The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Uncovering the Problem-Solving Process: Cued Retrospective Reporting Versus Concurrent and Retrospective Reporting.
Open accessAbstract
This study investigated the amounts of problem-solving process information ("action," "why," "how," and "metacognitive") elicited by means of concurrent, retrospective, and cued retrospective reporting. In a within-participants design, 26 participants completed electrical circuit troubleshooting tasks under different reporting conditions. The method of cued retrospective reporting used the original computer-based task and a superimposed record of the participant's eye fixations and mouse-keyboard operations as a cue for retrospection. Cued retrospective reporting (with the exception of why information) and concurrent reporting (with the exception of metacognitive information) resulted in a higher number of codes on the different types of information than did retrospective reporting.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“Especially a combined use of thinking-aloud and eye-tracking data can provide deeper insights into cognitive processes [53] and help to solve the limitations associated with eye-tracking [54].”
From Impact of Think-Aloud on Eye-Tracking: A Comparison of Concurrent and Retrospective Think-Aloud for Research on Decision-Making in the Game Environment (2020) · cites this paper as [53]
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
Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research
Rayner, K. (1998) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372 · Cited by 7,979
Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/5657.001.0001 · Cited by 3,537
Learning from worked-out examples: A study on individual differences
RENKL, A. (1997) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1016/s0364-0213(99)80017-2 · Cited by 679
A Comparison of Concurrent and Retrospective Verbal Protocol Analysis
Kuusela, H., & Paul, P. (2000) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1423365 · Cited by 408
Cited by
Focusing the Conceptual Lens on Metacognition, Self-regulation, and Self-regulated Learning
Dinsmore, D. L., Alexander, P. A., & Loughlin, S. M. (2008) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-008-9083-6 · Cited by 815
Effects of worked examples, example-problem, and problem-example pairs on novices’ learning
van Gog, T., Kester, L., & Paas, F. (2011) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.10.004 · Cited by 283
Self-citationAttention guidance during example study via the model’s eye movements
van Gog, T., Jarodzka, H., Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., & Paas, F. (2009) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.02.007 · Cited by 224
Self-citationPerspectives on problem solving and instruction
van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2013) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.025 · Cited by 187
An expertise reversal effect of segmentation in learning from animated worked-out examples
Spanjers, I. A. E., Wouters, P., van Gog, T., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2011) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.011 · Cited by 175
Metadata
- Authors
- van Gog, T., Paas, F., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Witte, P.
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied
- Published
- 2005
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 237-244
- ISSN
- 1076-898X (ISSN-L)
- 1939-2192
- OpenAlex
- W2130494785
- Cited by
- 359
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 8.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
