## Key Ideas > [!abstract] Core Concepts > > - **Three-Scenario Framework**: Respond differently based on percentage of students correct (>80%, 40-80%, <40%) > - **Don't Reveal Answer Early**: Hold off confirming correctness until after your explanation > - **Time Allocation Based on Need**: Spend time where students struggle, move quickly through secure knowledge ## Definition **Responsive teaching**: Systematic approach to adjusting instruction based on real-time data about student understanding - the bridge between checking for understanding and taking appropriate action (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Hattie & Timperley, 2007). ## Connected to [[Check For Understanding]] | [[Mini-Whiteboards]] | [[Cold-Call]] | [[Turn and Talk]] | [[Diagnostic Questions]] | [[Wait Time]] --- ## The problem with poor responsive teaching Checking for understanding without responding appropriately wastes the data gathered and frustrates students who wonder why you bothered asking. Many lessons fall apart at the response stage because teachers lack reliable information about student understanding, respond generically regardless of what data shows, or spend excessive time on concepts students have mastered whilst rushing through areas of genuine confusion. Using [[Mini-Whiteboards]] and multiple [[Cold-Call|cold-calls]] provides better data. Applying the three-scenario framework ensures responses match student needs. Allocating time proportional to student need prevents the trap of over-explaining secure knowledge. ## Preliminary steps: gathering reliable data Responsive teaching depends on reliable data. Unreliable data produces inappropriate responses that waste time or leave students behind. The gold standard is seeing responses from all students, not just confident volunteers. [[Mini-Whiteboards]] work for any question type and show every response immediately. [[Diagnostic Questions]] with ABCD cards work efficiently for multiple choice concepts and produce interpretable wrong answers. Multiple [[Cold-Call|cold-calls]] provide strategic sampling with wider coverage than single responses. Circulation during independent work provides detailed insight into working and reasoning. Single volunteer responses, single cold-call responses, and assumptions based on silence or nodding are unreliable methods that should be avoided. ### Timing when to reveal the answer Confirming the correct answer before explaining is a mistake that destroys the cognitive engagement needed for learning to occur. Students with correct answers stop listening ("I already know this"), students with wrong answers lose confidence and may disengage, and precious thinking time from all students is lost. The solution is to hold off revealing the correct answer until after finishing the explanation. ## The three-scenario framework Responses should match the data pattern. The same response regardless of understanding levels wastes time or abandons learners. The percentage of students getting the answer correct determines the appropriate response. ### Scenario 1: nearly everyone correct (>80%) When more than 80% of students answer correctly, the default response is to move on quickly. The 80% threshold represents research-based guidance on when students are ready to progress (Wilson et al., 2019; Rosenshine, 2012). Write the answer rather than just saying it, because verbal information is transient (Leahy & Sweller, 2011). Note names of struggling students for individual check-ins later. Move to the next concept and resist the temptation to over-explain. When time permits or the concept is prerequisite knowledge, asking a "what if" question can extend thinking. Questions like "What if I changed the 5 to a 4?" or "What if someone wrote 15 + 3x? Are they correct?" or "What if I change the plus to a minus?" can deepen understanding without extensive re-teaching. Time spent over-explaining secure knowledge is time unavailable for concepts students struggle with. ### Scenario 2: some students correct (40-80%) When 40-80% of students answer correctly, there is enough knowledge in the room for productive discussion but not enough to simply move on. Peer learning becomes viable when sufficient expertise exists to share (Slavin, 1996; Johnson & Johnson, 1999). The first step is making student responses visible by writing different answers on the board, holding up student mini-whiteboards, using a visualiser to display work, or putting responses on display. Visible responses provide a frame of reference for discussion, give thinking time to both students and teacher, and combat the transient nature of verbal information (Leahy & Sweller, 2011). Teachers can then choose between two approaches depending on their goal. A warm call allows strategic selection - call on students with different answers whilst maintaining neutral responses like "Thank you" regardless of correctness to hide which answer is correct. For example, "Tommy, I can see you think the answer is 6, please tell us why?" followed by "Heena, I can see you think the answer is 9, please tell us why?" [[Turn and Talk]] allows peer discussion if structured properly with clear roles ("Person closest to door goes first") and conversation frameworks ("If you disagree, can you convince your partner? If you agree, why might someone think a different answer?"). After discussion, students revote. They can stick with their original answer or change, but must be ready to explain why. This provides evidence of whether understanding is moving in the right direction and identifies "switchers" for follow-up questioning. Asking switchers to explain their reasoning ("Sam, I see you previously thought 15, but now you are going for 12. Tell us why.") tests whether understanding is genuine or just following the crowd. The teacher then models the solution with clear, concise explanation. The explanation should refer to wrong answers to confront misconceptions directly and cross out wrong answers or circle the correct answer for clarity. A follow-up question provides evidence that the explanation worked (Rosenshine, 2012). These questions should be planned in advance because good follow-ups are hard to create in the moment. They must test the same skill at the same level but require fresh thinking. The teacher then responds in the moment based on the follow-up results: if more than 80% are correct, move on; if less than 80% are correct and it is prerequisite knowledge, re-explain and recheck; if less than 80% are correct and it is for spaced practice, move on and revisit later. ### Scenario 3: few students correct (<40%) When fewer than 40% of students answer correctly, there is widespread confusion and not enough knowledge in the room for peer learning. Asking confused students to explain to each other simply pools ignorance. The teacher provides a clear, concise explanation rather than asking confused students to explain. Throughout the explanation, the teacher includes checks for listening using explain, frame, and reframe techniques, asking only listening checks rather than understanding checks during the explanation. The teacher then asks a follow-up question using the same process as Scenario 2 - a well-planned question testing the same skill. The teacher schedules future retrieval through tomorrow's Do Now, this week's homework, or next week's quiz. More frequent checking is needed for insecure knowledge, and teachers should monitor for performance versus learning. ## When to use responsive teaching Responsive teaching applies throughout every lesson at multiple phases. During the Do Now, start-of-lesson retrieval practice checks readiness for today's learning. After explanations, checking assesses whether the teaching landed and students understand new content. During guided practice ("We Do"), checking determines whether students are ready for independence. At hinge points - key decision moments in the lesson - checking assesses learning progression security. Before moving to the next concept, checking confirms the foundation is secure and prerequisite knowledge is in place. ## Integration with other strategies Responsive teaching integrates with several other teaching strategies. [[Mini-Whiteboards]] provide instant data for all three scenarios, with "hover face down" preventing early reveals and both sides available for working versus final answers. [[Cold-Call]] enables strategic selection in Scenario 2 through warm calling, allows multiple cold-calls for wider data sampling, and supports follow-up questioning for switchers. [[Turn and Talk]] is perfect for the 40-80% range, structuring discussions around visible responses and building understanding before re-checking. [[Diagnostic Questions]] provide clear data on misconceptions with interpretable wrong answers that inform the response, and technology can speed up data gathering. [[Wait Time]] is essential during the revoting phase, allowing processing time after student responses (Rowe, 1986) and giving teachers thinking time to plan their next move. ## Common pitfalls and solutions Several pitfalls undermine responsive teaching. Over-explaining when students already understand (in the >80% scenario) wastes time that could be used where it is needed; the solution is to trust the data and move on. Always explaining or always moving on regardless of data produces generic responses; the solution is to use the three-scenario framework systematically. Weak questions that do not test understanding fail to assess whether the explanation worked; the solution is to plan follow-ups in advance, focusing on the same skill and level. Confirming correctness before explanation reveals the answer too early; the solution is to make responses visible, explain, then confirm. Collecting data but not referring to it wastes the information gathered; the solution is to write responses on the board and refer to them in the explanation. ## The time investment principle Responsive teaching takes longer initially whilst building routines, planning follow-up questions, and learning to read student data. The long-term payoff includes less re-teaching needed, more efficient use of lesson time, better learning outcomes, and students developing independence. ## References Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. *Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice*, 5(1), 7-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102 Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. *Review of Educational Research*, 77(1), 81-112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487 Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Making cooperative learning work. *Theory Into Practice*, 38(2), 67-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849909543834 Leahy, W., & Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory, modality of presentation and the transient information effect. *Applied Cognitive Psychology*, 25(6), 943-951. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1787 Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers should know. *American Educator*, 36(1), 12-19. Rowe, M. B. (1986). Wait time: Slowing down may be a way of speeding up! *Journal of Teacher Education*, 37(1), 43-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002248718603700110 Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. *Contemporary Educational Psychology*, 21(1), 43-69. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1996.0004 Wilson, M. L., Smith, L. V., Householder, D. L., & Eggett, D. L. (2019). A continuous improvement process for engineering curriculum using the 85% rule. *International Journal of STEM Education*, 6(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0183-5 ---