Learning from Worked-Out-Examples: A Study on Individual Differences

The goal of this study was to Investigate individual differences in learning from worked-out examples with respect to the quality of self-explanations. Restrictions of former studies (e.g., lacking control of time-on-task) were avoided and additional research questions (e.g., reliability and dimensionality of self-explanation characteristics) were addressed. An investigation with 36 university freshmen students of education working in individual sessions was conducted. The domain was probability calculation. Prior knowledge and the quality of self-explanations (protocols of the individuals' thinking aloud) were assessed as predictors of learning. A post-test was employed to measure the learning gains as the dependent variable. The following main results were obtained. Most self-explanation characteristics could be regarded as relatively stable person characteristics. The individual differences in the quality of self-explanations were, however, found to be multidimensional. Most Important, even when controlling for time-on-task (quantitative aspect), learning gains could be substantially predicted by qualitative differences of self-explanation characteristics. In particular, successful learners tended to employ more prlnciplebased explanations, more explication of operator-goal combinations, and more anticipative reasoning. In addition, there were two types of effective learners, labeled anticipative reasoners and principle-based explainers.

[1]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Analogical problem solving , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[2]  Kurt VanLehn,et al.  A model of the self-explanation effect. , 1992 .

[3]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Overcoming contextual limitations on problem-solving transfer. , 1989 .

[4]  Jaan Valsiner,et al.  The Individual subject and scientific psychology , 1986 .

[5]  Andreas Helmke,et al.  Das Muenchener Aufmerksamkeitsinventar (MAI): Ein Instrument zur systematischen Verhaltensbeobachtung der Schueleraufmerksamkeit im Unterricht , 1992 .

[6]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Learning subgoals and methods for solving probability problems , 1990, Memory & cognition.

[7]  Jaan Valsiner,et al.  Between Groups and Individuals , 1986 .

[8]  F. Paas,et al.  Variability of Worked Examples and Transfer of Geometrical Problem-Solving Skills: A Cognitive-Load Approach , 1994 .

[9]  Kurt VanLehn,et al.  Learning by Explaining Examples to Oneself: A Computational Model , 1993 .

[10]  T. Jong,et al.  Exploratory learning with a computer simulation for control theory: learning processes and instructional support , 1993 .

[11]  M. Chi,et al.  Eliciting Self‐Explanations Improves Understanding , 1994 .

[12]  Jacob Cohen.  A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .

[13]  Richard Catrambone,et al.  Aiding subgoal learning: Effects on transfer. , 1995 .

[14]  Ann L. Brown,et al.  Training in Self-Explanation and Self-Regulation Strategies: Investigating the Effects of Knowledge Acquisition Activities on Problem Solving , 1995 .

[15]  P. Reimann,et al.  Turning examples into cases: Acquiring knowledge structures for analogical problem solving , 1996 .

[16]  J. Sweller,et al.  The Use of Worked Examples as a Substitute for Problem Solving in Learning Algebra , 1985 .

[17]  Alexander Renkl,et al.  A plea for “more local” theories of cooperative learning , 1992 .

[18]  R. A. Tarmizi,et al.  Guidance during Mathematical Problem Solving. , 1988 .

[19]  H. Simon,et al.  Learning Mathematics From Examples and by Doing , 1987 .

[20]  R. Catrambone.  Improving examples to improve transfer to novel problems , 1994, Memory & cognition.

[21]  Peter L. T. Pirolli,et al.  Modeling Individual Differences in Students' Learning Strategies , 1995 .

[22]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Learning to Program in LISP , 1984, Cogn. Sci..

[23]  H. Mandl,et al.  Kooperatives Lernen: Die Frage nach dem Notwendigen und dem Ersetzbaren , 1995 .

[24]  Alexander Renkl,et al.  Learning for later teaching: An exploration of mediational links between teaching expectancy and learning results. , 1995 .

[25]  Allen and Rosenbloom Paul S. Newell,et al.  Mechanisms of Skill Acquisition and the Law of Practice , 1993 .

[26]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Schema induction and analogical transfer , 1983, Cognitive Psychology.

[27]  M. Ferguson-Hessler,et al.  Studying Physics Texts: Differences in Study Processes Between Good and Poor Performers , 1990 .

[28]  Allen Newell,et al.  The chunking of goal hierarchies: a generalized model of practice , 1993 .

[29]  K. VanLehn,et al.  Cognitive skill acquisition. , 1996, Annual review of psychology.

[30]  Michelene T. H. Chi,et al.  Self-Explanations: How Students Study and Use Examples in Learning To Solve Problems. Technical Report No. 9. , 1987 .

[31]  J. LeFevre,et al.  Do Written Instructions Need Examples , 1986 .

[32]  P. Pirolli,et al.  The role of learning from examples in the acquisition of recursive programming skills. , 1985 .

[33]  W. Kintsch.  Learning From Text , 1986, Knowing, Learning, and Instruction.

[34]  Kurt VanLehn.  Arithmetic Procedures are Induced from Examples. , 1985 .

[35]  Margaret M. Recker,et al.  Learning Strategies and Transfer in the Domain of Programming , 1994 .

[36]  Peter Reimann,et al.  Chapter 9 Understanding and Using Worked-Out Examples: A Computational Model1 , 1993 .

[37]  Heinz Mandl,et al.  Förderung von Handlungskompetenz durch geleitetes Problemlösen und multiple Lernkontexte , 1995 .

[38]  J. Sweller,et al.  Structuring Effective Worked Examples , 1990 .

[39]  J. Hiebert.  Conceptual and procedural knowledge : the case of mathematics , 1987 .

[40]  M. Chi,et al.  The Content of Physics Self-Explanations , 1991 .