Use of examples and procedures in problem solving

We studied how successfully students could use examples and procedures to construct equations for work problems. According to the proposed theory, the procedures indicate how to generate values that differ in structure from the example. The fLrst experiment compared 3 groups of students who received a simple example, a set of procedures, or both. A mathematical model with 3 parameters (the probability of generating a correct value by matching the example, following a procedure, or using general knowledge) accounted for 94% of the variance for how the 3 instructional groups performed over 4 levels of transformation. A second experiment extended the predictions of the model to include either a complex example, a complex example and procedures, or a complex example and a simple example.

[1]  G. Miller,et al.  The Role of Learning. , 1951 .

[2]  Terry Winograd,et al.  FRAME REPRESENTATIONS AND THE DECLARATIVE/PROCEDURAL CONTROVERSY , 1975 .

[3]  John W. Payne,et al.  Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: An information search and protocol analysis☆ , 1976 .

[4]  Daniel G. Bobrow,et al.  On Overview of KRL, a Knowledge Representation Language , 1976, Cogn. Sci..

[5]  Sandra P. Marshall.  Sequential item selection: Optimal and heuristic policies , 1981 .

[6]  James G. Greeno,et al.  Forms of understanding in mathematical problem-solving , 1983 .

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

[8]  Edward E. Smith,et al.  Understanding Written Instructions: The Role of an Explanatory Schema , 1984 .

[9]  David E. Kieras,et al.  The Role of a Mental Model in Learning to Operate a Device. , 1984 .

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

[11]  Stephen K. Reed,et al.  Usefulness of analogous solutions for solving algebra word problems. , 1985 .

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

[13]  D. Krantz,et al.  The effects of statistical training on thinking about everyday problems , 1986, Cognitive Psychology.

[14]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Pragmatic versus syntactic approaches to training deductive reasoning , 1986, Cognitive Psychology.

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

[16]  B. Ross.  This is like that: The use of earlier problems and the separation of similarity effects. , 1987 .

[17]  Stephen K. Reed,et al.  Usefulness of Tables for Solving Word Problems , 1987 .

[18]  Jaime G. Carbonell,et al.  FERMI: A Flexible Expert Reasoner with Multi-Domain Inferencing , 1988, Cogn. Sci..

[19]  Rand J. Spiro,et al.  Multiple analogies for complex concepts: antidotes for analogy-induced misconception in advanced knowledge acquisition , 1988 .

[20]  John Sweller,et al.  Cognitive technology: Some procedures for facilitating learning and problem solving in mathematics and science. , 1989 .

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

[22]  Stephen K. Reed,et al.  Selecting analogous problems: Similarity versus inclusiveness , 1990, Memory & cognition.

[23]  P. Chandler,et al.  Cognitive load as a factor in the structuring of technical material. , 1990 .

[24]  Mathieu Koppen,et al.  Introduction to knowledge spaces: How to build, test, and search them , 1990 .