Cited by 679Visual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning

Learning from worked-out examples: A study on individual differences

Open access
RENKL, A·1997·Cognitive Science

Abstract

The goal of this study was to Investigate individual differences in learning from worked-out examples with respect to the quality of self-explanations. Restrictions of former studies (e.g., lacking control of time-on-task) were avoided and additional research questions (e.g., reliability and dimensionality of self-explanation characteristics) were addressed. An investigation with 36 university freshmen students of education working in individual sessions was conducted. The domain was probability calculation. Prior knowledge and the quality of self-explanations (protocols of the individuals' thinking aloud) were assessed as predictors of learning. A post-test was employed to measure the learning gains as the dependent variable. The following main results were obtained. Most self-explanation characteristics could be regarded as relatively stable person characteristics. The individual differences in the quality of self-explanations were, however, found to be multidimensional. Most Important, even when controlling for time-on-task (quantitative aspect), learning gains could be substantially predicted by qualitative differences of self-explanation characteristics. In particular, successful learners tended to employ more prlnciplebased explanations, more explication of operator-goal combinations, and more anticipative reasoning. In addition, there were two types of effective learners, labeled anticipative reasoners and principle-based explainers.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0364-0213(99)80017-2

Cites

0 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?

  • Cognitive load research has tended to focus on rule or schema knowledge, induction or compilation processes, and transfer tests to argue for increased study of examples.

    “Cognitive load research has tended to focus on rule or schema knowledge (kinds of KCs), induction or compilation processes (kinds of LEs), and transfer tests (a kind of AE) to argue in favor of instructional approaches such as increased study of examples (Renkl, 1997).”

    From The Knowledge‐Learning‐Instruction Framework: Bridging the Science‐Practice Chasm to Enhance Robust Student Learning (2012) · cites this paper as Renkl, 1997

    The section on goal-operator combinations discusses induction of abstract schemata from examples, and the Discussion reports that inspecting more examples predicted medium-transfer performance. The paper thus supports the examples, schemata, and transfer elements, but the passages do not characterize what cognitive-load research has generally focused on or discuss compilation processes. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • 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 Renkl 1997

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
RENKL, A.
Affiliations
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
Corresponding author
RENKL, A
Venue
Cognitive Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1997-01
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
1-29
ISSN
0364-0213 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2084895013
Cited by
679
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 60 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 40 · 2012: 30
FWCI
18.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Cognitive Science (publishedVersion)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
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
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
Keywords
worked examples, self-explanation, individual differences, learning gains, probability calculation, think-aloud, time on task, prior knowledge, mathematics learning

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