gh-lyndonkl-claude/skills/socratic-teaching-scaffolds/resources/template.md

Socratic Teaching Session Template

Workflow

Copy this checklist and track your progress:

Teaching Session Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Diagnose current understanding
- [ ] Step 2: Build question ladder
- [ ] Step 3: Execute teaching session
- [ ] Step 4: Fade scaffolding
- [ ] Step 5: Validate understanding

Step 1: Diagnose current understanding - Ask probing questions to assess baseline knowledge and misconceptions. See Section 1.

Step 2: Build question ladder - Design progression from current to target understanding. See Section 2.

Step 3: Execute teaching session - Guide discovery through questions and scaffolding. See Section 3.

Step 4: Fade scaffolding - Progressively remove support as competence grows. See Section 4.

Step 5: Validate understanding - Test transfer and misconception elimination. See Section 5.

---

1. Diagnostic Phase

Learning Profile

Learner Information:

• Name/Role: [Who is learning]
• Goal: [What they want to achieve]
• Timeline: [When they need to know it]
• Current Experience: [Novice / Beginner / Intermediate / Advanced in this domain]

Topic to Teach:

• Concept/Skill: [Specific topic]
• Why Important: [Motivation, application context]
• Success Criteria: [How will we know they've learned it?]

Diagnostic Questions

Ask 3-5 questions to assess current understanding:

1. Clarifying: "What do you already know about [topic]?"
2. Probing: "Can you give me an example of [related concept]?"
3. Assumption: "What do you think [key term] means?"
4. Application: "How would you approach [simple problem]?"
5. Misconception Check: "[Question that reveals common misconception]"

Identified Knowledge Gaps:

• Gap 1: [What they don't know yet]
• Gap 2: [What they don't know yet]
• Gap 3: [What they don't know yet]

Identified Misconceptions:

• Misconception 1: [Faulty mental model detected]
• Misconception 2: [Faulty mental model detected]

Starting Scaffolding Level: [Full Modeling / Guided Practice / Coached Practice / Independent]

---

2. Question Ladder Design

Build progression from current understanding to target concept:

Concrete Foundation (Step 1-2)

Analogy/Real-World Example:

• Anchor concept in familiar experience
• Example: [Concrete situation they already understand]

Questions:

1. [Simple question connecting to existing knowledge]
2. [Question exploring the analogy]

Pattern Recognition (Step 3-4)

Key Pattern to Notice:

• What regularities or structures should they see?
• Pattern: [Core insight they should discover]

Questions: 3. [Question that guides to pattern] 4. [Question that reinforces pattern with new example]

Formalization (Step 5-6)

Technical Vocabulary:

• Introduce precise terminology once pattern is clear
• Terms: [Key terms to define]

Questions: 5. [Question that motivates formal definition] 6. [Question applying formal concept]

Edge Cases & Boundaries (Step 7-8)

Limitations to Explore:

• Where does the concept break down or need qualification?
• Edge cases: [Boundary conditions]

Questions: 7. [Question revealing edge case] 8. [Question exploring why edge case matters]

Transfer & Application (Step 9-10)

Novel Context:

• Apply concept to new situation
• Context: [Different domain or problem]

Questions: 9. [Question requiring transfer to novel situation] 10. [Question checking deep understanding]

---

3. Teaching Session Structure

Opening (5 minutes)

State Goal: "Today we're going to understand [concept]. By the end, you'll be able to [success criteria]."

Check Motivation: "Why is this important to you?" [Learner answers]

Main Teaching Loop (30-45 minutes)

For each question in ladder:

Ask Question:

• State question clearly
• Give thinking time (30 seconds minimum)
• Don't rush to hint

Observe Response:

• If correct understanding: Confirm and move to next question
• If partial understanding: Ask follow-up to clarify
• If misconception revealed: Note it, explore contradiction (see Misconception Protocol)
• If stuck: Provide scaffolding (see Scaffolding Menu)

Scaffold if Needed:

• Level 5 (Modeling): "Let me show you how I'd think about this..."
• Level 4 (Guided): "What if we try [partial solution]?"
• Level 3 (Coached): "You're close. What about [hint]?"
• Level 2 (Independent): "Take your time. Walk me through your thinking."

Check Understanding:

• "Can you explain that in your own words?"
• "How does that connect to [earlier concept]?"

Closing (10 minutes)

Summary: "Let's review what we covered: [key points]"

Transfer Task: "Now try [novel problem using concept]"

Next Steps: "To solidify this, [practice recommendation]"

---

4. Scaffolding Fading Protocol

Track scaffolding level for each concept:

Concept/Skill	Initial Level	Current Level	Target: Independent
[Concept 1]	Level 5	Level 4	[ ] Ready
[Concept 2]	Level 4	Level 3	[ ] Ready
[Concept 3]	Level 3	Level 2	[ ] Ready

Fading Triggers:

• Success Signal: Learner completes task correctly → Move down one level
• Struggle Signal: Learner stuck for >2 minutes → Move up one level
• Frustration Signal: Repeated failure or negative emotion → Provide direct explanation, restart with higher level

Progressive Independence:

1. Start: Full worked example with narration
2. Next: Partial example, learner completes
3. Next: Learner attempts, teacher provides hints
4. Next: Learner attempts, teacher reviews after
5. End: Learner explains concept to someone else

---

5. Validation & Assessment

Understanding Checks

Explanation Test:

• "Explain [concept] to me like I'm [5 years old / your colleague / an expert]"
• Quality: Clear, accurate, appropriate detail for audience

Application Test:

• "Use [concept] to solve [novel problem]"
• Quality: Correct application, adapts to new context

Teaching Test:

• "How would you teach this to someone else?"
• Quality: Can identify key questions, common misconceptions

Misconception Elimination

Check that identified misconceptions are corrected:

• Misconception 1: Eliminated? [Test question] → [Response shows correction]
• Misconception 2: Eliminated? [Test question] → [Response shows correction]

If misconception persists:

• Design new question sequence targeting it specifically
• See resources/methodology.md for advanced misconception busting

Transfer Assessment

Near Transfer (same domain, different problem):

• Problem: [Similar but not identical]
• Success: [ ] Solved correctly without hints

Far Transfer (different domain, analogous structure):

• Problem: [Different context, same underlying principle]
• Success: [ ] Recognized analogous structure and applied concept

---

Scaffolding Menu

Quick reference for providing appropriate support:

Level 5: Full Modeling

• "Let me show you a complete example..."
• "Here's how I would think through this step-by-step..."
• "Watch how I approach [problem], then you'll try a similar one"

Level 4: Guided Practice

• "I'll start, and you complete the next steps..."
• "Here's the first part [show partial solution]. Can you finish?"
• "Let's do this together. I'll guide you through each step."

Level 3: Coached Practice

• "Give it a try. I'll ask questions if you get stuck."
• "You're on the right track. What about [specific aspect]?"
• "Almost. Think about what would happen if [scenario]?"

Level 2: Independent with Feedback

• "Try it yourself first. We'll review together afterwards."
• "Take your time. Come back when you have a solution."
• "Work through this, then explain your reasoning."

Level 1: Transfer

• "Now teach this to [someone else]."
• "Create your own example problem."
• "Explain why someone might misunderstand this."

---

Misconception Correction Protocol

When misconception is revealed:

Step 1: Acknowledge Without Judgment

• "Interesting! Many people think that."
• "That's a really common way to think about it."

Step 2: Predict Outcome Based on Misconception

• "If [misconception] were true, what would we expect to see in [test case]?"
• Get learner to make explicit prediction

Step 3: Show Contradiction

• Demonstrate or explain actual outcome
• "But actually, [show real result]. Why do you think that is?"

Step 4: Guide to Correct Model

• Ask questions that lead to correct understanding
• "What could explain this difference?"
• Don't just state correct answer—guide discovery

Step 5: Reinforce with New Examples

• Apply corrected understanding to 2-3 new cases
• "Let's test this new understanding. What about [example]?"

Step 6: Check Persistence

• Return to misconception trigger later in session
• Ensure correction stuck, not just surface compliance

---

Common Teaching Patterns

Pattern: Concrete → Abstract (Feynman Technique)

1. Level 1 (Child): Simple analogy, no jargon

   • "Think of it like [everyday object/experience]..."

2. Level 2 (High School): Introduce some formality

   • "More precisely, it's when [definition with some technical terms]..."

3. Level 3 (Undergraduate): Full technical definition

   • "Formally, [concept] is defined as [precise definition with terminology]..."

4. Level 4 (Graduate): Edge cases, formal proofs

   • "Under these conditions [constraints], we can prove [property]..."

Pattern: Problem → Decomposition → Solution

1. Present Complex Problem: Something they can't solve yet
2. Ask Decomposition Questions: "What are the sub-problems?"
3. Solve Simple Sub-Problem: Build confidence with achievable piece
4. Compose: "How do we combine these solutions?"
5. Generalize: "What pattern did we use? When else could we apply it?"

Pattern: Prediction → Observation → Explanation

1. Predict: "What do you think will happen if [scenario]?"
2. Observe: [Show actual outcome—contradicts naive prediction]
3. Explain: "Why was our prediction wrong? What's really happening?"
4. Refine Model: "Let's adjust our understanding to account for this..."

---

Quality Checklist

Before concluding session, verify:

Diagnostic:

• Asked 3-5 diagnostic questions to assess baseline
• Identified specific knowledge gaps
• Detected at least 1 misconception (if present)
• Determined appropriate starting scaffolding level

Question Ladder:

• Built progression from concrete to abstract (min 8 questions)
• Each question has clear purpose (not just Socratic theater)
• Ladder addresses identified gaps and misconceptions
• Questions build on each other logically

Teaching Execution:

• Started at appropriate scaffolding level (not always Level 5)
• Faded scaffolding as competence increased
• Asked questions, didn't just lecture
• Corrected misconceptions through contradiction, not assertion
• Adjusted to learner responses (didn't stick rigidly to script)

Validation:

• Tested understanding with novel problem (transfer)
• Asked for explanation in learner's words
• Verified misconceptions eliminated
• Provided next steps for continued learning

Guardrails:

• Stayed in zone of proximal development (optimal challenge)
• Didn't make it a guessing game
• Made implicit knowledge explicit
• Adapted to learner's pace and preferences

Session Notes:

• What worked well: [Note effective moments]
• What to adjust: [Note what to improve]
• Follow-up needed: [Topics requiring more work]