Expose examples before naming the rule (inductive first)

Present several cases before stating the principle; let the learner induce the pattern.

Why it works

When a learner encounters examples before the rule, they engage in active hypothesis-testing, trying to infer the pattern. This effortful induction — even when it is partially wrong — is a desirable difficulty: the struggle strengthens encoding of the rule once it is revealed, compared to learners who received the rule first and merely verified it.

How to do it

1. Present two or three varied examples without explaining what they have in common.
2. Ask yourself or the learner: "What do these share? What’s the rule?"
3. After the attempt (right or wrong), reveal the principle and debrief where the induction matched.
4. Apply the rule to one more novel example immediately to consolidate.

Evidence

Research on productive failure (Kapur, 2016) finds that learners who struggle with problems before instruction outperform those who receive instruction first on transfer tests, even though they perform worse on immediate tests. (rct)

The effect depends on the learner having enough prior knowledge to make any meaningful attempt. True novices may need a worked example first.

Sources

• Kapur (2016), productive failure in learning math, Educational Psychologist

Common mistake

Revealing the rule immediately after the examples without pausing for the learner’s own hypothesis — this collapses induction into passive receipt and loses the encoding benefit.