Live coding works best when mentors frame it as a way of modelling thought rather than presenting polished answers. Trainees often approach programming lessons with a focus on correctness. They want to type without error and reach the final solution quickly. Pupils need something different. They need to hear the quiet decisions that sit behind each line. They need to witness the checks, hesitations and revisions that reveal how a programmer thinks. When mentors place this at the heart of their guidance, trainees begin to see that the value of live coding sits in its transparency. The code becomes a window into the reasoning.

A helpful starting point is to stress that pupils gain most when they see purposeful thinking. Talking through intentions shows pupils how to frame a problem. Highlighting expectations shows them how to predict behaviour. Drawing attention to surprising results shows them how to question what they assume. This gives pupils a structure for their own planning and reviewing. It also builds a habit of self-talk, which strengthens independence once pupils begin working on tasks of their own.

Mentors have a key role in helping trainees understand the wider dispositions that live coding develops. Pupils notice how a teacher responds to difficulty. They notice whether silence brings panic or reflection. They notice whether an error leads to frustration or curiosity. Calm persistence matters because it shapes pupils’ own attitudes when they face problems. When trainees handle mistakes with patience, they send a clear signal that error is expected and manageable. This helps pupils build resilience and reduces the fear of getting stuck.

Trainees often feel nervous about making mistakes in front of a class. Mentors can offer reassurance here. Errors give teachers something to talk about. They introduce authentic reasoning. They let the class see the checks that occur when something unexpected appears. They offer real moments of debugging, which pupils struggle to understand when shown only finished work. Supporting trainees to reframe these moments as learning opportunities reduces pressure and improves the quality of the modelling.

Preparation matters. Trainees need space to rehearse. Working through a sequence in advance helps them understand the rhythm of the explanation. It lets them identify where their own thinking becomes muddled. Rehearsal also gives them control over the size of each step. This prevents demonstrations that move too quickly for pupils who are still learning the vocabulary of the subject. Trainees who rehearse can choose when to pause, when to seek predictions, and when to adjust the route through the problem.

Mentors may find it helpful to discuss scaffolding. Live coding forms only part of a larger sequence. Pupils watch a demonstration, work with guidance and later attempt similar problems alone. Trainees need support in shaping the transition between these phases. They will need clear prompts to help pupils begin. They will need strategies for checking understanding as pupils move from observation to action. They also need guidance on when to step back and allow pupils to struggle a little. This balance is delicate. It shapes pupils’ sense of agency and confidence.

Classroom management presents its own challenges. Pupils work at different speeds. Some will finish typing before the teacher has completed the explanation. Others will struggle with the keyboard before thinking about the reasoning. Some teachers prefer pupils not to type along. Instead, the pupils watch the screen, follow the reasoning, and code later with structured tasks. This keeps attention on the thought process rather than on the mechanics of typing. In classes where pupils do type along, trainees need habits for monitoring the room. They need ways to bring pupils back together if the pace drifts or confusion increases. Mentors can help them plan simple signals or short pauses for regrouping.

The physical layout of the room also affects the success of a demonstration. Trainees should ensure the screen is visible to all. They may need to bring pupils closer to reduce distraction from their own devices. They may also benefit from tools that display the teacher’s screen on pupils’ machines, though this should not replace the sense of shared focus at the board. Pupils learn better when they can see the teacher’s face as well as the code. Mentors can help trainees strike a balance between screen visibility and the social presence of the teacher.

Choosing the right task is important. Good live coding problems have a clear structure. They offer points at which pupils can make predictions. They reveal the shape of a solution through small steps. Problems built around lists, guessing games or simple simulations serve this purpose well. Tasks that require short bursts of reasoning, rather than long chains of detail, keep the demonstration manageable. When the task allows the teacher to pause and ask, “What might happen next?”, pupils start to think like programmers instead of spectators.

Mentors can help trainees pay attention to the quality of their narration. Pupils benefit from hearing phrases that reveal intention. Statements such as “I expect this variable to hold…” or “I am checking this part because…” show pupils how to verify their thinking. Clear narration supports pupils in forming their own mental checklist. Trainees often feel tempted to talk through every keystroke. This burdens pupils with noise. Encouraging trainees to focus on the ideas rather than the mechanics keeps the demonstration grounded.

During practice, mentors can support trainees by inviting them to reflect on the mental load of the lesson. Live coding requires attention to the screen, the class and the explanation. It demands flexibility when things do not go as planned. It is easy for trainees to focus on the code and forget the pupils. Encouraging trainees to alternate between watching the screen and scanning the room keeps the class involved. Short moments of eye contact help pupils feel included rather than passive.

Reflection after the session is valuable. Mentors can ask trainees which parts of the reasoning felt clear and which felt confused. They can ask how pupils responded at each step. They can help trainees notice when the pace shifted. These conversations build the trainee’s ability to judge the quality of their modelling. They also help them adjust future demonstrations so that pupils gain more from the process.

Finally, mentors can remind trainees that live coding is one tool within a broad repertoire. It works well alongside structured examples, written guides and independent tasks. Used thoughtfully, it gives pupils access to the craft of programming rather than only the results. It shows the movement from idea to implementation in a way that other approaches cannot. When trainees understand its purpose, prepare with care and reflect on their practice, live coding becomes a powerful method for strengthening pupils’ confidence and thinking.

Notes for mentors, based on the 8th Roehampton PGCE Computing lecture