Worked Examples

From familiar to independently usable

Nadia reads the same explanation twice and predicts she can answer all four prompts. Her attempts show: correct definition, correct single-item trace, incorrect empty input, and no explanation of why the accumulator starts at zero. Under a predeclared rule requiring both a correct result and its explanation, only two prompts pass.

She first says “I need to read faster.” That does not address the failed outcomes. A more specific hypothesis is “I can follow a running total but have not connected its initial state to the empty case.” She draws the state before the first iteration, explains why no update occurs for an empty list, then tries an unfamiliar three-item list and the empty list again.

An immediate correct retry is repair evidence. It does not establish retention. At an already scheduled later check, she uses a new list and explains the starting state without the notes. If she cannot, she records the failure and reopens that specific gap. She does not change her original score or claim her preferred method is proven best for everyone.

Your turn

Choose a different concept. Before looking at an answer, say what result would distinguish misunderstanding the idea from misreading the question. The useful output is the prediction and discriminating check, not a motivational statement.