Remedial teaching with AI: a practical classroom plan

Choose a teaching target you can observe

“Weak in maths” is too broad to guide a lesson. “Adds denominators when combining fractions” points to a specific explanation and a way to check it. Start by looking at a few responses and asking the learner to explain their method. A wrong answer on its own does not tell you which prerequisite is missing.

Write the target as an action: identify equivalent fractions, interpret a graph's axes or select evidence for a claim. Link it to the work the class is doing now. This helps learners see why the support matters and lets teachers check whether it transfers back to the regular lesson.

Use the diagnostic assessment guide to design the initial questions. Avoid using one low score as a permanent label. The support plan describes a current need and should change as new evidence arrives.

A remedial lesson on adding unlike fractions

Suppose a learner writes 1/2 + 1/3 = 2/5. Before teaching the procedure, check whether they understand that both fractions refer to the same whole. Ask them to show a half and a third using equal-length bars. If the wholes have different sizes, resolve that first.

Next, divide both bars into sixths. A half covers three sixths and a third covers two sixths. Combining those quantities gives five sixths. Keep the representation visible beside the equation: 1/2 = 3/6, 1/3 = 2/6, so 3/6 + 2/6 = 5/6.

1. Ask why sixths can be combined while halves and thirds need rewriting.
2. Work through 1/4 + 1/2 together, naming quarters as the shared unit.
3. Ask the learner to complete 1/3 + 1/6 independently; the answer is 1/2.
4. Return later with 1/4 + 1/8; the answer is 3/8.

If the learner adds numerators and denominators again, revisit what the denominator represents. If they choose a common denominator correctly but make a multiplication error, focus the next task there. Both mistakes can produce a wrong answer, but repeating the same explanation for both wastes the diagnostic information.

The IES practice guide recommends connecting concrete and abstract representations and alternating worked examples with problems. The sequence above is our suggested classroom application, not a tested Tutezy intervention.

Use a two-week support cycle

The schedule below is a planning example. Adjust it around classroom demands, learner access and the size of the gap. Keep the target stable long enough to evaluate it, while changing the explanation when the evidence shows it is unhelpful.

Make feedback something the learner can use

“Try again” supplies little direction. A more useful prompt is “Your denominators describe different-sized parts. Show both fractions in sixths before combining them.” Give the learner a chance to act on the prompt before revealing the whole solution.

The EEF feedback guidance focuses on the principles of useful feedback rather than whether it is written or spoken, and cautions that feedback is not automatically beneficial. Apply that scrutiny to an AI tutor: inspect whether its response addresses the actual mistake.

Use the review to decide what happens next

Finish the cycle with a decision about the target. If the learner can apply it independently after a delay, return to routine classroom checks. If errors persist, examine the prerequisite, the clarity of the explanation and whether the task demands were understood. Ask the teacher to reassess instead of automatically adding more identical practice.

Keep records modest: target, activity, independent response and next action. Those fields are enough to support a conversation between a class teacher and tutor without turning every session into an administrative exercise.