A student can match the class average and still leave important gaps hidden. Three correct answers show that a method worked three times; an explanation shows whether the student understands when and why that method works.
In the early 1950s, physicist Richard Feynman encountered this problem while teaching in Brazil. Students could repeat formal definitions from their textbooks, yet struggled to connect those definitions to physical situations. Feynman describes the experience in Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!, including his time teaching in Rio de Janeiro.
The students had learned language that sounded precise. Their answers could resemble the expected answer. When Feynman changed the context and asked them to reason from the underlying idea, that apparent certainty weakened.
For a parent reviewing three ticks on a school exercise, the stakes are smaller, but the mechanism is familiar. Correct work can come from recognition, a remembered procedure, a helpful example seen minutes earlier, or genuine conceptual understanding. The mark alone does not reveal which one produced the result.
Three correct answers can hide three different routes
Imagine a student completes three algebra questions correctly. They may understand why the same operation must be applied to both sides of an equation. They may also be copying the structure of an example from the previous page without understanding the principle.
Both routes can produce the same score today. They separate when the wording changes, an extra step appears, or the student must decide which method applies.
This matters across international curricula. An IGCSE student may recall a standard calculation but struggle to explain what the result means. An IB student may state a relevant concept but fail to connect it to the evidence. An A Level student may reproduce a familiar sequence, then stop when the question combines two topics.
The useful follow-up is simple: ask the student to explain one correct answer without reading their written steps aloud.
“Why did you choose that method?”
“What would change if this value were negative?”
“How could you check the answer another way?”
A confident explanation does not need polished textbook language. It needs a clear causal chain. If the student can describe what each step achieves, adapt the method, and identify a reasonable check, the correct answer carries more weight.
Explanation exposes where the learning breaks
When a student cannot explain a correct answer, the response should be diagnostic rather than punitive. “You guessed” closes the conversation. A narrower prompt can locate the gap.
Ask the student to identify the first decision they made. If they cannot, the method may have been copied from a nearby example. Ask them to solve a similar problem with one condition changed. If the procedure collapses, they may have memorised a pattern whose limits remain unclear.
Parents can also compare work completed during revision with work attempted after a gap of several days. Immediate repetition often rewards short-term familiarity. Delayed retrieval gives a better view of what the student can reconstruct independently.
This is especially useful when a result looks acceptable but the student feels lost in class. The issue may be smaller and more specific than “falling behind.” It could be one missing definition, a weak link between two ideas, or uncertainty about when to select a particular method. More specific support begins with identifying that exact point.
Feynman’s criticism in Brazil centred on the distance between reciting scientific language and recognising the science in the world around it. The same distance appears when a student can name a rule but cannot say what problem the rule solves.
Curriculum-specific questions reveal more than extra practice
More questions do not automatically produce deeper understanding. If every question follows the same template, a student can become faster at recognising the template while the concept remains fragile.
The better next step is variation within the relevant curriculum. A Cambridge IGCSE tutor might move from a routine calculation to a short interpretation question. An IB tutor might ask the student to connect a claim to evidence and then test the limits of that claim. A digital SAT tutor might change the surface details while preserving the reasoning task.
This is where curriculum-specific matching matters. The tutor needs to understand how the programme expects students to explain, apply, analyse, or evaluate. Generic subject knowledge may identify a correct final answer. Familiarity with the curriculum helps reveal whether the reasoning would hold when the command term, context, or mark allocation changes.
Accelerate Tutors matches students with tutors according to their curriculum, subjects, goals, availability, and learning support needs. Live one-to-one online lessons are available worldwide, with in-person tutoring available for families in Ghana. That individual format gives the tutor room to ask the question a marked worksheet cannot: “Talk me through why this works.”
Turn the next correct answer into evidence
Choose one piece of recent work and ignore the mistakes for five minutes. Start with a correct answer.
Ask the student to explain it in their own words. Change one condition. Then ask how they would recognise a similar problem in a different form. Keep the tone calm; the purpose is to observe the reasoning, not to catch them out.
If the explanation holds, the mark has stronger meaning. If it falls apart, you have found a useful starting point before the next assessment makes the gap more expensive.
Feynman’s students could repeat the vocabulary of physics. His questions tested whether that vocabulary connected to observable ideas. A parent or tutor can make the same distinction with one correct answer and one patient follow-up: “Why?”
Comments
No comments yet.