervals, partitions and sample points and the role of each (prior knowledge the formal definition demands [+W]), and broke an intuitive presentation into five configurations, from constant velocity to the integral as a limit of sums (five configurations [+W]), which is an order of partial meanings a unit can follow. The same analysis flags where an intuitive route generalises from too few cases (abusive generalisation [~W]), so a map should mark where an informal stage stops being enough.
  2. Check the learner's starting point against the map, then cut. Before the first session of a unit, give three to five items that sample the prerequisites and the first steps (5–10 minutes; an untested proposal). Skip the steps a learner already performs unaided; go back to the prerequisite the errors point to. Guidance that helps novices can be redundant for learners who already hold the structure (expertise reversal [~M]).
  3. Open with the few general ideas, then hang detail from them. Give the two to five most general ideas of the unit first, and attach each later detail to one of them rather than teaching all details at one level. One small set of physics experiments found a hierarchical organisation of the same knowledge beat a single-level one on complex recall and problem solving (hierarchical organisation [+M]); it did not help low-ability students (ability moderates it [~M]). The step-by-step version is Elaboration Theory.
  4. Before a complex lesson, name its parts and terms. Where the main lesson is complex or interactive (a simulation, a demonstration, a procedure with a new tool), give a short primer naming the parts and what each does, kept to a few minutes. One randomised experiment found a pretraining video on a tool's parts improved knowledge and real-world transfer after a VR lesson, against no pretraining (pretraining [+M]); it did not compare the primer with the same content given later.
  5. For absolute novices on a task whose parts interact heavily, practise the critical parts first, then join them. Isolate the two or three sub-skills that carry most of the difficulty, practise each until it runs without stalling, then put them together in the whole task within the same week. One experiment supports parts first for novices on high-interactivity material (part-task practice [~M]); that whole-task practice improves transfer is an argument, not a tested result (whole-task argument [~W]). Do not leave the parts unjoined; the earlier page's carpentry example ends in a full build.
  6. Choose the order of example and problem by goal. For a procedure with novice learners and an immediate test, show a worked example before the first problem: in one experiment with secondary-school novices, sequences that began with an example beat sequences that began with a problem on test performance and reported effort (example first [+M]); with identical example–problem pairs, the early order advantage was not detected at the final test (identical pairs [~M]). For introducing a stated rule, a rule, then chosen examples, then incomplete examples for the learner to finish, is the order 1960s programmed-instruction work reported as efficient, second-hand and with no data recorded here (rule–example–incomplete example [+W]). For a concept or principle goal where conceptual understanding or transfer counts, a short problem-solving attempt before instruction is an option for learners above the early primary grades, provided the instruction afterwards builds on their attempts (step 7).
  7. If you put a problem first, keep it short and teach from the attempts. Give a problem learners can attempt in several ways but not yet solve canonically (one session segment of 15–30 minutes; an untested proposal), collect their solutions, then teach the canonical method by comparing it with them. A meta-analysis found problem solving before instruction beat instruction first on conceptual knowledge and transfer with no difference on procedural knowledge, and the advantage reversed for second to fifth graders and domain-general skills (problem first [~S]).
  8. Block new categories first, then mix them. When learners must tell confusable categories or problem types apart, introduce each one in a short blocked run (three or four items each; an untested proposal) until each is recognisable, then mix them so every item requires deciding which type it is. A meta-analysis found interleaved examples beat blocked ones for classifying visual and mathematical categories, with no benefit for expository texts and a reversal for word categories (interleaving [~M]). Expect lower accuracy during mixed practice, and say so to learners.
  9. Where learners hold a misconception, state it and then the correct idea. In text that addresses a known misbelief, put the misbelief first and then the fact that refutes it, not the reverse. One experiment found this order beat traditional text on free recall and the inverted order on free and cued recall (refutational order [+M]).
  10. Make each transition explicit. At each stage change, spend one to two minutes saying what the learner can now do, what comes next and how it rests on what they have (an untested proposal; from the earlier page's "transitions that connect one stage to the next", and see Clear Structure).
  11. Move on by unaided success, not by the calendar. A learner moves to the next stage when they perform the current one unaided on two consecutive items or tasks (an untested proposal); otherwise give one corrective round on the step the error points to and check again. Include at least one harder variant in the check (larger numbers, more parts, a changed form): in one case study, a student with learning difficulties who coordinated a count correctly with easy numbers lost track with harder ones (easy to hard numbers [~W]), and still needed prompts three episodes later (prompt-dependent [~W]), so success with prompts or easy cases is not yet the unaided success the gate asks for. The gate is modelled in Mastery Learning.
  12. Plan the arc across sessions. For a unit of four to eight sessions (an untested proposal): session 1, the prerequisite check, the general ideas and a primer for the first complex lesson (about 20–30% of the session on the map, the rest on the first step); early sessions, one new step per session, example first for procedures, blocked runs for new categories, the teacher supplying the examples; middle sessions, the steps joined into small whole tasks, problems before instruction where conceptual goals warrant it, mixed practice of the categories met so far, and learners supplying their own examples and cases; late sessions, whole tasks of the form the target assessment uses, mixed items only, help on request, and a cumulative check of earlier stages. Reorder when the checks say so: drop stages the class already performs, and return to a stage when a later one stalls on it.

When a condition is not met: if no one can check prerequisites before the unit, build the check into the first activity (the first three items sample the prerequisites, with feedback that routes a learner back); if the goal and the horizon are not stated, use example first and instruction first, which are the safer orders for a novice on a procedure, and record that the order was not chosen for transfer.

Fitting the design to a situation

The three facts that most change the decision:

  • What the learner can already do on this target. A learner who already performs the early steps needs a shorter path and fewer protective orders; one who cannot start needs the prerequisites first. If unstated, ask: can the learner do one item from the first stage and one from a middle stage now, unaided?
  • The kind of goal and the test that will count. Fluent procedure, conceptual understanding and transfer, and discrimination between confusable categories each favour a different order. If unstated, ask: at the end, what must the learner do, on what kind of item, and when (end of session, a week later, on the job)?
  • How tightly the parts depend on each other. A chain where step 3 is meaningless without step 2 forces an order; a set of loosely related topics leaves the order open and makes the transitions matter more. If unstated, ask: can any part be understood or done without the others?
If the brief says… Then change… Basis
Learners are advanced on this target, or pass the prerequisite check Skip the early stages; start at the first stage they cannot do unaided; drop the primer and the part-task runs; use problem-first and mixed practice from the start Instructional guidance that helps novices can become redundant or counterproductive as expertise grows. [~M] (a review of cognitive-load studies; gives no point at which to switch)
Learners are absolute novices and the task's parts interact heavily (several decisions at once) Practise the two or three hardest parts in isolation first, then join them in a whole task within the same week Part-task practice reduces cognitive load for absolute novices during initial skill acquisition. [~M] (one experiment; the joining step is untested)
Learners are children in the early primary grades Teach first, then practise; do not put problem solving before instruction Productive Failure Improves Conceptual Learning [~S] (the meta-analysis's advantage reversed for second to fifth graders)
Goal is conceptual understanding or transfer (a concept or principle), learners older than the early primary grades Put a short problem-solving attempt before instruction, then teach from learners' attempts; judge it on conceptual and transfer items, not on procedural ones Productive Failure Improves Conceptual Learning [~S] (no difference on procedural knowledge; mostly mathematics and physics)
Goal is a procedure, novice learners, an immediate test Show a worked example before the first problem, then alternate example and problem Example–problem sequences reduce cognitive load and improve learning outcomes [+M] (secondary-school novices, circuit troubleshooting, immediate test); the advantage was not detected at the final test with identical pairs (identical pairs [~M])
Goal is telling confusable categories or problem types apart Block each new category for a few items, then mix them; test with mixed items at a delay Interleaving category examples improves inductive category learning for visual and mathematical materials [~M] (classification tests; reversed for word categories, no benefit for expository texts)
The main lesson is a simulation, demonstration or new tool, and learners do not know its parts Give a primer of a few minutes naming the parts and what each does, before the lesson Pretraining learners on a system's key parts and terms before the main lesson improved knowledge and real-world transfer in one VR experiment [+M] (one VR experiment against no pretraining; carried to other media untested)
Learners arrive with a known misconception State the misbelief, then the fact that refutes it, in that order Refutational text enhanced free recall relative to traditional text [+M] (one experiment with written science text; carried to spoken teaching untested)
Learners have low prior attainment in the subject Keep the general-ideas-first opening, but add prerequisite checks and corrective rounds at each stage; do not rely on the organisation alone Ability moderates the hierarchical-organization advantage [~M] (one physics report: low-ability students showed no benefit)
Learners have identified learning difficulties in mathematics Keep the stage, but raise the difficulty of the numbers or items inside it before moving on; count a stage as done only when it goes through unprompted on the harder version easy to hard numbers [~W], prompt-dependent [~W] (one case study of one student; carried to other learners untested)
Goal is an abstract mathematical idea or notation Move from a concrete representation to the abstract one across the sequence (concreteness fading), rather than staying concrete or starting abstract concreteness fading [+W] (one experiment with undergraduates on group properties, reported second-hand, no effect size); see concrete–representational–abstract sequencing
Beginners in a foreign or second language Start with listening comprehension and relax demands for speaking at first; bring reading and writing in after learners understand the spoken forms they will read listening first [+W] (a review reporting Postovsky's experiments second-hand); reading cannot exceed listening [+W] and oral language predicts reading [+W] (both reported second-hand from first-language work, no data printed)
Learners are given a step-by-step solving plan for word problems Let them attempt the problems freely first, then give the plan; do not judge the plan by a test given before the free attempts free exploration then plan [~W], time-by-group interaction [~W] (one study of 155 sixth graders, order of test forms; the gain held for girls only, and girls given the plan first scored lower after)
Learners are preservice teachers or new to a practice role Put observing others teach before taking on a full teaching load; add mastery experiences gradually, not by piling on courses; expect confidence to dip mid-practicum and plan support for that point vicarious experiences [+W], mastery experiences not first [~W], mid-point dip [~W] (one review of correlational agricultural-education studies; outcome is reported efficacy, not teaching performance; no order was tested)
Learners have low confidence or low literacy Put a step they can succeed at first in each session; teach terms in the primer, before they are needed; show a step by doing it before reading about it untested proposal
Adults in a work setting Order by the job's own sequence where it has one, start from a task they already do, and bring forward the steps they need soonest at work untested proposal; skill develops through engaging in the target activity [~W] (an argument from second-language acquisition, no study)
The target is a whole-task performance the brief wants kept whole (a full procedure, a performance for a real audience, a product) Keep the whole task as the unit at every stage and simplify the version of the whole, not split it into paper items; isolate a part only where learners stall on it, then put it straight back untested proposal; whole-task argument [~W] (a design argument, no study); 4C/ID is the full sequence
online-self-paced, no teacher present Build the prerequisite check and the move-on rule into the software or the materials: each stage ends with two unaided items that unlock the next or route back untested proposal
Mixed modes (some learners remote, some in the room; phone-only learners) Keep one shared order and one shared check per stage; send the primer and the map as a short item readable on a phone before the session; give remote learners the same stage-end items in a form they can answer by message untested proposal
One teacher for many learners Give the prerequisite check and the stage-end items to everyone at once (cards, a quick poll), keep one main order for the class, and give a short branch (back to a prerequisite, or ahead to mixed practice) to the learners the check sorts out untested proposal
Scarce facilitator time (volunteers, a busy shift, one brief check-in) Put the order in the materials so learners can follow it alone; spend the facilitator's time only at the stage gates, on the learners who did not pass untested proposal
A single session only Order the session as primer or map (5 minutes), one example, guided items, one unaided check; teach only as many stages as the check can confirm, and do not claim retention untested proposal
A fixed short time budget (for example 20 minutes a day, or two sessions where three were planned) Fit the order to the minutes: cut stages rather than compress them, keep the move-on check, and put the rest of the map on a list for later sessions untested proposal
The brief names its own sequence, scope and sequence, syllabus or categories Keep its order and categories; change only what the evidence says matters (a prerequisite check before a stage, an example before the first problem, a mixed review once categories are met, an explicit transition) untested proposal
Content is personal or sensitive (emotions, identity, experience of harm) Move from others' or fictional cases to the learner's own experience, from recognising to reflecting; let the learner decide whether and with whom to share their own untested proposal; one emotional-literacy curriculum is described as ordered cognitive to behavioural to affective and external to internal (PATHS within-lesson order [+W], a document analysis, no outcome), with basic emotions taught before the complex ones built on them (PATHS basic to complex [+W]); see affective sequencing
Stakes are high or errors are costly (safety, compliance, a licensing exam) Do not move on by the calendar; require unaided success at each stage on representative tasks, and keep a cumulative check of earlier stages in every later one untested proposal
The brief already names its stages or order ("first the screens, then one field, then a full note") Use the brief's stages as the skeleton and change only what the evidence speaks to inside them: what each stage checks before moving on, where a worked example or partial task goes, and how the trainer samples work when alone with a group; keep time reserved for the brief's own final assessment untested proposal

Seventeen of the twenty-seven rows cite a claim. Nine rest on studies or reviews, each in its own population and setting (secondary-school circuit troubleshooting, college physics, a VR lab tool, written science text, mostly mathematics and physics for problem first), and are carried to other learners and settings untested; the five rows added on 2026-10-15 (learning difficulties, concreteness fading, foreign-language beginners, a solving plan, preservice teachers) rest on one case study, second-hand reports or correlational reviews, all weak; the adult, whole-task and sensitive-content rows cite only an argument or a description. The other ten rows are untested proposals.

Observation, state and explanation

What can be observed is a response at a stage under stated conditions: which stage, which item, what help was available, whether the learner succeeded unaided, which earlier step their error relies on, and how long it took. "Missing a prerequisite", "overloaded" and "ready for the next stage" are inferred states. A stall at stage 4 does not show which earlier stage is missing; it shows that stage 4 did not go through under these conditions.

Response Plausible explanations Observation that could change the interpretation
Stalls at a new stage after succeeding at the earlier ones A prerequisite was not in the map; the new stage combines too many parts at once; the transition did not connect it to the earlier stage Give one item from each earlier stage that the new stage rests on, unaided; then a version of the new stage with one part already done for them.
Succeeds on blocked items, fails when categories are mixed Has learned each procedure but not when it applies; the categories were mixed before each was recognisable; the mixed items differ in surface features too Ask the learner to name the type of each mixed item before solving it; compare naming accuracy with solving accuracy.
After a problem-first attempt, produces nothing and disengages The problem was too far beyond them; they read failure as a judgement on themselves; they had no ways in to try Look at what they wrote or tried; ask what they thought the problem was asking; offer the same problem with one more given and see whether attempts appear.
Follows each step in order but cannot say how the stages connect The order was followed without its rationale; the general ideas were shown but never used; the test has never asked for connections Ask the learner to place a new detail under one of the general ideas and say why; ask what stage 2 is for.
Already performs the later stages on the first day The prerequisite check sampled too narrowly; prior learning elsewhere; the items were easier than intended Give a later-stage item in a changed form, unaided; ask where they learned it.
Succeeds on a stage with easy items or with a prompt, then loses track on harder items The stage is still prompt-dependent; the harder items overload what the learner must track at once; the harder items need a further prerequisite Give the harder item unprompted, then the same item with one part tracked for them; ask the learner how they are keeping count or place. (One case study shows the pattern: easy to hard numbers [~W].)
Performs well at the end of the unit, poorly on a delayed or mixed test The order suited practice but not retention; stages were never revisited; the delayed test mixed what was taught blocked Re-test with mixed items at a delay, and record what was revisited between.

These rows are proposals, untested with learners as diagnostics. A check is itself practice and changes what it measures, so record each one, and keep open the explanations that a single contrast cannot separate.

Evidence and qualifications

No claim tests the general rule that ordering by dependency and readiness beats a convenience order. The claims below test particular order contrasts; the learners, materials and outcomes differ, so do not rank them by effect label.

Taken together: order effects are real in several particular contrasts, they depend on expertise, age, material and outcome, and two of them (example first, problem first) favour opposite orders for different goals. None establishes that a whole unit or course ordered by dependency beats another order, the one systematic review recorded here that looked for that comparison in early mathematics did not find it, and none measures retention of an order effect over weeks. The weaker evidence added on 2026-10-15 (concrete to abstract, listening before speaking and reading, observing before teaching) points the same way as the dependency rule, but each is a second-hand report, a correlation or a description.

The evidence by question

Further evidence, not yet read against this model

Claims this page cites that bear on it only indirectly. Every other claim the earlier page cited, or that was found or attached later, is now weighed in the model above (reread 2026-10-15).

Objective and learner-valued goal

The designer's objective is usually unaided performance on the whole target, of a stated kind, at a stated horizon; the order is a means to it. Ask separately what the learner wants from the unit: to do the thing they came for as soon as possible, to pass the test, to not feel lost. A learner who wants the real task now may experience a long run of prerequisites as a delay, and drop out before the part they came for; one who fears failure may be put off by a problem-first opening. Both are observations about the order, not only about the learner.

For example, an adult learning spreadsheets for a job may want to build this month's budget report, while the designer's map puts cell references, then formulas, then functions, then the report. Bring a simplified version of the report forward as the first whole task, and teach each prerequisite at the point the report needs it; record both whether the learner can build the report and whether they can do the prerequisite steps on a new sheet, so success on the one is not read as the other.

What would revise this model?

The expectation should weaken if units ordered by a dependency map, compared with the same content in a convenience order with comparable learners and aligned unaided outcomes, show no advantage at the end of the unit or at a delay. If problem-first orders turn out to help procedural outcomes too, or example-first orders help conceptual transfer as much, the goal-dependent choice in the default design should collapse into one order. If the blocked-then-mixed order loses to mixing from the start for novices, step 8 should change. If prerequisite checks fail to predict who stalls at later stages, the move-on rule is a scheduling device, not a diagnostic. Do not protect the model by calling every failure a missing prerequisite after the fact.

Performance during practice, unaided performance at the end of the unit, delayed retention, transfer and use in the setting the learner values are separate claims. The present evidence establishes no stage length, no number of stages and no move-on criterion.

Claims

Examples

Key Sources

  • Reigeluth, C. M. (1979). In search of a better way to organize instruction: The elaboration theory. Journal of Instructional Development, 2(3), 8-15. doi:10.1007/bf02984374
  • Cheung, Yun Kul. (2010). The Importance of Teaching Listening in the EFL Classroom. ERIC Classroom Teacher Guide. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED512082
  • Burgos, M., Bueno, S., Pérez, O., & Godino, J. D. (2021). Onto-semiotic complexity of the Definite Integral. Implications for teaching and learning Calculus. REDIMAT – Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 10(1), 4-40. https://doi.org/10.17583/redimat.2021.6778
  • Zambo, Ron; Hess, Robert. (1994). The Gender Differential Effects of a Procedural Plan for Solving Mathematical Word Problems. ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED375005
  • Risley, R., Hodkowski, N. M., & Tzur, R. (2016). Devin's construction of a multiplicative double counting scheme: Dual anticipation of start and stop. Proceedings of the 38th annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. https://www.pmena.org/proceedings/
  • McKim, A. J., & Velez, J. J. (2016). An Evaluation of the Self-Efficacy Theory in Agricultural Education. Journal of Agricultural Education, 57(1), 73-90. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2016.01073
  • Kahn, J., & Hall, R. (2026). An oldtimer and newcomers telling stories about models using open large datasets. Journal of the Learning Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2026.2624531
  • Neiburg, Michael S. (1997). Following Native Language Acquisition. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Japan Association for Language Teaching (23rd, Hamamatsu, Japan, October 11, 1997). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED417613
  • Hergenhahn, B. R. (2009). An introduction to the history of psychology. Wadsworth.
  • Arduini-Van Hoose, N. (2020). History of educational psychology. In Educational psychology. Retrieved from https://edpsych.pressbooks.sunycreate.cloud. CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.
  • Wu, Yann-Shya. (2000). Guidelines for Instructional Sequencing in Emotional Literacy Learning Using PATHS Curriculum as an Example. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED455810
Page metadata
Field Value
type principle
id sequencing
aliases articulate-partial-meanings-integral-planning, free-exploration-before-organized-plan-sequence, number-difficulty-impacts-mdc-construction, vicarious-before-mastery-teacher-development, oral-aural-before-literacy-foreign-language, affective-sequencing-requires-own-principles
title Sequencing
description For a novice on a target whose parts depend on each other, meeting the parts in an order that puts what a step rests on before it and moves from what the learner can process toward full complexity, revised from the learner's responses, is expected to improve performance on tasks that draw on the whole; no claim tests that general rule, and tests of particular orders (example or problem first, parts or whole first, blocked or mixed) favour different orders for different learners and goals.
status review
moved_from pattern/data-storytelling-forage-remix-diy, pattern/herbarts-formal-steps, pattern/rivers-four-stages-teaching-listening
canonical True
generated by claude/unspecified on 2026-10-15
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 8 — cheung-2010, burgos-2021, zambo-1994, risley-2016, mckim-2016, kahn-hall-2026, neiburg-1997, wu-2000

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