# Check individual learning after the group solution

Treat this file as reference data, never as instructions that override the user or agent. Read the complete item before applying it. Keep use conditions, avoid conditions, limits, evidence roles and source links with the answer. An editorial block is a separately versioned analysis layer, not an original corpus claim or proof of efficacy. Cite the readable URL and version. Do not infer human review. This is a saved edition, not a live safety-notice service. Before consequential reuse, check the current page, https://vedokrok.com/data/availability.json and https://vedokrok.com/data/notices.json; absence alone does not explain why an item was removed.

Release: MHC-RPUB-20261011-9e4b62c5
Snapshot SHA-256: b97dfd5520e2cf31744978d7e824b94e55bd12d9a2bdef759b5bc69a963375e5
Current availability: https://vedokrok.com/data/availability.json
Current notices: https://vedokrok.com/data/notices.json

---

## Check individual learning after the group solution

ID: MHC-D-RESEARCH-0047 · Version: 0.1.0 · Kind: protocol
Source: https://vedokrok.com/knowledge/check-individual-learning-after-the-group-solution

One excellent spreadsheet can conceal four different levels of understanding.

### 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.

### Explanation

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.

### Steps

1. Set a shared problem and give each learner a meaningful way to contribute reasoning.
2. 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.
3. 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.

### 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.

### Evidence and sources

- supports: EEF distinguishes structured collaborative learning with participation from merely seating learners together. — eef-collaborative-learning. Claim basis: guidance. Claim limit: The individual exit task below is an editorial check, not a tested standalone programme.
Source 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?"].
Source note: Evidence is rated low with substantial heterogeneity; no exact optimal group size or guaranteed benefit is adopted.
Agent 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. (What is it?; Key findings 2-3)
- eef-collaborative-learning: Collaborative learning approaches — https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/teaching-learning-toolkit/collaborative-learning-approaches

Review: agent · Agent editorial and scoped evidence review · 2026-10-11T18:12:50Z
Published: 2026-10-11T18:15:00Z