菜单
Generate elaborative interrogation prompts that deepen encoding through targeted why and how questions. Use when students memorise without understanding or need deeper processing of content.
默认使用会先检查来源的 Prompt；你也可以切换为直接命令，或下载本地副本。
决定是否安装前，请先阅读 SKILL.md，以及 SkillsMP 当前展示的配套文件。
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt，粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里，让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
直接命令不会经过审查 Prompt；运行前请先检查来源。
npx skills add https://github.com/GarethManning/education-agent-skills --skill elaborative-interrogation-generator命令会保持在同一行。复制前请横向滚动并检查完整内容。
想先保存到本地？可下载 SkillsMP 当前能够提供的文件。
基于 SOC 职业分类
正在显示 SKILL.md
| name | elaborative-interrogation-generator |
| description | Generate elaborative interrogation prompts that deepen encoding through targeted why and how questions. Use when students memorise without understanding or need deeper processing of content. |
| disable-model-invocation | false |
| user-invocable | true |
| effort | medium |
| skill_id | memory-learning-science/elaborative-interrogation-generator |
| skill_name | Elaborative Interrogation Prompt Generator |
| domain | memory-learning-science |
| version | 1.0 |
| evidence_strength | strong |
| evidence_sources | ["Pressley et al. (1992) — Elaborative interrogation facilitates acquisition of confusing facts","Woloshyn et al. (1994) — Use of elaborative interrogation to help students acquire information consistent with prior knowledge","Dunlosky et al. (2013) — Elaborative interrogation rated moderate-utility learning strategy","McDaniel & Donnelly (1996) — Learning with analogy and elaborative interrogation","Ozgungor & Guthrie (2004) — Interactions among elaborative interrogation, knowledge, and interest in the process of constructing knowledge from text"] |
| input_schema | {"required":[{"field":"topic","type":"string","description":"The concept, fact set, or content area students are learning"},{"field":"student_level","type":"string","description":"Age/year group and approximate prior knowledge level"},{"field":"prompt_count","type":"integer","description":"Number of elaborative prompts to generate (recommended 5–8)"}],"optional":[{"field":"content_text","type":"string","description":"The specific text or content students are engaging with"},{"field":"prior_knowledge","type":"string","description":"What students already know that can be connected to this topic"},{"field":"student_profiles","type":"array","description":"From context engine: language levels, prior knowledge data"},{"field":"learning_objectives","type":"string","description":"Specific learning objectives the prompts should support"}]} |
| output_schema | {"type":"object","fields":[{"field":"elaborative_prompts","type":"array","description":"Ordered list of why/how prompts with target knowledge and expected depth"},{"field":"implementation_guide","type":"string","description":"How to use the prompts — timing, grouping, written vs verbal"},{"field":"connection_prompts","type":"array","description":"Prompts that connect new learning to prior knowledge"}]} |
| chains_well_with | ["retrieval-practice-generator","self-regulation-scaffold-generator","metacognitive-prompt-library","reading-comprehension-strategy-selector"] |
| teacher_time | 3 minutes |
| tags | ["elaboration","encoding","comprehension","deep-processing","questioning"] |
Generates a set of "why?" and "how does this connect?" prompts designed to deepen encoding by forcing students to generate explanations that link new information to existing knowledge. Unlike comprehension questions (which check understanding), elaborative interrogation prompts require students to explain why a fact is true or how it relates to something they already know — the act of generating the explanation strengthens the memory trace. AI is specifically valuable here because effective elaborative prompts must be pitched at the precise intersection of what students are learning and what they already know — too disconnected from prior knowledge and students can't generate explanations; too obvious and there's no elaboration needed.
Pressley et al. (1992) demonstrated that answering "why?" questions about factual information produced significantly better retention than reading the same facts, with effect sizes around 0.59. The mechanism is elaborative encoding — generating an explanation creates additional retrieval pathways to the information. Woloshyn et al. (1994) showed that elaborative interrogation is most effective when students have sufficient prior knowledge to generate plausible explanations — the strategy requires existing schemas to connect to. Dunlosky et al. (2013) rated elaborative interrogation as a "moderate utility" strategy, noting strong evidence for factual learning but less clarity on its effectiveness for complex conceptual learning. McDaniel & Donnelly (1996) demonstrated that elaborative interrogation combined with analogical reasoning produces stronger encoding than either strategy alone. Ozgungor & Guthrie (2004) found that the effectiveness of elaborative interrogation interacts with prior knowledge and interest — students with some relevant knowledge benefit most, while those with very low knowledge may struggle to generate explanations.
The teacher must provide:
Optional (injected by context engine if available):
You are an expert in the cognitive psychology of encoding and memory, specialising in elaborative processing. You have deep knowledge of Pressley et al.'s (1992) research on elaborative interrogation, Woloshyn et al.'s (1994) work on elaboration and prior knowledge, and McDaniel & Donnelly's (1996) research on elaboration and analogy.
Your task is to generate {{prompt_count}} elaborative interrogation prompts for students learning about "{{topic}}" at the {{student_level}} level.
The following optional context may or may not be provided. Use whatever is available; ignore any fields marked "not provided."
**Specific content:** {{content_text}} — if provided, generate prompts that target the key claims and relationships in this text. If not provided, generate prompts based on general subject knowledge of the topic.
**Student prior knowledge:** {{prior_knowledge}} — if provided, calibrate prompts to connect new learning to this existing knowledge. If not provided, assume standard prior knowledge for the stated year group and subject.
**Learning objectives:** {{learning_objectives}} — if provided, focus prompts on the most important learning targets. If not provided, target the core causal relationships and mechanisms within the topic.
**Student profiles:** {{student_profiles}} — if provided, adjust language complexity and provide differentiated versions where appropriate. If not provided, design for a typical mixed-ability class.
Apply these evidence-based principles:
1. **"Why?" is the core prompt type.** The primary mechanism of elaborative interrogation is generating explanations for why facts or relationships are true. Every prompt should begin with or be reducible to a "why?" question. "What?" and "how?" are useful secondary types but only when they force explanation, not recall.
2. **Target causal relationships, not isolated facts.** Elaborative prompts should target the relationships between concepts, causes and effects, and mechanisms — not definitions or labels. "Why do metals conduct electricity?" forces elaboration. "What is a metal?" forces recall. Both are useful but only the first is elaborative interrogation.
3. **Calibrate to prior knowledge (Woloshyn et al., 1994).** Prompts only work if students have enough prior knowledge to generate a plausible explanation. If students know nothing about a topic, they can't elaborate — they need direct instruction first. Calibrate each prompt to connect to something students already know.
4. **Include connection prompts (McDaniel & Donnelly, 1996).** Some prompts should explicitly ask students to connect new information to analogous concepts they've already learned. "How is this similar to...?" or "Why might this work in the same way as...?"
5. **Vary the prompt type.** Include a mix of:
- **Causal why:** "Why does X happen?"
- **Contrastive why:** "Why does X happen but not Y?"
- **Mechanism how:** "How does X lead to Y?"
- **Connection:** "How is X similar to Y, which you learned about in [previous topic]?"
- **Predictive:** "Based on what you know about X, what would you predict about Z? Why?"
6. **Avoid disguised recall questions.** A prompt that has a single correct factual answer is a recall question, not an elaborative prompt. Elaborative prompts should have multiple plausible explanations that students can generate from their existing knowledge.
Return your output in this exact format:
## Elaborative Interrogation Prompts: [Topic]
**For:** [Student level]
**Prior knowledge assumed:** [What students need to know for these prompts to work]
### Prompts
For each prompt:
- The prompt text
- **Type:** [Causal why / Contrastive why / Mechanism how / Connection / Predictive]
- **Targets:** [What knowledge or relationship this prompt deepens]
- **Prior knowledge activated:** [What existing knowledge students draw on to answer]
### Connection Prompts
2–3 prompts specifically connecting this topic to previously learned material.
### Implementation Guide
- When to use (during reading, after instruction, as homework)
- How to structure (individual written → pair discussion → class share)
- Time needed
- What to do if students can't generate explanations (prior knowledge is insufficient)
**Self-check before returning output:** Verify that (a) every prompt requires explanation, not just recall, (b) prompts are calibrated to the stated prior knowledge level — students can plausibly generate answers, (c) no prompt has a single-word or single-fact answer, and (d) the prompts target relationships and mechanisms, not definitions.
Scenario: Topic: "Adaptations of desert animals" / Student level: "Year 8 Biology, have covered basic cell structure and habitats/ecosystems" / Prompt count: 6
For: Year 8 Biology Prior knowledge assumed: Students understand that cells need water to function, know what a habitat is, understand that organisms are affected by their environment, have encountered the idea of food chains. They have NOT yet studied evolution or natural selection in detail.
1. The fennec fox has enormous ears compared to its body size, while the Arctic fox has very small ears. Why might ear size be connected to surviving in a hot desert versus a cold tundra?
2. Many desert animals are nocturnal — they're active at night and sleep during the day. Why would being active at night help an animal survive in the desert, even though it's harder to find food in the dark?
3. Camels can survive for weeks without drinking water, but they can't survive without food for nearly as long. Why do you think water is a bigger survival challenge than food in the desert? Think about what you know about cells.
4. The thorny devil lizard has spiny skin covered in tiny grooves that channel rainwater toward its mouth. If you were designing a solution to collect water in a dry environment, what principles would you use? Why does the thorny devil's solution work so well?
5. Desert plants like cacti store water in their thick stems, but most plants you see in the UK don't have thick stems at all. Why don't UK plants need to store water? Why would it actually be a disadvantage for a UK plant to have a thick, fleshy stem like a cactus?
6. Kangaroo rats in the Sonoran Desert never drink water — they get all their water from the dry seeds they eat. How is it possible to get water from a dry seed? Think about what happens during digestion and chemical reactions.
C1. In the ecosystems topic last term, you learned that food chains show energy flow through a habitat. Desert food chains tend to be shorter than rainforest food chains. Why might there be fewer "links" in a desert food chain? How does this connect to what you know about energy and the scarcity of resources?
C2. When we studied cells, we learned that water moves across cell membranes through osmosis. A desert animal that loses too much water faces a serious problem at the cellular level. Using what you know about osmosis, explain what would happen to an animal's cells if it became severely dehydrated. Why does this make water conservation literally a life-or-death issue?
Elaborative interrogation requires sufficient prior knowledge to generate explanations. If students have no relevant prior knowledge (e.g., Year 7 students with no science background attempting Prompt 6 about metabolic water), they cannot elaborate and the prompts become frustrating rather than productive. Ozgungor & Guthrie (2004) found this interaction between elaboration and prior knowledge is significant. Teachers must verify that the "prior knowledge assumed" section matches their students' actual knowledge.
The evidence base is strongest for factual/conceptual learning, not procedural skills. Pressley et al. (1992) and most elaborative interrogation studies used factual materials. The strategy transfers less clearly to mathematical procedures, physical skills, or creative tasks where "why?" questions may not deepen encoding in the same way.
Elaborative interrogation is more effective than re-reading but less effective than retrieval practice. Dunlosky et al. (2013) rated it as "moderate utility" rather than "high utility." It is best used as a complement to retrieval practice and spaced practice, not as a replacement. Use elaborative prompts during initial encoding, then switch to retrieval practice for consolidation.