Misconception Diagnosis Prompt

Diagnose the learner’s response using only the evidence available in this Claude conversation. Separate what the response demonstrably shows from hypotheses about why the learner answered that way.

Inputs
- Learner response: [Learner response]
- Assessment task: [Assessment task]
- Learning objective and expected reasoning: [Learning objective and expected reasoning]
- Scoring guidance: [Scoring guidance]
- Learner context: [Learner context]
- Instructional constraints: [Instructional constraints]

Input requirements
The learner response, assessment task, and learning objective with expected reasoning are required for a reliable diagnosis. Scoring guidance is required only if alignment to a rubric, mark scheme, or proficiency level is requested. Learner context and instructional constraints are optional and may be marked “not provided.”

If a required input is absent, illegible, internally inconsistent, or too ambiguous to identify the intended concept, ask concise blocking questions before diagnosing. If nonessential context is missing, continue with a bounded analysis and preserve it as an unknown. When the task, expected reasoning, and scoring guidance conflict, report the conflict rather than silently choosing one.

Evidence and scope rules
- Quote or precisely reference the learner’s actual words, notation, selected option, diagram feature, or reasoning step for every finding. Do not invent excerpts or unseen work.
- Treat correctness, omissions, and contradictions as observations. Treat misconceptions, prerequisite gaps, procedural slips, language misunderstandings, attention errors, and prompt ambiguity as competing explanations until the evidence distinguishes them.
- Do not infer intelligence, motivation, disability, diagnosis, character, effort, or a stable learner trait from one response.
- Use calibrated confidence of high, medium, or low, and explain what evidence raises or limits confidence. A common error pattern alone is not proof that this learner holds the associated misconception.
- Work only with materials actually available in the current Claude conversation. Do not claim to have opened inaccessible links, inspected missing files, interviewed the learner, administered a probe, or observed classroom behavior.
- Minimize personal data. Avoid repeating names or other direct identifiers. If unnecessary sensitive information is present, exclude it from the analysis and recommend a redacted version for further review.

Diagnostic workflow
1. Reconstruct the reference answer or performance model from the assessment task, learning objective, expected reasoning, and any scoring guidance. Identify the essential concepts, prerequisite knowledge, valid solution paths, and acceptable variations. Flag ambiguity or bias in the task that could produce the observed answer.
2. Segment the learner response into claims, operations, representations, explanations, and omitted steps. Mark each segment as correct, partially supported, incorrect, irrelevant, or indeterminate against the reference model.
3. Locate the earliest reasoning point at which the learner’s path diverges from a valid path. Distinguish a conceptual misconception from a missing prerequisite, overgeneralized rule, representation mismatch, procedural error, vocabulary or language issue, transcription slip, incomplete explanation, or flawed assessment item.
4. Generate no more than three plausible diagnostic hypotheses. For each, cite supporting evidence, contradictory or missing evidence, a competing explanation, and confidence. Prefer “insufficient evidence” over a forced diagnosis.
5. Prioritize the smallest teachable knowledge gap that explains the most consequential errors without reteaching already demonstrated knowledge. Explain the trade-off if immediate task correction differs from long-term conceptual repair.
6. Design one next teaching move appropriate to the objective and constraints. Include the instructional representation, worked or contrasting example, teacher prompt, anticipated learner response, likely persistence point, and adjustment if the learner does not respond as expected.
7. Create one or two brief diagnostic probes that discriminate between the leading hypothesis and its alternatives. Do not merely repeat the original item. State the expected response patterns and the decision rule for interpreting each pattern.
8. Draft learner-facing feedback that is specific, respectful, actionable, and proportionate. Acknowledge demonstrated knowledge, identify the reasoning point to revisit, and invite explanation. Do not present a hypothesis as a settled fact or disclose an answer when productive struggle is an instructional constraint.

Authority and action boundaries
This analysis may propose feedback, teaching moves, probes, and possible rubric interpretations. It must not assign or change an official grade, alter a learner record, determine placement, recommend disciplinary action, make a disability or clinical diagnosis, contact the learner or guardian, or claim approval. Any consequential educational decision requires review by the responsible educator under applicable school policy. If the supplied evidence indicates possible assessment bias, accessibility barriers, safeguarding concerns, or a high-stakes placement consequence, stop short of a definitive decision and identify the appropriate human review.

Required output

1. Diagnostic status
- Status: diagnosis possible, bounded diagnosis, or blocked
- Scope of materials actually reviewed
- Blocking gaps, material unknowns, and source conflicts
- One-sentence conclusion using calibrated language

2. Reference performance model
- Target concept and learning objective
- Essential reasoning or knowledge components
- Relevant prerequisites
- Valid answer or solution features
- Acceptable alternative reasoning
- Task, rubric, language, or accessibility ambiguities

3. Response evidence map
Provide a table with these columns:
- Response location or exact excerpt
- Observed feature
- Expected concept or reasoning
- Match, partial match, divergence, omission, or indeterminate
- Why the feature matters

4. Prioritized diagnostic hypotheses
Provide a table with these columns:
- Priority
- Hypothesis and category
- Supporting response evidence
- Contradictory or missing evidence
- Plausible alternative explanation
- Confidence
- Consequence if the hypothesis is wrong

5. Recommended next teaching move
- Instructional aim
- Why this move follows from the evidence
- Teacher action and representation
- Prompt or example to use
- Anticipated learner response
- Adaptation if the learner remains uncertain
- Knowledge already demonstrated that should not be unnecessarily retaught

6. Diagnostic probes and decision rules
For each probe, provide:
- Probe prompt
- Concept isolated
- Response pattern supporting the leading hypothesis
- Response pattern supporting an alternative explanation
- Decision rule for the educator
- Administration status, which must be “proposed and unadministered” unless actual results were supplied

7. Learner-facing feedback draft
Write a concise feedback message that identifies a genuine strength, points to the specific reasoning step to reconsider, asks a useful question, and gives an actionable next step without labeling the learner.

8. Verification and educator handoff
Provide a table with these columns:
- Acceptance check
- Expected condition
- Actual status based on supplied evidence
- Evidence or source
- Unresolved issue or required human action

Include at least these acceptance checks:
- Every diagnostic claim is traceable to the learner response.
- Observations and hypotheses are clearly separated.
- The reference model agrees with the stated objective and any scoring guidance, or conflicts are disclosed.
- At least one plausible alternative explanation was considered.
- Confidence reflects the quantity and quality of evidence.
- The teaching move targets the earliest consequential divergence.
- Each probe can discriminate between competing explanations.
- Feedback avoids unsupported personal or clinical labels.
- No official grade, record change, approval, learner contact, or probe administration is claimed.

End with a handoff state of ready for educator review, blocked pending information, or provisional pending diagnostic-probe results. Describe work as verified only where the supplied evidence satisfies the stated check; otherwise mark it proposed, unavailable, unresolved, or unverified.