The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Learning from worked-out examples: A study on individual differences
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“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
Citations
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cognitive Load Theory and Complex Learning: Recent Developments and Future Directions
van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Sweller, J. (2005) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-005-3951-0 · Cited by 2,206
Element Interactivity and Intrinsic, Extraneous, and Germane Cognitive Load
Sweller, J. (2010) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9128-5 · Cited by 2,020
Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3801_4 · Cited by 1,927
Developing conceptual understanding and procedural skill in mathematics: An iterative process.
Rittle‐Johnson, B., Siegler, R. S., & Alibali, M. W. (2001) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.2.346 · Cited by 1,155
Expertise Reversal Effect and Its Implications for Learner-Tailored Instruction
Kalyuga, S. (2007) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-007-9054-3 · Cited by 1,056
“Faded worked examples ( Renkl 1997; Renkl and Atkinson 2003; Renkl et al. 2002) gradually fade worked-out steps with increased levels of learner expertise by replacing these steps with problem solving sub-tasks.”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- RENKL, A.
- Affiliations
- Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
- Corresponding author
- RENKL, A
- ORCID
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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