The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Content of Physics Self-Explanations
Abstract
Several earlier studies have found the amount learned while studying worked-out examples is proportional to the number of self-explanations generated while studying examples. A self-explanation is a comment about an example statement that contains domain-relevant information over and above what was stated in the example line itself. This article analyzes the specific content of self-explanations generated by students while studying physics examples. In particular, the content is analyzed into pieces of constituent knowledge that were used in the comments. These were further analyzed in order to trace the source of knowledge from which self-explanations could be generated. The results suggest that there are two general sources for self-explanations. The first is deduction from knowledge acquired earlier while reading the text part of the chapter, usually by simply instantiating a general principle, concept, or procedure with information in the current example statement. The second explanation is generalization and extension of the example statements. Such construction of the content of the example statements yield new general knowledge that helps complete the students' otherwise incomplete understanding of the domain principles and concepts. The relevance of this research for instruction and models of explanation-based learning is discussed.
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
Cited by
Piccoli, G., Ahmad, R., & Ives, B. (2001) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3250989 · Cited by 1,587
Eom, S. B., Wen, H. J., & Ashill, N. (2006) · Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education · doi:10.1111/j.1540-4609.2006.00114.x · Cited by 876
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
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
Roscoe, R. D., & Chi, M. T. H. (2007) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654307309920 · Cited by 647
Self-citationMetrics for explainable AI: challenges and prospects
Hoffman, R. R., Mueller, S. T., Klein, G., & Litman, J. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1812.04608 · Cited by 518
Learning from Worked-Out Examples: The Effects of Example Variability and Elicited Self-Explanations
Renkl, A., Stark, R., Gruber, H., & Mandl, H. (1998) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1006/ceps.1997.0959 · Cited by 374
A model of the self-explanation effect.
VanLehn, K., Jones, R. M., & Chi, M. T. H. (1992) · Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0201_1 · Cited by 305
Self-citationScaffolding Deep Comprehension Strategies Through Point&Query, AutoTutor, and iSTART
Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & VanLehn, K. (2005) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4004_4 · Cited by 285
Self-citationHoffman, R. R., Mueller, S. T., Klein, G., & Litman, J. (2023) · Frontiers in Computer Science · doi:10.3389/fcomp.2023.1096257 · Cited by 272
Reviving Inert Knowledge: Analogical Abstraction Supports Relational Retrieval of Past Events
Gentner, D., Loewenstein, J., Thompson, L., & Forbus, K. D. (2009) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01070.x · Cited by 218
Rule-Learning Events in the Acquisition of a Complex Skill: An Evaluation of Cascade
VanLehn, K. (1999) · Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0801_3 · Cited by 150
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Chi, M. T. H., & VanLehn, K. A.
- Venue
- Journal of the Learning Sciences
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1991-01
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 69-105
- ISSN
- 1050-8406 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-7809
- OpenAlex
- W2088344354
- Cited by
- 306
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 10.13
- 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
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.