Initial commit

skills/socratic-teaching-scaffolds/resources/methodology.md

@@ -0,0 +1,468 @@
+# Advanced Socratic Teaching Methodology
+
+## Workflow
+
+Copy this checklist for complex teaching scenarios:
+
+```
+Advanced Teaching Progress:
+- [ ] Step 1: Deep diagnostic with misconception mapping
+- [ ] Step 2: Multi-ladder design for complex topics
+- [ ] Step 3: Adaptive questioning with branching
+- [ ] Step 4: Strategic scaffolding fading
+- [ ] Step 5: Deep transfer validation
+```
+
+**Step 1: Deep diagnostic** - Use advanced probing to map mental models and nested misconceptions. See [1. Advanced Diagnostic Techniques](#1-advanced-diagnostic-techniques).
+
+**Step 2: Multi-ladder design** - Build parallel question sequences for multi-faceted concepts. See [2. Multi-Ladder Design](#2-multi-ladder-design).
+
+**Step 3: Adaptive questioning** - Branch based on learner responses, handle persistent misconceptions. See [3. Adaptive Questioning](#3-adaptive-questioning).
+
+**Step 4: Strategic scaffolding** - Use advanced fading patterns and apprenticeship models. See [4. Strategic Scaffolding Fading](#4-strategic-scaffolding-fading).
+
+**Step 5: Deep transfer** - Validate understanding across multiple abstraction levels and domains. See [5. Deep Transfer Validation](#5-deep-transfer-validation).
+
+---
+
+## 1. Advanced Diagnostic Techniques
+
+### Mental Model Elicitation
+
+**Technique: Concept Mapping Interview**
+- "Draw/describe how [concepts] relate to each other"
+- Look for: Missing connections, incorrect causal arrows, confused hierarchies
+- Example: Teaching recursion → Ask them to draw relationship between function, call stack, base case
+
+**Technique: Predict-Observe-Explain (POE)**
+- Present scenario: "What will happen when [test case]?"
+- Observe their prediction (reveals mental model)
+- Show actual outcome
+- Ask: "Why different from prediction?"
+
+**Technique: Analogical Reasoning Probe**
+- "This is like [analogy]. How is it similar? How is it different?"
+- Mismatched analogies reveal misconceptions
+- Example: "Is recursion like a loop?" (reveals whether they understand call stack vs iteration)
+
+### Misconception Taxonomy
+
+**Surface vs Deep Misconceptions:**
+
+**Surface** (Easy to fix with single correction):
+- Terminology confusion ("pointer" vs "reference")
+- Memorization errors (wrong formula)
+- Single faulty assumption
+
+**Deep** (Require rebuilding mental model):
+- Fundamental misunderstanding (thinking correlation implies causation)
+- Coherent but wrong model (Aristotelian physics: heavier objects fall faster)
+- Transferred wrong pattern (applying linear thinking to exponential problems)
+
+**Diagnostic Questions by Type:**
+
+| Misconception Type | Question to Reveal | Correct Understanding |
+|-------------------|-------------------|----------------------|
+| Causal reversal | "Does A cause B or B cause A?" | Identify correct direction |
+| False dichotomy | "Is it X or Y?" (when both/neither) | Reveal multiple possibilities |
+| Overgeneralization | "Does this always hold?" | Show edge cases/boundaries |
+| Undergeneralization | "When else would this apply?" | Extend to broader contexts |
+| Confused levels | "Is this about [high level] or [low level]?" | Separate abstraction layers |
+
+### Prior Knowledge Mapping
+
+**Backward Chaining from Target:**
+1. What must they know before understanding target concept?
+2. What must they know before that?
+3. Continue until you reach confirmed knowledge
+
+**Example (Teaching Big-O Notation):**
+- Target: Understand O(n²) vs O(n log n)
+- Prerequisite: Understand growth rates
+- Prerequisite: Understand functions
+- Prerequisite: Understand variables
+- Start teaching at first gap
+
+**Knowledge Dependency Graph:**
+```
+Target Concept
+├── Prerequisite A
+│   ├── Sub-prerequisite A1
+│   └── Sub-prerequisite A2
+├── Prerequisite B
+└── Prerequisite C (MISSING ← Start here)
+```
+
+---
+
+## 2. Multi-Ladder Design
+
+For complex topics requiring multiple complementary question sequences:
+
+### Parallel Ladders Strategy
+
+**When to use:** Topic has multiple independent facets that all need understanding
+
+**Example: Teaching Object-Oriented Programming**
+
+**Ladder 1: Encapsulation**
+1. Why hide data inside object?
+2. What happens if everything is public?
+3. How do getters/setters help?
+
+**Ladder 2: Inheritance**
+1. What code would we duplicate without inheritance?
+2. Is-a vs has-a relationships?
+3. When does inheritance hurt?
+
+**Ladder 3: Polymorphism**
+1. How to treat different objects uniformly?
+2. What's the interface contract?
+3. Static vs dynamic dispatch?
+
+**Integration Point:**
+"How do these three ideas work together in [system design problem]?"
+
+### Spiral Curriculum Approach
+
+**Pattern:** Revisit concept at increasing depth levels across multiple sessions
+
+**Session 1 (Intuition):** Concrete examples, basic mental model
+**Session 2 (Application):** Use in simple problems, edge cases
+**Session 3 (Formalization):** Technical terminology, precise definitions
+**Session 4 (Transfer):** Apply to novel domains, teach others
+
+**Advantage:** Each pass deepens understanding without overwhelming
+
+### Concept Lattice Navigation
+
+**Structure:** Concepts form lattice (partial order) not linear sequence
+
+```
+        Abstract Concept
+       /                \
+    Aspect A          Aspect B
+       |                  |
+    Example A1        Example B1
+```
+
+**Navigation strategies:**
+- **Breadth-first:** Cover all aspects at high level, then drill down
+- **Depth-first:** Master one aspect completely, then move to next
+- **Learner-directed:** "Want to go deeper here, or explore different angle?"
+
+---
+
+## 3. Adaptive Questioning
+
+### Branching Question Trees
+
+**Structure:**
+
+```
+Q1: Diagnostic question
+├─ Correct → Q2A (advance)
+├─ Misconception M1 → Q2B (address M1) → Q2C (verify correction) → Q2A
+└─ Stuck → Scaffold → Q1 (retry)
+```
+
+**Implementation:**
+- Prepare 2-3 follow-up paths for each question
+- Common misconception → Specific correction sequence
+- Stuck → Scaffolding question → Return to original
+- Correct → Advance to next level
+
+### Misconception-Specific Interventions
+
+**For Persistent Misconceptions:**
+
+**Technique 1: Multiple Contradictions**
+- Single counterexample often dismissed as "special case"
+- Provide 3-5 diverse counterexamples
+- Ask: "What do all these have in common?"
+
+**Technique 2: Extreme Cases**
+- Push misconception to absurd conclusion
+- "If that were true, what would happen when [extreme]?"
+- Learner recognizes absurdity → reconsiders
+
+**Technique 3: Role Reversal**
+- "You're the teacher. Student says [misconception]. How would you correct them?"
+- Explaining to others often clarifies own thinking
+
+**Technique 4: Historical Misconception**
+- "Many scientists thought [misconception] until [discovery]. Why did they think that? What changed?"
+- Legitimizes struggle, shows path to correct understanding
+
+### Responsive Scaffolding Triggers
+
+**Student Signal** → **Scaffolding Response**
+
+| Signal | What It Means | Appropriate Response |
+|--------|---------------|---------------------|
+| Silent >30s, engaged | Productive struggle | Wait, don't interrupt |
+| Silent >2min, disengaged | Stuck/frustrated | Provide hint or scaffolding |
+| Partially correct answer | Close, minor gap | "Almost! What about [aspect]?" |
+| Confident wrong answer | Misconception | POE: predict outcome, show contradiction |
+| Multiple failed attempts | Too large leap | Break into smaller steps |
+| "I don't know where to start" | Missing entry point | Provide concrete example to anchor |
+
+---
+
+## 4. Strategic Scaffolding Fading
+
+### Cognitive Apprenticeship Model
+
+**Phase 1: Modeling** (Teacher demonstrates with thinking aloud)
+- "Watch how I approach this problem..."
+- Articulate every decision: "I'm choosing X because Y"
+- Make invisible thinking visible
+
+**Phase 2: Coaching** (Student attempts, teacher guides)
+- "Try it. I'll watch and give hints."
+- Intervene before errors compound
+- Ask guiding questions, don't give answers
+
+**Phase 3: Scaffolding** (Teacher provides structure, student fills in)
+- "I'll set up the problem. You solve it."
+- "Here's the outline. Add the details."
+- Temporary support, explicitly temporary
+
+**Phase 4: Articulation** (Student explains their thinking)
+- "Walk me through your reasoning."
+- "Why did you choose that approach?"
+- Makes their thinking explicit to themselves
+
+**Phase 5: Reflection** (Compare approaches, identify strategies)
+- "How does your solution compare to mine?"
+- "When would your approach work better?"
+- Meta-cognitive awareness
+
+**Phase 6: Exploration** (Student tackles novel problems independently)
+- "Here's a related but different problem. Try it."
+- No scaffolding unless requested
+- Transfer to new contexts
+
+### Fading Dimensions
+
+**Fade Multiple Aspects Separately:**
+
+**Dimension 1: Problem Complexity**
+- Start: Single-step problems
+- Middle: Multi-step with clear path
+- End: Multi-step with multiple viable paths
+
+**Dimension 2: Hints Provided**
+- Start: Explicit hints at each step
+- Middle: Hints only when stuck
+- End: No hints, only verification
+
+**Dimension 3: Example Completeness**
+- Start: Fully worked example
+- Middle: Partial example (starter code)
+- End: No example, just specification
+
+**Strategy:** Fade one dimension at a time to avoid overwhelming
+
+### Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) Calibration
+
+**Too Easy (Below ZPD):**
+- Symptoms: Boredom, quick correct answers without thought
+- Adjustment: Skip ahead, increase complexity
+
+**Optimal (Within ZPD):**
+- Symptoms: Engaged struggle, eventual success with hints
+- Maintain: Current scaffolding level
+
+**Too Hard (Above ZPD):**
+- Symptoms: Frustration, wild guesses, giving up
+- Adjustment: Increase scaffolding, break into smaller steps
+
+**Dynamic Adjustment:**
+- Start conservative (more scaffolding)
+- Fade aggressively when success
+- Reinstate scaffolding immediately when struggle turns to frustration
+
+---
+
+## 5. Deep Transfer Validation
+
+### Transfer Assessment Taxonomy
+
+**Level 1: Near Transfer (Same domain, similar problem)**
+- Given: Taught quicksort
+- Test: "Sort this different array using quicksort"
+- Validates: Procedural memory
+
+**Level 2: Modified Transfer (Same domain, modified problem)**
+- Given: Taught quicksort
+- Test: "Adapt quicksort to find kth smallest element"
+- Validates: Flexible application
+
+**Level 3: Far Transfer (Different domain, analogous structure)**
+- Given: Taught quicksort (divide-and-conquer)
+- Test: "Use divide-and-conquer to solve [unrelated problem]"
+- Validates: Deep principle extraction
+
+**Level 4: Creative Transfer (Novel synthesis)**
+- Given: Taught multiple algorithms
+- Test: "Design new algorithm for [novel problem]"
+- Validates: Generative understanding
+
+### Feynman Understanding Test
+
+**Depth Levels:**
+
+**Level 1: Explanation to Child (ELI5)**
+- No technical jargon
+- Simple analogies
+- Tests: Can they find intuitive core?
+
+**Level 2: Explanation to Peer**
+- Some terminology
+- Concrete examples
+- Tests: Can they make it relatable?
+
+**Level 3: Explanation to Expert**
+- Technical precision
+- Edge cases and limitations
+- Tests: Can they be rigorous?
+
+**Level 4: Teaching While Handling Misconceptions**
+- Anticipate confusions
+- Prepare counterexamples
+- Tests: Meta-cognitive understanding of learning process
+
+**Assessment:** True understanding = Can explain at all levels
+
+### Bloom's Taxonomy Validation
+
+**Level 1: Remember**
+- "What is [definition]?"
+- Tests: Recall only
+
+**Level 2: Understand**
+- "Explain [concept] in your own words"
+- Tests: Comprehension
+
+**Level 3: Apply**
+- "Use [concept] to solve [problem]"
+- Tests: Procedural knowledge
+
+**Level 4: Analyze**
+- "Why does [approach] work for [case] but fail for [other case]?"
+- Tests: Principled understanding
+
+**Level 5: Evaluate**
+- "Which solution is better and why?"
+- Tests: Critical judgment
+
+**Level 6: Create**
+- "Design a [new thing] using [concept]"
+- Tests: Generative mastery
+
+**Teaching Target:** Aim for Levels 3-4 minimum, 5-6 for mastery
+
+---
+
+## 6. Domain-Specific Patterns
+
+**Programming:** Code tracing ("What does this do?" → "Trace with input X" → "Why?"), debugging buggy code, refactoring exercises
+
+**Math/Science:** Proof discovery ("Find counterexample or prove"), dimensional analysis (unit checking), limiting cases (parameter → 0 or ∞)
+
+**Conceptual:** Thought experiments (trolley problem, Schrödinger's cat → "What would you do?" → "Why?"), Socratic dialogue (probe assumptions until contradiction)
+
+---
+
+## 7. Persistent Misconception Strategies
+
+### Common Failure Modes & Fixes
+
+**Problem: Misconception Returns After Seeming Correction**
+
+**Cause:** Surface compliance vs deep understanding
+- Learner says "correct" answer but hasn't changed mental model
+- Under time pressure, reverts to misconception
+
+**Fix:** Spaced retrieval
+- Test understanding days later
+- Ask same question in different context
+- Multiple spaced exposures required
+
+**Problem: Learner Stuck in Wrong Model**
+
+**Cause:** Current model is coherent and explains many phenomena
+- Example: Aristotelian physics (heavier falls faster - explains cannonball vs feather in air)
+
+**Fix:** Build correct model from scratch before dismantling wrong one
+- Don't just show counterexamples
+- Construct alternative explanation
+- Then show new model explains everything old model did PLUS counterexamples
+
+**Problem: Guessing Instead of Reasoning**
+
+**Cause:** Fishing for "correct answer" instead of thinking
+
+**Fix:** Make process more important than answer
+- "Don't tell me the answer. Tell me how you'd figure it out."
+- "Even if wrong, explain your reasoning."
+- Reward process, not just correct answers
+
+### Misconception Resistance Hierarchy
+
+**Level 1: Fragile** (Single correction sufficient)
+- Example: Wrong terminology
+- Fix: Correct and provide correct term
+
+**Level 2: Moderate** (Need 2-3 corrections in different contexts)
+- Example: Confused variable scope
+- Fix: Show scope behavior in multiple code examples
+
+**Level 3: Robust** (Requires rebuilding mental model)
+- Example: Thinking objects are copied by default in Python
+- Fix: Explain reference semantics from scratch, trace through multiple examples
+
+**Level 4: Foundational** (Requires prerequisite knowledge first)
+- Example: Understanding quantum mechanics while thinking deterministically
+- Fix: First teach probability/statistics, THEN quantum
+
+**Strategy:** Identify resistance level, apply appropriate intervention intensity
+
+---
+
+## 8. Self-Directed Learning Design
+
+**Self-Paced Module Structure:** Pre-assessment (can you already?) → Learning objective → Worked example → Guided practice (partial examples + hints) → Independent practice → Self-check with explanations
+
+**Hint System:** Hidden by default, progressive revelation (3-5 hints from gentle to explicit), last "hint" is full solution
+
+**Question Types:** Recall (definitions), application (solve problems), analysis (why it works), misconception checks (T/F common errors)
+
+**Rich Feedback:** Not just correct/incorrect. Wrong → "This suggests [misconception]. Actually, [correction]." Correct → "Right because [principle]."
+
+**Spaced Repetition:** Review at 1, 3, 7, 14 days, then monthly
+
+---
+
+## 9. Quality Indicators
+
+**Excellent Socratic Teaching:**
+- [ ] Learner discovers insights themselves (not told)
+- [ ] Questions reveal thinking (not guess teacher's answer)
+- [ ] Scaffolding fades as competence grows
+- [ ] Misconceptions corrected through contradiction, not assertion
+- [ ] Can explain concept at multiple levels (ELI5 → Expert)
+- [ ] Transfers to novel problems without prompting
+- [ ] Asks good questions themselves (meta-cognitive growth)
+
+**Poor Pseudo-Socratic Teaching:**
+- [ ] Questions are just a guessing game
+- [ ] Teacher gives answer when learner doesn't guess "correctly"
+- [ ] No scaffolding adjustment (one-size-fits-all)
+- [ ] Misconceptions ignored or corrected by fiat
+- [ ] Only one explanation level (usually too technical)
+- [ ] Can only solve problems identical to examples
+- [ ] Passive consumption, no active discovery
+
+**Assessment:** More checks in "Excellent" → Teaching is effective