CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 20Teaching and Learning ProgrammingIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningVisual and Cognitive Learning Processes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Scaffolding problem solving with learners’ own self explanations of subgoals

Margulieux, Lauren E., Catrambone, Richard·2021·Journal of Computing in Higher Education
DOI 10.1007/s12528-021-09275-1
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12528-021-09275-1

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Research works printed but not linked: 41

  1. Aleven, V. A. W. M. M., & Koedinger, K. R. (2002). An effective metacognitive strategy: Learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based Cognitive Tutor. Cognitive Science, 26, 147–179. · DOI · Paper page
  2. Atkins, S. M., Sprenger, A. M., Colflesh, G. J. H., Briner, T. L., Buchanan, J. B., Chavis, S. E., Chen, S. Y., Iannuzzi, G. L., Kashtelyan, V., Dowling, E., Harbison, J. I., & Dougherty, M. R. (2014). Measuring working memory is all fun and games: A four-dimensional spatial game predicts cognitive task performance. Experimental Psychologist, 61(6), 417–438. · DOI · Paper page
  3. Atkinson, R. K., Catrambone, R., & Merrill, M. M. (2003). Aiding transfer in statistics: Examining the use of conceptually oriented equations and elaborations during subgoal learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 762–773. · DOI
  4. Atkinson, R. K., Derry, S. J., Renkl, A., & Wortham, D. (2000). Learning from examples: Instructional principles from the worked examples research. Review of the Educational Research, 70(2), 181–214. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170661. · DOI
  5. Azevedo, R. (2005). Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool for enhancing student learning? The role of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 199–209. · DOI
  6. Catrambone, R. (1995). Aiding subgoal learning: Effects on transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.87.1.5. · DOI
  7. Catrambone, R. (1996). Generalizing solution procedures learned from examples. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1020–1031. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.22.4.1020. · DOI · Paper page
  8. Catrambone, R. (1998). The subgoal learning model: Creating better examples so that students can solve novel problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 355–376. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.127.4.355. · DOI
  9. Catrambone, R. (2011, June). Task analysis by problem solving (TAPS): Uncovering expert knowledge to develop highquality instructional materials and training. In 2011 Learning and technology symposium (Vol. 47, pp. 132–139).
  10. Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73–105. · DOI
  11. Conati, C., & VanLehn, K. (2000). Toward computer-based support of meta-cognitive skills: A computational framework to coach self-explanation. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11, 389–415.
  12. Czerniewicz, L., Deacon, A., & Walji, S. (2018). Educators, copyright and open education resources in Massive Open Online Courses. In Bajić M, Dohn NB, de Laat M, Jandrić P, Ryberg T (Eds.) Proceedings of the 11th international conference on networked learning (pp. 264–271).
  13. Delen, E., Liew, J., & Willson, V. (2014). Effects of interactivity and instructional scaffolding on learning: Self-regulation in online video-based environments. Computers & Education, 78, 312–320. · DOI
  14. García Espinosa, B. J., Tenorio Sepúlveda, G. C., & Ramírez Montoya, M. S. (2015). Self-motivation challenges for student involvement in the Open Educational Movement with MOOC. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 12, 91–103. https://doi.org/10.7238/rusc.v12i1.2185. · DOI
  15. Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12 a review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. · DOI
  16. Hill, J. R., & Hannafin, M. J. (2001). Teaching and learning in digital environments: The resurgence of resource-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(3), 37–52. · DOI
  17. Hundhausen, C. D., Farley, S. F., & Brown, J. L. (2009). Can direct manipulation lower the barriers to computer programming and promote transfer of training?: An experimental study. ACM Transactions in CHI, 16(3), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1145/1592440.1592442. · DOI
  18. Kim, M. C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Scaffolding problem solving in technology-enhanced learning environments (TELEs): Bridging research and theory with practice. Computers & Education, 56(2), 403–417. · DOI
  19. Kizilcec, R. F., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., & Maldonado, J. J. (2017). Self-regulated learning strategies predict learner behavior and goal attainment in Massive Open Online Courses. Computers & Education, 104, 18–33. · DOI · Paper page
  20. Littlejohn, A., Falconer, I., & Mcgill, L. (2008). Characterising effective eLearning resources. Computers & Education, 50(3), 757–771. · DOI
  21. Maloney, J. H., Peppler, K., Kafai, Y., Resnick, M., & Rusk, N. (2008). Programming by choice: Urban youth learning programming with scratch (Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 367–371). ACM. · DOI
  22. Margulieux, L. E., & Catrambone, R. (2016). Improving problem solving with subgoal labels in procedural instructions and worked examples. Learning and Instruction, 42, 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.12.002. · DOI
  23. Margulieux, L. E., & Catrambone, R. (2019). Finding the best types of guidance for constructing self-explanations of subgoals in programming. Journal of the Learning Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2018.1491852 · DOI
  24. Margulieux, L. E., Catrambone, R., & Guzdial, M. (2016). Employing subgoals in computer programming education. Computer Science Education, 26(1), 44–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2016.1144429. · DOI
  25. Morrison, B. B., Decker, A., & Margulieux, L. E. (2016). Learning loops: A replication study illuminates impact of HS courses. In Proceedings of the 12th annual international conference on international computing education research (pp. 221–230). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2960310.2960330 · DOI
  26. Morrison, B. B., Dorn, B., & Guzdial, M. (2014). Measuring cognitive load in introductory CS: Adaptation of an instrument. In Proceedings of the 10th annual conference on international computing education research (pp. 131–138). · DOI · Paper page
  27. Ossiannilsson, E., Williams, K., Camilleri, A. F., & Brown, M. (2015). Quality models in online and open education around the globe: State of the art and recommendations. International Council for Open and Distance Education (ICDE).
  28. Palmiter, S., Elkerton, J., & Baggett, P. (1991). Animated demonstrations versus written instructions for learning procedural tasks: A preliminary investigation. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34, 687–701. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7373(91)90019-4. · DOI
  29. Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423–451. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_6. · DOI · Paper page
  30. Pirolli, P., & Recker, M. (1994). Learning strategies and transfer in the domain of programming. Cognition and Instruction, 12(3), 235–275. · DOI
  31. Rohs, M., & Ganz, M. (2015). MOOCs and the claim of education for all: A disillusion by empirical data. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(6), 1–19. · DOI
  32. Rountree, N., Rountree, J., Robins, A., & Hannah, R. (2004). Interacting factors that predict success and failure in a CSI course. SIGCSE Bulletin, 33(4), 101–104. · DOI
  33. Saye, J. W., & Brush, T. (2002). Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 77–96. · DOI · Paper page
  34. Schmidt, H. G., Loyens, S. M., Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2007). Problem-based learning is compatible with human cognitive architecture: Commentary on Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 91–97. · DOI · Paper page
  35. Smyth, R., Bossu, C., & Stagg, A. (2016). Toward an open empowered learning model of pedagogy in higher education. In Open learning and formal credentialing in higher education: curriculum models and institutional policies (pp. 205–222). AEMAL. IGI Publishing (IGI Global). · DOI
  36. Soloway, E. (1986). Learning to program = learning to construct mechanisms and explanations. Communications of the ACM, 29(9), 850–858. · DOI
  37. Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. M. (Eds.). (2009). Constructivist instruction: Success or failure?. Routledge. · DOI
  38. Tulving, E. (1962). Subjective organization in free recall of “unrelated” words. Psychological Review, 69(4), 344–354. · DOI · Paper page
  39. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. . Harvard University Press.
  40. Wylie, R., & Chi, M. T. H. (2014). The self-explanation principle in multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.) The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp.413–432). Cambridge University Press. · DOI
  41. Yelland, N., & Masters, J. (2007). Rethinking scaffolding in the information age. Computers & Education, 48(3), 362–382. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Margulieux, L. E., & Catrambone, R.
Affiliations
  • Georgia State University (US)
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Margulieux, Lauren E.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Computing in Higher Education
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2021-03-30
Volume
33
Issue
2
Pages
499-523
ISSN
  • 1042-1726 (ISSN-L)
  • 1867-1233
DOI
10.1007/s12528-021-09275-1
OpenAlex
W3145345338
Cited by
20
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1
FWCI
2.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Computing in Higher Education (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Archive @ GSU (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
Keywords
scaffolding, self-explanation, worked examples, online learning, programming education

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