Cited by 45Visual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsEducational Assessment and Pedagogy

A critical review of elaboration theory

Wilson, Brent, Cole, Peggy·1992·Educational Technology Research and Development

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/bf02296843

Cites

106 of 106 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

8 of the 114 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wilson, B., & Cole, P.
Affiliations
University of Colorado Denver (US)
Venue
Educational Technology Research and Development
Published
1992-09
Volume
40
Issue
3
Pages
63-79
ISSN
  • 1042-1629 (ISSN-L)
  • 1556-6501
OpenAlex
W2081430514
Cited by
45
References
114
Citations by year
2023: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2012: 4
FWCI
2.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Educational Technology Research and Development (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
Keywords
elaboration theory, course sequencing, course organization, instructional design model, instructional design theory

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