M02Human practicecard 60/81

Self-explanation

You build the explanation; the model makes the connection you skipped visible.

Use
CodeThinking and learning
Setup
Human practice
Needs
a person’s input
Done when
The learner explained the example in their own words and the model pointed only to connections that were skipped.
License
CC BY 4.0 · The card’s open source

What is it?

Self-explanation is explaining in your own words why an example works. If the model produces the explanation for you, the learning work the human does changes. In this card, the model gives short questions and source-bounded feedback.

When does it help?

When a solution feels familiar as you read it, but you struggle to apply the same idea to a new example.

Examples

The situations and responses below are fictional teaching examples; they are not results from a model, tool or benchmark that was actually run.

Simple

Situation

You will explain a percentage discount calculation in your own sentence.

Prompt

Prompt

I am the learner. Rule: a 20% discount means paying 80% of the price. Example: 100 TL -> 80 TL.
First ask me "Why do we multiply 100 by 0.8?" and wait for my answer. Do not write the explanation for me. Point out the correct connection in my answer; if something is missing, ask a single follow-up question. At most two questions.

Sample output

Model: “Why do we multiply by 0.8?” Human: “When 20 percent goes, 80 percent is left.” Model: “You connected the remaining share correctly. So what does the same rate change for 200 TL?”

What did we get?

Instead of repeating the result, the meaning of the remaining share was explained.

Medium

Situation

You will explain why a line of code covers the boundary case.

Prompt

Prompt

Code: total >= 500 ? 0 : 50. Rule: 500 and above ships free, below that 50 TL.
My explanation: "If it's greater than 500, shipping is free."
Compare my explanation with the rule and the code. Point out the correct part; ask a question about the one missing boundary. Do not tell me the fix right away. Once I explain again, it is enough to ask for predictions for 499/500/501; do not claim you ran a real code test.

Sample output

Model: “You described the larger amounts. What does the = sign change when it is exactly 500?” Human: “500 is free too; 50 for 499, 0 for 500 and 501.”

What did we get?

The equality missing from the verbal explanation was carried into a new boundary example.

Advanced

Situation

Your seemingly correct explanation does not work in a new situation.

Prompt

Prompt

Source rule: Average speed is total distance / total time.
My explanation: "If you go 60 km at 30 km/h, then 60 km at 60 km/h, the average is 45 km/h; I averaged the two speeds."
First, with a single question, show me which assumption of my explanation I need to check. Wait for me to calculate the times without giving the answer. Then ask me to connect total distance and total time in my own words.
At most three questions; at the end, give a new task: why would it be different if you traveled at these speeds for two equal amounts of time? Do not treat the quality of an explanation as the same measure as a correct answer given without help.

Sample output

Model: “Are you spending equal time on the two parts?” Human: “The first part is 2 hours, the second 1 hour; 120/3=40.” The model asks them to explain again the difference between equal distance and equal time.

What did we get?

A wrong generalization came to light by comparing it with another condition.

Where should you stop?

Self-explanation is an explanation made by the human; the same learning claim cannot be made for a model explaining its own answer. Plain-language explanation approaches associated with the Feynman name are related to this card, but they are not presented as a single original four-step academic protocol. A nicer explanation does not mean a correct answer or a long-term gain in learning.

Sources

The large shadow of a branching mineral sculpture falls on a white screen; a small separate piece stands beside the sculpture.
How this image was made

Original illustration made with Google Gemini · 1024 × 572

Generate an image: Create an original physically believable volumetric mineral sculpture photographed as a museum installation, horizontal 16:9. Deep anthracite void, porcelain mineral whites, restrained ice-blue and amber accents, fine structural particles, tactile surfaces, soft volumetric light, realistic depth and deliberate negative space. A mineral form projects its own simplified contour onto an adjacent blank plane; one unclear recess is highlighted and matched to a small reference shard. No text, letters, numerals, logo, watermark, user interface, fake charts, identifiable people, or imitation of a particular artist. Depict the specified mechanism clearly; avoid generic clouds. One coherent original illustration.

Setup, needs and done-when are routing notes written by reading each card; they are not measured performance.

Plates: 1-bit, 576×192 images made from each card’s original illustration with Bayer 8×8 dithering; ink covers 45% of every plate.

Adapt the prompts to your own situation. In an example that needs a tool or a separate call, copying the text alone does not set up that way of working.