CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,714Visual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsEducational Strategies and Epistemologies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Self‐Explanations: How Students Study and Use Examples in Learning to Solve Problems

Open access
Chi, Michelene T.H., Bassok, Miriam, Lewis, Matthew W., Reimann, Peter, Glaser, Robert·1989·Cognitive Science
DOI 10.1207/s15516709cog1302_1
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The present paper analyzes the self‐generated explanations (from talk‐aloud protocols) that “Good” and “Poor” students produce while studying worked‐out examples of mechanics problems, and their subsequent reliance on examples during problem solving. We find that “Good” students learn with understanding: They generate many explanations which refine and expand the conditions for the action parts of the example solutions, and relate these actions to principles in the text. These self‐explanations are guided by accurate monitoring of their own understanding and misunderstanding. Such learning results in example‐independent knowledge and in a better understanding of the principles presented in the text. “Poor” students do not generate sufficient self‐explanations, monitor their learning inaccurately, and subsequently rely heavily on examples. We then discuss the role of self‐explanations in facilitating problem solving, as well as the adequacy of current AI models of explanation‐based learning to account for these psychological findings.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1207/s15516709cog1302_1

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Prompted self-explanation supports monitoring of understanding, identification of knowledge gaps, and integration of new information with prior knowledge.

    “This mechanism resembles prompted self-explanation, an instructional technique that encourages learners to articulate their reasoning and has been shown to support monitoring of understanding, identification of knowledge gaps, and integration of new information with prior knowledge (Bisra et al., 2018;Chi et al., 1989).”

    From Think Before You Accept: Can Written Justification Reduce Uncritical Uptake of AI Writing Suggestions? (2026) · cites this paper as Chi et al., 1989

    The Analyses of Explanations section reports that students who detected gaps in their understanding often went on to explain the material to themselves. The opening passage and Discussion describe self-explanations linking example steps to principles and building understanding. But this study examines students’ self-generated explanations, not prompted self-explanation as an instructional technique; it also describes monitoring as guiding explanations rather than showing that prompting improves monitoring. Page numbers were not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The self-explanation effect was demonstrated independently of cognitive load theory.

    “The self-explanation effect was demonstrated independently of cognitive load theory (Chi et al. 1989) but can be explained by the theory.”

    From Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design: 20 Years Later (2019) · cites this paper as Chi et al. 1989

  • Active learning enables learners to connect new information with knowledge they already possess.

    “Moreover, researchers have advocated active learning because it enables learners to connect new information with the knowledge they already possess (Chi et al. 1989;Mayer 2001;Wittrock 1974).”

    From Interactivity in Video-based Models (2007) · cites this paper as Chi et al. 1989

  • Asking learners to explain to themselves aloud what they have understood from a learning task has proved to be an effective instructional method.

    “Asking learners to explain to themselves aloud what they have understood from a learning task has proved to be an effective instructional method (Chi et al. 1989;Renkl 1997;Renkl and Atkinson 2002).”

    From Interactivity in Video-based Models (2007) · cites this paper as Chi et al. 1989

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Brown A.L., 1983, Cognitive development (Vol. III of P.H. Mussen, Ed., Handbook of child psychology, 77
  2. Halliday D., 1981, Fundamentals of physics.
  3. Lewis C.H., 1982, Proceedings of the conference of human factors in computer systems
  4. 10.1007/BF00116250 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R.
Affiliations
  • RAND Corporation (US)
  • TU Bergakademie Freiberg (DE)
ORCID
Venue
Cognitive Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1989-04
Volume
13
Issue
2
Pages
145-182
ISSN
  • 0364-0213 (ISSN-L)
  • 1551-6709
DOI
10.1207/s15516709cog1302_1
OpenAlex
W4239816899
Cited by
1,714
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 54 · 2025: 49 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 65 · 2021: 80 · 2020: 103 · 2019: 99 · 2018: 58 · 2017: 53 · 2016: 77 · 2015: 69 · 2014: 60 · 2013: 58 · 2012: 59
FWCI
27.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 7621 d)
Locations
Cognitive Science (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 › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
Keywords
self-explanation, worked examples, problem solving, mechanics problems, self-monitoring, understanding-based learning, explanation-based learning, student differences

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