The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Inert knowledge: Analyses and remedies
Abstract
Knowledge, although seemingly available, is often not used for problem solving. That means it remains "inert." Three types of explanations exist for this phenomenon. Metaprocess explanations assume that the relevant knowledge is available, but it is not used because of disturbed access processes (e.g., lacking metacognitive control). Structure deficit explanations suppose that the deficit is rooted in the structure of the knowledge itself (i.e., the knowledge is not available in a form that allows for its application). In situatedness explanations, the traditional concepts of knowledge and transfer are questioned. One basic assumption of this perspective is that knowledge is fundamentally situated (i.e., context-bound). In the last decade, instructional models have been developed that try to remedy the inert knowledge problem and take into account important aspects that have been raised by the different explanations.
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
Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
Bloch, M., Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1994) · Man · doi:10.2307/2804509 · Cited by 39,454
Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0046016 · Cited by 17,116
Anderson, J. R. (2013) · doi:10.4324/9781315799438 · Cited by 6,761
Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics and Culture in Everyday Life
Lave, J. (1988) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511609268 · Cited by 5,148
Cognitive Apprenticeship: Teaching the Crafts of Reading, Writing, and Mathematics
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (2018) · Knowing, Learning, and Instruction · doi:10.4324/9781315044408-14 · Cited by 3,674
(2012) · Constructivism in Education · doi:10.4324/9780203052600-11 · Cited by 1,357
Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1983) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1016/0361-476x(83)90018-8 · Cited by 1,352
The 1987 Presidential Address Learning In School and Out
Resnick, L. B. (1987) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x016009013 · Cited by 1,035
Skill acquisition: Compilation of weak-method problem situations.
Anderson, J. R. (1987) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037//0033-295x.94.2.192 · Cited by 1,023
Legitimate Peripheral Participation
(1991) · Situated Learning · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511815355.003 · Cited by 910
Cited by
Collaboration Scripts – A Conceptual Analysis
Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. W. (2006) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-006-9007-2 · Cited by 521
Toward a script theory of guidance in computer-supported collaborative learning
Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Stegmann, K., & Wecker, C. (2013) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2012.748005 · Cited by 525
Worked-out examples: Instructional explanations support learning by self-explanations
Renkl, A. (2002) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/s0959-4752(01)00030-5 · Cited by 452
Self-citationDignath, C., & Veenman, M. V. J. (2021) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-020-09534-0 · Cited by 403
Grossmann, I. (2017) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691616672066 · Cited by 306
Metadata
- Authors
- Renkl, A., Mandl, H., & Gruber, H.
- Venue
- Educational Psychologist
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1996-04-01
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 115-121
- ISSN
- 0046-1520 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-6985
- OpenAlex
- W2049228560
- Cited by
- 289
- References
- 32
- FWCI
- 5.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Inert knowledge: Analyses and remedies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1207/s15326985ep3102_3
- The paper
- Renkl, A., Mandl, H., & Gruber, H. (1996). Inert knowledge: Analyses and remedies. Educational Psychologist. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3102_3
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.
