mcpField
L
learning-gap-analyzer

learning-gap-analyzer

github.com/travisjneuman生産性106188 回インストール1 日前に更新
リポジトリ

learning-gap-analyzer について

Learning Gap Analyzerは、学習者の知識の不足を特定し、重点的な学習計画を立てるフレームワークです。自己評価、診断手法、エビデンスに基づく学習戦略、進捗管理を組み合わせています。

主な機能

  1. 01知識と前提知識のマッピング
  2. 02診断評価テンプレート
  3. 03ファインマン・テクニックによる不足検出
  4. 04重点的な補習計画
  5. 05間隔反復とアクティブリコール
  6. 06進捗管理と習熟度の基準

活用シーン

  1. 01科目ごとの理解度の整理
  2. 02復習が必要な前提概念の特定
  3. 03診断結果に基づく学習計画
  4. 04習熟に向けた進捗の追跡

インストール

コマンドをコピーしてターミナルで実行します。

$npx skills add https://github.com/travisjneuman/.claude --skill learning-gap-analyzer

インストール後、Claude Code で/learning-gap-analyzerを入力して読み込まれたか確認します。

詳細

学習ギャップ分析

知識のギャップを診断し、的を絞った補習計画を作成し、エビデンスに基づく手法で効果的な学習戦略を設計するためのフレームワークです。

知識のマッピング

自己評価マトリクス
KNOWLEDGE MAP: [Subject/Domain]

Topic                    | Awareness | Understanding | Application | Mastery
                         | (1)       | (2)           | (3)         | (4)
-------------------------|-----------|---------------|-------------|--------
[Subtopic 1]             | [ ]       | [ ]           | [ ]         | [ ]
[Subtopic 2]             | [ ]       | [ ]           | [ ]         | [ ]
[Subtopic 3]             | [ ]       | [ ]           | [ ]         | [ ]
[Subtopic 4]             | [ ]       | [ ]           | [ ]         | [ ]
[Subtopic 5]             | [ ]       | [ ]           | [ ]         | [ ]

LEVELS:
  1 - Awareness:     I've heard of it, can recognize the term
  2 - Understanding: I can explain the concept in my own words
  3 - Application:   I can use it to solve problems independently
  4 - Mastery:       I can teach it, adapt it, and combine with other concepts

SCORING GUIDE:
  Mark your honest current level for each topic.
  Gaps = Topics where your level is below the target level.
  Priority = High target importance + large gap size.
概念の依存関係マップ
PREREQUISITE CHAIN: [Domain]

Build knowledge in this order (each level requires prior levels):

Level 1 (Foundations):
  □ [Concept A] → Required for everything else
  □ [Concept B] → Required for everything else

Level 2 (Core):
  □ [Concept C] ← Requires: A
  □ [Concept D] ← Requires: A, B
  □ [Concept E] ← Requires: B

Level 3 (Intermediate):
  □ [Concept F] ← Requires: C, D
  □ [Concept G] ← Requires: D, E

Level 4 (Advanced):
  □ [Concept H] ← Requires: F, G
  □ [Concept I] ← Requires: G

DIAGNOSTIC APPROACH:
  1. Test understanding at Level 3+
  2. If gaps found, trace back to prerequisites
  3. Start remediation at the earliest gap in the chain
  4. Don't skip ahead — build foundations first

ギャップの特定方法

診断評価の設計
DIAGNOSTIC ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE:

PURPOSE: Identify specific knowledge gaps before starting learning plan

STRUCTURE:
  Section 1: Foundational concepts (5 questions)
    - If <60% correct: Start at Level 1
    - Tests: Definitions, basic recall, simple recognition

  Section 2: Core understanding (5 questions)
    - If <60% correct: Start at Level 2
    - Tests: Explanation, comparison, basic application

  Section 3: Application (5 questions)
    - If <60% correct: Start at Level 3
    - Tests: Problem-solving, scenario analysis, transfer

  Section 4: Advanced (5 questions)
    - If <60% correct: Start at Level 4
    - Tests: Synthesis, evaluation, novel situations

QUESTION TYPES:
  - Explain in your own words: [concept]
  - Given [scenario], what would happen if [variable changed]?
  - Compare and contrast: [concept A] vs [concept B]
  - Solve: [problem requiring application]
  - What's wrong with this: [flawed example]
ギャップの検出に使うファインマン・テクニック
FEYNMAN TECHNIQUE:

STEP 1: Choose a concept you think you understand
STEP 2: Explain it as if teaching a 12-year-old
  - Use simple language
  - No jargon
  - Include examples

STEP 3: Identify where you get stuck
  - Where do you reach for jargon?
  - Where does your explanation get vague?
  - Where can't you provide a clear example?

  → THESE ARE YOUR GAPS

STEP 4: Go back to source material
  - Study specifically the areas where you struggled
  - Don't re-read everything — target the gaps

STEP 5: Simplify and retry
  - Re-explain using analogies
  - If you can explain it simply, you understand it
  - If you can't, repeat steps 3-4

TRACKING FORMAT:
  Concept: _______________
  Explanation attempt: [Your explanation]
  Stuck points: [Where it broke down]
  Gap identified: [What you need to learn]
  Source to study: [Specific chapter, video, article]
  Re-explanation: [After studying]
  Confidence: [ ] Low  [ ] Medium  [ ] High

学習計画の設計

的を絞った補習計画
LEARNING PLAN: [Goal]

CURRENT STATE: [Assessment results summary]
TARGET STATE: [Desired competency level]
TIMELINE: [Weeks/months]
WEEKLY TIME BUDGET: [Hours]

PHASE 1: FOUNDATIONS (Weeks 1-N)
  Gap: [Specific knowledge gap]
  Resources:
    - [Resource 1] — Estimated time: [X hours]
    - [Resource 2] — Estimated time: [X hours]
  Practice:
    - [Exercise or application activity]
  Milestone: [How you'll know you've closed this gap]

PHASE 2: CORE SKILLS (Weeks N-M)
  Gap: [Specific knowledge gap]
  Resources:
    - [Resource 1] — Estimated time: [X hours]
    - [Resource 2] — Estimated time: [X hours]
  Practice:
    - [Exercise or application activity]
  Milestone: [How you'll know you've closed this gap]

PHASE 3: APPLICATION (Weeks M-P)
  Gap: [Specific knowledge gap]
  Resources:
    - [Resource 1] — Estimated time: [X hours]
  Practice:
    - [Project or real-world application]
  Milestone: [Demonstrable competency]

WEEKLY SCHEDULE:
  Day       | Activity                    | Duration
  Monday    | New material (reading/video) | 1 hour
  Tuesday   | Practice problems            | 45 min
  Wednesday | Spaced review (flashcards)   | 30 min
  Thursday  | New material                 | 1 hour
  Friday    | Application project          | 1 hour
  Weekend   | Weekly review + assessment   | 30 min

間隔反復システム

最適な復習スケジュール
SPACED REPETITION INTERVALS:

First learning:     Day 0
First review:       Day 1   (24 hours later)
Second review:      Day 3   (2 days after first review)
Third review:       Day 7   (4 days after second review)
Fourth review:      Day 14  (7 days after third review)
Fifth review:       Day 30  (16 days after fourth review)
Sixth review:       Day 60  (30 days after fifth review)
Maintenance:        Every 90 days thereafter

ADJUSTMENT RULES:
  If you recalled easily:     Move to next interval
  If you recalled with effort: Repeat at current interval
  If you failed to recall:    Reset to Day 1 interval

CARD DESIGN PRINCIPLES:
  - One concept per card (atomic)
  - Question on front, answer on back
  - Include context/example on back
  - Use images where possible
  - Avoid yes/no questions — require recall
アクティブリコールのテクニック
テクニック方法最適な対象労力レベル
フラッシュカード質問 → 思い出す → 答えを確認事実、定義、公式低〜中
練習問題解答を見ずに解く応用、手順中
自由再生本を閉じ、知っていることをすべて書き出す包括的な復習中〜高
インターリーブ学習練習でトピックを混ぜる(分けて取り組まない)識別、転移中
精緻化質問各事実について「なぜ?」「どのように?」と尋ねる深い理解中
自己テスト自分でクイズを作成して受けるあらゆる種類の知識中
人に教える概念をほかの人に説明する深い習熟度の確認高

進捗の追跡

週間進捗テンプレート
WEEKLY LEARNING REVIEW

Week: ___ of ___
Date: __________

HOURS INVESTED:
  Planned: ___ hours
  Actual: ___ hours

TOPICS COVERED:
  □ [Topic 1] — Confidence: [ ] Low [ ] Med [ ] High
  □ [Topic 2] — Confidence: [ ] Low [ ] Med [ ] High
  □ [Topic 3] — Confidence: [ ] Low [ ] Med [ ] High

ASSESSMENT RESULTS:
  Quiz/test score: ___/___
  Practice problem accuracy: ___%
  Concepts recalled via free recall: ___/___

WHAT WENT WELL:
  - [Insight or breakthrough]

WHAT WAS DIFFICULT:
  - [Struggle point]
  - Gap identified: [Specific concept]

ADJUSTMENTS FOR NEXT WEEK:
  - [Change to plan based on this week's learning]

SPACED REVIEW DUE:
  □ [Topic from Week N-1] — Review due: [Date]
  □ [Topic from Week N-3] — Review due: [Date]
習熟度の基準
レベル必要な根拠評価方法
認識用語を定義し、文脈の中で認識できる選択式、マッチング
理解概念を自分の言葉で例を挙げて説明できる短答式、ファインマン・テスト
応用概念を使って未知の問題を解ける練習問題、ケーススタディ
習熟人に教え、ほかの概念と組み合わせられる教える演習、プロジェクト

学習科学の原則

エビデンスに基づく戦略
HIGH-IMPACT LEARNING STRATEGIES:

1. RETRIEVAL PRACTICE (Effect: +0.7 SD)
   Don't just re-read — test yourself
   Implementation: Flashcards, practice quizzes, free recall

2. SPACED PRACTICE (Effect: +0.6 SD)
   Distribute learning over time, don't cram
   Implementation: Review schedule, interleaved practice

3. ELABORATION (Effect: +0.5 SD)
   Connect new info to existing knowledge
   Implementation: "How does this relate to...?" questions

4. INTERLEAVING (Effect: +0.4 SD)
   Mix different topics/problem types in practice
   Implementation: Shuffle practice problems from multiple chapters

5. CONCRETE EXAMPLES (Effect: +0.4 SD)
   Connect abstract concepts to specific instances
   Implementation: Generate 2-3 real examples for each concept

6. DUAL CODING (Effect: +0.3 SD)
   Combine verbal and visual representations
   Implementation: Draw diagrams, create concept maps

LOW-IMPACT STRATEGIES (AVOID):
  ✗ Re-reading (passive, creates illusion of learning)
  ✗ Highlighting (passive, doesn't require processing)
  ✗ Summarizing without retrieval (only slightly better)
  ✗ Massed practice / cramming (poor long-term retention)

関連項目

コメント