CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,198Visual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load approach.

Open access
Paas, Fred G. W. C., Van Merriënboer, Jeroen J. G.·1994·Journal of Educational Psychology
DOI 10.1037/0022-0663.86.1.122
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Four computer-based training strategies for geometrical problem solving in the domain of computer numerically controlled machinery programming were studied with regard to their effects on training performance, transfer performance, and cognitive load. A low- and a high-variability conventional condition, in which conventional practice problems had to be solved (followed by worked examples), were compared with a low- and a high-variability worked condition, in which worked examples had to be studied. Results showed that students who studied worked examples gained most from high-variability examples, invested less time and mental effort in practice, and attained better and less effort-demanding transfer performance than students who first attempted to solve conventional problems and then studied work examples. In complex cognitive domains such as mathematics, phys-ics, or computer programming, problem solutions can often be characterized by a hierarchical goal structure. The goal of these solutions can be attained only by successfully attaining all subgoals. Learning and performance of complex cogni-tive tasks are typically constrained by limited processing ca-

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-0663.86.1.122

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

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

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 1,198

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Paas, F. G. W. C., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G.
Affiliations
Maastricht University (NL)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Educational Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
1994-03
Volume
86
Issue
1
Pages
122-133
ISSN
  • 0022-0663 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2176
DOI
10.1037/0022-0663.86.1.122
OpenAlex
W2116669434
Cited by
1,198
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 69 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 51 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 50 · 2020: 49 · 2019: 89 · 2018: 42 · 2017: 52 · 2016: 42 · 2015: 68 · 2014: 69 · 2013: 62 · 2012: 59
FWCI
7.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Journal of Educational Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • University of Twente Research Information (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Twente Research Information (submittedVersion, other-oa)
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, transfer of learning, cognitive load, computer-based training, practice questions, cognitive effort, training performance

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.

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-12 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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