You're working out how to teach something — where students get stuck, what framing would land better, whether your usual sketch is doing the right work. Claude can think through that with you, and a visual streams in as part of the exchange, making the reframing concrete right alongside the advice. The drawing does two things at once. It sharpens your own articulation — seeing it move makes the teaching script write itself — and it's a first draft of something students could use, with a path from prep session to classroom tool when you want one.
Here a professor is planning supply and demand equilibrium for next week. They attach the sketch they've been using and ask Claude to help think through why students stall on it. The response is part teaching advice, part interactive graph — and the graph keeps evolving as the conversation does.
I'm prepping to teach supply and demand equilibrium next week. Here's the sketch I've been using — students tend to follow the crossing but not why the price goes there. What's a better way to frame it? And is there a way to show them the pressure toward equilibrium, not just the intersection?
Attach what you've been using — a sketch, a slide, a half-built example. Claude reads your framing and works from it, so what comes back extends your explanation rather than replacing it.
A photo of the whiteboard, a slide, or a description of what you've been drawing.
If you know where students typically stall — a specific misconception, a question that keeps coming up — say so. Claude's reframing gets built around that sticking point.
The response is a teaching conversation with a visual woven through it. Claude diagnoses why the static sketch loses students — a concept about movement needs to move — offers a reframe, and the interactive version streams in where the reframe lands: your curves, a slider the student would drag, a readout that rewrites wherever they set the price. The graph is a prop for the thinking first. What you do with it comes second.
Describe a change to the interaction and Claude redraws — you say what's different, the visual updates.
Add a step before the snap button: students predict which way the price moves first, then click to check. Show their guess next to what happened.
The buttons below the graph send follow-up prompts — click one and Claude builds a second visual for that scenario. The equilibrium graph stays above.
What happens when demand spikes? Show me the curves shifting and where the new equilibrium lands.
Claude rebuilds the same drag-predict-check interaction around the new concept — price floors this time, same snap button, different curves.
Redraw this for price floors and ceilings — same predict-then-snap format, but show why the gap doesn't close.
"Students follow the crossing but not why the price goes there" tells Claude which misconception to build around — generic framing gets a generic diagram. Attach what you've been using, say where students stall, and the visual gets shaped around that specific gap.
The predict-then-snap interaction is Claude's guess at what would help your students — it's one way to build the graph, and it might not fit your class. Try it with a few students before committing. If they click through without predicting, or the surplus zone doesn't land, that's worth knowing — tell Claude what happened and the next version gets built around what you saw.
When the visual is close to something students could use on their own, hover over it for options. Save as Artifact turns the whiteboard draft into a link students open on their own. Create skill from visual has Claude remember the interaction shape — next time you bring a different concept and get the same drag-predict-check format without rebuilding the idea.
