{"id":6675594,"date":"2026-06-21T09:03:29","date_gmt":"2026-06-21T14:03:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/?p=6675594"},"modified":"2026-05-20T14:37:05","modified_gmt":"2026-05-20T19:37:05","slug":"beyond-checking-for-understanding","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/beyond-checking-for-understanding\/","title":{"rendered":"Beyond “Checking for Understanding”"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Blog posts here typically start with research <\/em>and then consider classroom application<\/em>. Today’s post — more speculative than most — begins with a concept <\/em>and then moves to thinking aloud<\/em>. In brief: I want to explore the concept of “checking for understanding,” and propose a new category of classroom moves that should precede such checks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Completing the Subject<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

As an English teacher, I get paid money to explain the grammatical concept of “subject complement” to my students. Let’s consider these sentences:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Joyce is President. She is decisive.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

In these sentences, we know that “is” is a linking verb. When we look at the words “President” and “decisive” we see that they offer more information about <\/em>Joyce. “President” is another word for “Joyce.” “Decisive” describes Joyce.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, a subject complement completes the subject<\/em>. Specifically:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

A subject complement follows a linking verb, and renames or describes the subject.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

“President” and “decisive” are subject complements because they follow the linking verb “is,” and offer more information about the subject Joyce.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

In this explanation, I’ve given my students lots to think about. I should stop and check to see how all this information is landing. Specifically, I’m worried about working memory overload<\/strong>. My students have taken onboard new information<\/em>, and they have to combine <\/em>that new information with ideas already in long-term memory. Both of those demands — processing <\/strong>and combining <\/strong>new info — can strain working memory to the breaking point.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I can easily brainstorm several questions I might ask at this point to assess working memory function. Here — in a deliberately jumbled order — are four of my potential questions. Please take a minute to sort these questions by their difficulty: that is, which one places the least demand on students’ WM, and which one the most?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Write a sentence with a subject complement.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. In the paragraph below, convert subject complements into appositives.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. What is the definition of \u201csubject complement\u201d?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. In the sentence below, which word is the subject complement?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
    \n\n\n\n[I’m strategically pausing here to give you a chance to think.]\n\n\n\n
    \n\n\n\n

    I suspect you came up with this order:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n
    1. What is the definition of \u201csubject complement\u201d?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    2. In the sentence below, which word is the subject complement?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    3. Write a sentence with a subject complement.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    4. In the paragraph below, convert subject complements into appositives.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

      The first question simply asks students to repeat the definition I just gave them. The next three questions ask for application<\/em>, each one with a greater degree of difficulty than the previous. That is: whereas question 3 is a bit more difficult than question 2, question 4 is MUCH more difficult than question 3.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Checking for Something<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

      Let’s go back to look at those questions. Which of them, in your opinion, measures understanding<\/em>? That is: you would comfortably say: “If my students can answer question X correctly, they understand <\/strong>the idea of subject complement?”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      I myself would say: a correct answer to question 4 starts to demonstrate “understanding.” (Reasonable people might argue that #3 also measures “understanding.” I think “understanding” requires more than “simple application,” but the argument I’m about to make will hold wherever you draw the line on that list of questions.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Of course, the other three questions give me important data: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

        \n
      • Have my students heard what I said<\/em>? <\/li>\n\n\n\n
      • Have they done some basic processing <\/em>of the idea? <\/li>\n\n\n\n
      • Has my lesson plan prompted initial encoding<\/em>? <\/li>\n\n\n\n
      • Can they apply <\/em>this new idea in basic ways<\/em>?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

        So, I really must ask those first three questions — and others like them — even though they’re not actually helping me know if my students understand<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        In my experience, those first three questions would typically fall under the heading “checking for understanding.” However — and here’s the point of my blog post — such questions don’t by themselves verify understanding<\/em>. For that reason, the phrase “checking for understanding” is misleading. It provides false comfort. Once I’ve asked those questions, I’ve checked for something, but I haven’t yet learned if my students understand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        We need a better label. I have a modest proposal: “checking for uptake<\/em>.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Walking before Running<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

        In suggesting this new category, I’m deliberately focusing on very basic parts of teaching. My students can’t capital-l Learn<\/em> about a topic, can’t capital-u Understand<\/em> a topic, if they haven’t started basic encoding and processing. “Checking for uptake” doesn’t sound especially glamorous, but the lack of glamour is the point.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        \"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

        Because I’m always focused on working memory, I think checking for uptake questions provide two working-memory benefits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        First<\/strong>: if my students haven’t successfully taken up foundational ideas, they won’t be able to do more advanced cognitive work. I can prevent future WM overload by ensuring that basic ideas are onboard. Checking for uptake helps me solve WM problems before they arise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        In other words: until my students succeed at increasingly challenging checking-for-uptake questions, I shouldn’t even ask checking-for-understanding questions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        In my own teaching, I think one of my greatest failings has been to ask “understanding” questions before my students had fully taken in the ideas I was presenting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Second<\/strong>: if my students can’t answer checking for uptake questions, I might discover that even my initial explanation overwhelmed working memory. Perhaps my students don’t understand “linking verb” as well as I thought. Perhaps they’re not even clear on the idea of a grammatical subject.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        In other words: checking for uptake can both prevent working memory overload in the future and reveal WM overload that might already have happened.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Double Checking<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

        To ensure that we don’t overload students’ WM during direct instruction, we should check for two Us:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Checking for Uptake<\/strong>: did my students hear what I said? Can they say it back to me, or paraphrase it? Can they take baby steps with the concept?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Checking for Understanding<\/strong>: once students have taken up a lesson, can they do something new with it? If yes, can they do something even more challenging? Can they override prior misconceptions? Can they create and analyze? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Good teaching will include both kinds of checking — but Checking for Understanding should follow Checking for Uptake.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

        Blog posts here typically start with research and then consider classroom application. Today’s post — more speculative than most — begins with a concept and then moves to thinking aloud. In brief: I want to explore the concept of “checking for understanding,” and propose a new category of classroom moves that should precede such checks. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":18,"featured_media":6675649,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[244],"class_list":["post-6675594","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lb-blog","tag-classroom-practice"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6675594","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/18"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6675594"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6675594\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6675653,"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6675594\/revisions\/6675653"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6675649"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6675594"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6675594"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6675594"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}