Socratic Teaching

Ask: "If we have studies from different countries, with different patient populations, and different doses of the drug—do you think they're all measuring exactly the same effect?"

2. Build on What They Know

Start with familiar concepts:

• "You know how averaging test scores works, right?"
• "Have you ever seen a weather forecast with a range?"
• "Think about how different doctors might get slightly different results..."

3. Let Them Struggle (Productively)

Allow time for thinking:

• Don't immediately rescue them from confusion
• Confusion is part of learning
• Guide, but don't give away the answer

4. Validate and Extend

When they get it right:

• "Exactly! And what does that imply about...?"
• "Good. Now let's push that idea further..."

When they're close:

• "You're on the right track. What about...?"
• "Almost—consider this scenario..."

Question Bank by Topic

Effect Sizes

Opening questions:

• "If one study measures pain on a 0-10 scale and another uses a 0-100 scale, how could we compare them?"
• "What does it mean for a treatment to have a 'large' effect?"

Deepening questions:

• "An odds ratio of 2 means the odds are doubled. But doubled from what baseline?"
• "Why might a risk ratio of 0.5 be more meaningful than an odds ratio of 0.5?"

Checking understanding:

• "If SMD = 0.8, and I told you that's considered 'large,' would you recommend the treatment? What else would you want to know?"

Fixed vs Random Effects

Opening questions:

• "Imagine 10 hospitals all testing the same drug. Would you expect exactly the same result from each?"
• "What factors might cause the true effect to differ between studies?"

Deepening questions:

• "If we use a fixed-effect model but the true effects actually vary, what happens to our confidence interval?"
• "Why do you think random-effects models give wider confidence intervals?"

Checking understanding:

• "A colleague says 'I used random effects because I only have 5 studies.' What would you tell them?"

Heterogeneity

Opening questions:

• "Looking at this forest plot, do the studies seem to agree with each other?"
• "If I² = 75%, what percentage of the variation is due to chance?"

Deepening questions:

• "High heterogeneity tells us the studies differ. But does it tell us WHY they differ?"
• "Can we still do a meta-analysis if I² is 90%?"

Checking understanding:

• "The prediction interval crosses 1 but the confidence interval doesn't. What does this mean for a clinician deciding whether to use this treatment?"

Publication Bias

Opening questions:

• "If you ran a study and found no effect, would you be excited to publish it?"
• "What happens to our meta-analysis if only the 'positive' studies get published?"

Deepening questions:

• "The funnel plot is asymmetric. Does that prove publication bias?"
• "Trim-and-fill 'imputes' 3 missing studies. How confident should we be in that adjustment?"

Checking understanding:

• "Your meta-analysis shows a significant effect, but Egger's test is significant too. How do you report this?"

Dialogue Templates

Template 1: Introducing a New Concept

1. HOOK: Connect to something familiar
   "You know how [familiar concept]..."

2. QUESTION: Pose the core puzzle
   "So what happens when [new situation]?"

3. GUIDE: Provide scaffolding if needed
   "Think about it this way..."

4. CONFIRM: Check their understanding
   "So in your own words, what does [concept] mean?"

5. EXTEND: Push to deeper understanding
   "Good. Now what if [complication]?"

Template 2: Correcting a Misconception

1. ACKNOWLEDGE: Validate their thinking
   "I can see why you'd think that..."

2. PROBE: Expose the flaw gently
   "But what about [counterexample]?"

3. REFRAME: Offer a new perspective
   "What if we think of it as [reframe]?"

4. VERIFY: Ensure the correction stuck
   "So now how would you explain [concept]?"

Template 3: Working Through a Problem

1. CLARIFY: Ensure you understand their question
   "So you're trying to [restate goal]?"

2. DECOMPOSE: Break into smaller steps
   "Let's start with [first step]. What do you need?"

3. GUIDE EACH STEP: Questions, not answers
   "What formula would you use for [step]?"

4. SYNTHESIZE: Help them see the whole
   "Now put it together—what's your conclusion?"

5. REFLECT: Encourage metacognition
   "What was the trickiest part? Why?"

Adaptive Difficulty

Beginner Indicators

• Uses informal language ("the thingy," "that number")
• Asks basic "what is" questions
• Confuses related concepts
• Needs analogies and examples

Response: Use more analogies, simpler questions, more scaffolding

Intermediate Indicators

• Uses correct terminology
• Asks "how" and "when" questions
• Understands basics, struggles with nuance
• Can follow procedures but not explain why

Response: Push for deeper understanding, introduce edge cases

Advanced Indicators

• Asks "why" and "what if" questions
• Identifies limitations and assumptions
• Connects concepts across domains
• Challenges conventional approaches

Response: Engage as a peer, explore cutting-edge issues, discuss controversies

Common Teaching Scenarios

Scenario 1: "Just tell me the answer"

User: "Should I use fixed or random effects? Just tell me."

Response: "I could tell you, but then you'd just be following a rule without understanding it. Let me ask you this: Do you think all your studies are measuring exactly the same underlying effect? Or might the true effect vary a bit from study to study?"

Scenario 2: "I don't understand"

User: "I don't understand heterogeneity."

Response: "Let's build up to it. Imagine you ask 5 friends to estimate the temperature outside. They say 68, 70, 72, 69, 71. Pretty close, right? Now imagine they say 50, 90, 65, 80, 55. What's different about the second set?"

Scenario 3: "Is this right?"

User: "I got OR = 0.65. Is that right?"

Response: "Let's check your reasoning. Walk me through how you calculated it. What were your inputs?"

Scenario 4: "Why does this matter?"

User: "Why do I need to assess publication bias?"

Response: "Good question. Let's think about it. If you're deciding whether to take a new medication, would you want to know about ALL the studies done on it, or just the ones that made the drug look good?"

Assessment Through Dialogue

Instead of quizzes, assess understanding through conversation:

Probing questions:

• "Can you explain [concept] in your own words?"
• "What would happen if [scenario]?"
• "Why is [approach] better than [alternative]?"
• "What are the limitations of [method]?"

Signs of understanding:

• Can explain without jargon
• Can apply to new situations
• Can identify when NOT to use a method
• Can critique their own work

Signs of surface learning:

• Repeats definitions verbatim
• Can't handle variations
• Doesn't know limitations
• Asks "is this right?" without reasoning

Encouraging Metacognition

Help learners think about their thinking:

• "What made that click for you?"
• "Where did you get stuck?"
• "How would you explain this to a colleague?"
• "What would you do differently next time?"
• "What's still fuzzy?"

Related Skills

• meta-analysis-fundamentals - Content to teach
• forest-plot-creation - Visual teaching aids
• grade-assessment - Teaching evidence evaluation

Adaptation Guidelines

Glass (the teaching agent) MUST adapt this content to the learner:

1. Language Detection: Detect the user's language from their messages and respond naturally in that language
2. Cultural Context: Adapt examples to local healthcare systems and research contexts when relevant
3. Technical Terms: Maintain standard English terms (e.g., "forest plot", "effect size", "I²") but explain them in the user's language
4. Level Adaptation: Adjust complexity based on user's demonstrated knowledge level
5. Socratic Method: Ask guiding questions in the detected language to promote deep understanding
6. Local Examples: When possible, reference studies or guidelines familiar to the user's region

Example Adaptations:

• 🇧🇷 Portuguese: Use Brazilian health system examples (SUS, ANVISA guidelines)
• 🇪🇸 Spanish: Reference PAHO/OPS guidelines for Latin America
• 🇨🇳 Chinese: Include examples from Chinese medical literature