The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Studying Physics Texts: Differences in Study Processes Between Good and Poor Performers
Open accessAbstract
The experiment reported aims at finding differences in study processes between students who are good problem solvers and students who are not. Twenty-one students from the Eindhoven University of Technology studied a 10-page text on a physics subject, reporting at regular intervals on their study processes. Protocols of five good performers and five poor performers were analyzed; that is, each statement was classified into 1 of 32 different study processes, and the type of knowledge involved was determined: declarative, procedural, or situational. Good and poor performers did not differ in the number of study processes scored, indicating that both groups studied in an equally active way. They differed in the type of study processes scored: Good students applied more deep processing and less superficial processing than poor students. Poor performers were found to pay more attention to declarative knowledge, whereas good performers tended to pay more attention to procedural and situational knowledge.
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.
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
Levels of processing: A framework for memory research
Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972) · Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(72)80001-x · Cited by 9,566
Self‐Explanations: How Students Study and Use Examples in Learning to Solve Problems
Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1302_1 · Cited by 1,714
Learning as a generative process 1
Wittrock, M. C. (1974) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461527409529129 · Cited by 834
Cited by
The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes
Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2014.965823 · Cited by 2,911
Aleven, V. A. W. M. M., & Koedinger, K. R. (2002) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2602_1 · Cited by 895
Eliciting Self‐Explanations Improves Understanding
Chi, M. T. H., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M., & Lavancher, C. (1994) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1803_3 · Cited by 757
Types and qualities of knowledge
de Jong, T., & Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M. (1996) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3102_2 · Cited by 722
Self-citationLearning 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
Metadata
- Authors
- Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M., & de Jong, T.
- Venue
- Cognition and Instruction
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1990-03
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 41-54
- ISSN
- 0737-0008 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-690X
- OpenAlex
- W2102995898
- Cited by
- 160
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 8.53
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Studying Physics Texts: Differences in Study Processes Between Good and Poor Performers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1207/s1532690xci0701_2
- The paper
- Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M., & de Jong, T. (1990). Studying Physics Texts: Differences in Study Processes Between Good and Poor Performers. Cognition and Instruction. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0701_2
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.
