CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 167Visual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 291 of the 296 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 4 are not checked yet.

The worked example effect, the generation effect, and element interactivity.

Open access
Chen, Ouhao, Kalyuga, Slava, Sweller, John·2015·Journal of Educational Psychology
DOI 10.1037/edu0000018
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The worked example effect indicates that showing students worked examples (high guidance) is superior to problem solving (low guidance) which provides no guidance, whereas the generation effect suggests that self-generating items (low guidance) is superior to studying the externally presented answers (high guidance). This obvious contradiction between the two effects was hypothesized to be resolved by suggesting that the materials used had different levels of element interactivity. For the worked example effect, materials may be high in element interactivity, while, for the generation effect, simpler materials are used. With an increase of learner expertise, the worked example effect may be eliminated or reversed because expertise reduces element interactivity, but the generation effect should be still robust. Five 2 (levels of guidance: low and high) x 2 (levels of element interactivity: low and high) mixed factorial experiments were conducted to investigate the hypotheses. In Experiments 1 to 3, the level of learner expertise gradually increased in the domain of geometry with the results supporting hypotheses. The interaction of guidance and element interactivity was obtained with novices but the worked example effect that contributed to the interaction was eliminated or reversed with more knowledgeable students. Experiments 4 to 5 were designed to replicate the results of the first three experiments by testing students in the domain of trigonometry on both immediate and delayed tests. The results were replicated not only on an immediate test, but also on a delayed test. When combined, the results of all five experiments indicated that levels of element interactivity might be a key factor when deciding on levels of instructional guidance.

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 · 10.1037/edu0000018

Cites

291 of 296 references verified0 citation errors · 1 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. Ayres, P., & Youssef, A. (2008). Investigating the influence of transitory information and motivation during instructional animations. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 8th international conference on International conference for the learning sciences- Volume 1.
  2. Barrows, H. S. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical education: Springer Publishing Company.
  3. Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: An experimental and social study. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
  4. Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard educational review.
  5. Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, J., & Austin, G. (1956). A Study of Thinking. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 14, 330.
  6. Brünken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2004). Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning with dual-task methodology: Auditory load and modality effects. Instructional Science, 32, 115-132. doi: 10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021812.96911. · DOI
  7. Burns, D. J. (1992). The consequences of generation. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 615-633. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(92)90031-R Burns, D. J. (1996). The item-order distinction and the generation effect: The importance of order information in long-term memory. The American Journal of Psychology, 109, 567-580. doi: 10.2307/1423395 · DOI
  8. Chen, S., Epps, J., & Chen, F. (2011). A comparison of four methods for cognitive load measurement. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 23rd Australian Computer- Human Interaction Conference.
  9. Conati, C., & VanLehn, K. (1999). Teaching meta-cognitive skills: implementation and evaluation of a tutoring system to guide self-explanation while learning from examples: Artificial Intelligence in Education, Amsterdam: IOS Press.
  10. Curry, L. A. (2004). The effects of self-explanations of correct and incorrect solutions on algebra problem-solving performance. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 26th annual conference of the cognitive science society.
  11. Gabrys, G., Weiner, A., & Lesgold, A. (1993). Learning by problem solving in a coached apprenticeship system. In M. Rabinowitz (Ed.), Cognitive science foundations of instruction (pp. 119-147). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  12. Jablonka, E., Lamb, M., & Zeligowski, A. (2014). Evolution in four dimensions : Genetic, epigenetic, behavioral, and symbolic variation in the history of life (Rev ed., Life and mind). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
  13. Kapur, M., & Bielaczyc, K. (2011). Classroom-based experiments in productive failure. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp 2812-2817).
  14. Khawaja, M. A., F. Chen, and N. Marcus (2010). "Using Language Complexity to Measure Cognitive Load for Adaptive Interaction Design." Proceedings of International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI 2010), pp. 333-336. Hong Kong, China: ACM.
  15. Marshall, S. P. (1995). Schemas in problem solving: Cambridge University Press.
  16. Mayer, R. E. (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning: Cambridge University Press.
  17. Newell, A. (1990). Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
  18. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive load theory: Instructional implications of the interaction between information structures and cognitive architecture. Instructional Science, 32, 1-8. doi: 10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021806.17516. · DOI
  19. Park, B., Korbach, A., & Brünken, R. (2015). Do learner characteristics moderate the Seductive-Details-Effect? A Cognitive-Load-Study using eye-tracking. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18, 24-36. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.18.4.24
  20. Piaget, J. (1928). The judgement and reasoning in children. London: Routledge and Kegan.
  21. Polya, G. (1957). How to Solve It: a new aspect of mathematical method, ed: London: Penguin.
  22. Renkl, A., Atkinson, R. K., & Große, C. S. (2004). How fading worked solution steps works- a cognitive load perspective. Instructional Science, 32, 59-82. doi: 10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021815.74806. · DOI
  23. Renkl, A., Atkinson, R. K., & Maier, U. H. (2000). From studying examples to solving problems: Fading worked-out solution steps helps learning. In L. Gleitman, & A. K. Joshi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 393-398). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associations, http://dx.doi.org/10.1.1.23.6816.
  24. Roy, M., & Chi, M. T. (2005). The self-explanation principle in multimedia learning. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 271-286.
  25. Siegler, R. S. (1998). Emerging minds: The process of change in children's thinking. Oxford University Press.
  26. Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional Design in Technical Areas. Australian Education Review, No. 43: ERIC.
  27. Sweller, J. (2010). What human cognitive architecture tells us about constructivism. In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure (pp. 127- 143). New York, NJ: Routledge.
  28. Tobias, S. (1976). Achievement treatment interactions. Review of Educational Research, 61- 74.
  29. Van Gog, T., Paas, F., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. (2004). Process-oriented worked examples: Improving transfer performance through enhanced understanding. Instructional Science, 32, 83-98. doi: 10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021810.70784. · DOI
  30. West-Eberhard, M. J. (2003). Developmental plasticity and evolution: Oxford University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 167

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Chen, O., Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J.
Affiliations
UNSW Sydney (AU)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Educational Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2015-08
Volume
107
Issue
3
Pages
689-704
ISSN
  • 0022-0663 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2176
DOI
10.1037/edu0000018
OpenAlex
W2142219189
Cited by
167
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 1
FWCI
13.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Journal of Educational Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • UNSWorks (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • UNSWorks (UNSW Sydney) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Loughborough University Research Repository (Loughborough University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • UNSWorks (UNSW Sydney)
Funders
China Scholarship Council
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 example effect, generation effect, element interactivity, instructional guidance, learner expertise, geometry learning, trigonometry learning, problem solving, worked examples

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