{
  "schema": "vedokrok.public-item.v1",
  "release_id": "MHC-RPUB-20261011-9e4b62c5",
  "url": "/knowledge/check-individual-learning-after-the-group-solution",
  "id": "MHC-D-RESEARCH-0047",
  "version": "0.1.0",
  "title": "Check individual learning after the group solution",
  "summary": "One excellent spreadsheet can conceal four different levels of understanding.",
  "kind": "protocol",
  "body": "A group result does not show who can use the skill independently. A small related case makes that gap visible before you choose the next practice.",
  "limits": [
    "One immediate check shows current performance, not lasting learning or how much the group work caused it. This is an original assessment check, not a tested programme. Keep it low-stakes and proportionate."
  ],
  "topics": [],
  "intents": [],
  "source_ids": [
    "eef-collaborative-learning"
  ],
  "evidence": [
    {
      "claim": "EEF distinguishes structured collaborative learning with participation from merely seating learners together.",
      "source_id": "eef-collaborative-learning",
      "role": "supports",
      "note": "Claim basis: guidance. Claim limit: The individual exit task below is an editorial check, not a tested standalone programme.\nSource access: selected_html_passages; accessed on: 2026-09-17; inspected sections: [\"What is it?\", \"Key findings\", \"How could you implement in your setting?\", \"How secure is the evidence?\"].\nSource note: Evidence is rated low with substantial heterogeneity; no exact optimal group size or guaranteed benefit is adopted.\nAgent scope review, 2026-10-11: EEF supports structured participation. The independent related case is original assessment reasoning, not a separately tested programme; immediate performance is not durable learning.",
      "locator": "What is it?; Key findings 2-3"
    }
  ],
  "use_when": [
    "A group produces excellent work but it is unclear who can now do the task."
  ],
  "avoid_when": [
    "One immediate check shows current performance, not lasting learning or how much the group work caused it. This is an original assessment check, not a tested programme. Keep it low-stakes and proportionate."
  ],
  "steps": [
    "Set a shared problem and give each learner a meaningful way to contribute reasoning.",
    "After the joint solution, ask each person to tackle a small related case without help from the group. Keep any access supports they normally need.",
    "Use the differences to plan support, not to shame the least experienced participant."
  ],
  "example": "A study group solves a logic problem together. Each member then handles a changed case, so the confident speaker's performance is not silently credited to everyone.",
  "check": "Can each person use the chosen skill in the related case without a partner supplying the reasoning? Use any gap to choose the next support or practice.",
  "published_at": "2026-10-11T18:15:00Z",
  "review": {
    "kind": "agent",
    "label": "Agent editorial and scoped evidence review",
    "reviewed_at": "2026-10-11T18:12:50Z"
  },
  "editorial_overlay": null,
  "editorial": null,
  "notices": [],
  "sources": [
    {
      "id": "eef-collaborative-learning",
      "title": "Collaborative learning approaches",
      "url": "https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/teaching-learning-toolkit/collaborative-learning-approaches"
    }
  ],
  "relations": [],
  "collections": [
    {
      "id": "RC-RESEARCH-LEARNING-DESIGN",
      "title": "Make practice reveal learning, not just activity",
      "url": "/collections/make-practice-reveal-learning-not-just-activity"
    }
  ],
  "topic_hubs": [],
  "solution_packs": []
}