Demands Imposed on Primary-School Students by Geometric Models
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The goal-free effect assumption is supported by empirical research in a variety of experimental contexts.
“In practice, this assumption is supported by empirical research in a variety of experimental contexts (Ayres, 1993; Bobis et al., 1994; Owen & Sweller, 1985; Vollmeyer et al., 1996).”
From Does difficulty moderate learning? A comparative analysis of the desirable difficulties framework and cognitive load theory (2025) · cites this paper as Bobis et al., 1994
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
Cited by 29
- Authors
- Bobis, J., Sweller, J., & Cooper, M.
- Affiliations
- UNSW Sydney (AU)
- Venue
- Contemporary Educational Psychology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1994-01
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 108-117
- ISSN
- 0361-476X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2087572781
- Cited by
- 29
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 1.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Contemporary Educational Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Applied Mathematics › Mathematics Education and Pedagogy
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Keywords
- geometric model, means-ends analysis, problem-solving strategies, elementary school students, cognitive load, goal specificity, model-based instruction, geometry teaching
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
