The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Eliciting Self‐Explanations Improves Understanding
Abstract
Learning involves the integration of new information into existing knowledge. Generating explanations to oneself (self‐explaining) facilitates that integration process. Previously, self‐explanation has been shown to improve the acquisition of problem‐solving skills when studying worked‐out examples. This study extends that finding, showing that self‐explanation can also be facilitative when it is explicitly promoted, in the context of learning declarative knowledge from an expository text. Without any extensive training, 14 eighth‐grade students were merely asked to self‐explain after reading each line of a passage on the human circulatory system. Ten students in the control group read the same text twice, but were not prompted to self‐explain. All of the students were tested for their circulatory system knowledge before and after reading the text. The prompted group had a greater gain from the pretest to the posttest. Moreover, prompted students who generated a large number of self‐explanations (the high explainers) learned with greater understanding than low explainers. Understanding was assessed by answering very complex questions and inducing the function of a component when it was only implicitly stated. Understanding was further captured by a mental model analysis of the self‐explanation protocols. High explainers all achieved the correct mental model of the circulatory system, whereas many of the unprompted students as well as the low explainers did not. Three processing characteristics of self‐explaining are considered as reasons for the gains in deeper understanding.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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
“Much research on “self-explanation” indicates that prompting students to provide verbal explanations of actions (whether their own or ones given in a worked example) can often aid robust learning (Aleven & Koedinger, 2002;Chi et al., 1994;Graesser, McNamara, & VanLehn, 2005;Hausmann & VanLehn, 2007).”
From The Knowledge‐Learning‐Instruction Framework: Bridging the Science‐Practice Chasm to Enhance Robust Student Learning (2012) · cites this paper as Chi et al., 1994
In the citing paper
“Encouraging students to explain to themselves parts of instruction (steps in worked example or sentences in a text) yields more robust learning than not prompting or providing such explanations to students.”
From The Knowledge‐Learning‐Instruction Framework: Bridging the Science‐Practice Chasm to Enhance Robust Student Learning (2012) · cites this paper as Chi et al. (1994)
In the citing paper
“When students are given a worked example or text to study, prompting them to self-explain each step of the worked example or each line of the text usually causes higher learning gains than having them study the material without such prompting (e.g., Aleven & Koedinger, 2002;Chi, de Leeuw, Chiu, & LaVancher, 1994;Renkl, Stark, Gruber, & Mandl, 1998), but exceptions are discussed below.”
From The Knowledge‐Learning‐Instruction Framework: Bridging the Science‐Practice Chasm to Enhance Robust Student Learning (2012) · cites this paper as Chi, de Leeuw, Chiu, & LaVancher, 1994
In the citing paper
“Ignoring or copying teachers' support, as opposed to applying support, results in an illusion of understanding (Chi, 2000;Chi, de Leeuw, Chiu, & LaVancher, 1994).”
From Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students’ Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction (2019) · cites this paper as Chi, de Leeuw, Chiu, & LaVancher, 1994
In the citing paper
“When ignoring teachers' support, the same happens, in that students do not integrate teachers' explanations into their existing knowledge schemes.”
From Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students’ Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction (2019) · cites this paper as Chi, de Leeuw, Chiu, & LaVancher, 1994
Citations
Cites
ON QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCES IN LEARNING: I—OUTCOME AND PROCESS*
MARTON, F., & SÄLJÖ, R. (1976) · British Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02980.x · Cited by 4,608
Talking science: language, learning, and values
Lemke, J. L. (1991) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.28-5211 · Cited by 4,000
Advances in Instructional Psychology
(2019) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315864341 · Cited by 2,534
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
Self-citationThe generation effect: delineation of a phenomenon
Slamecka, N. J., & Graf, P. (1978) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.4.6.592 · Cited by 1,659
Dual space search during scientific reasoning
Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1201_1 · Cited by 1,058
Peer interaction and learning in small groups
Webb, N. M. (1989) · International Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1016/0883-0355(89)90014-1 · Cited by 1,050
From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts
Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D., & De Leeuw, N. (1994) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/0959-4752(94)90017-5 · Cited by 990
Self-citationFoundations of Intelligent Tutoring Systems
(2013) · Psychology Press eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203761557 · Cited by 610
King, A. (1994) · American Educational Research Journal · doi:10.2307/1163313 · Cited by 605
Research works printed but not linked: 14
- Bereiter C., 1989, Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser.
- Bielaczyc K., Strategy training in self‐explanation and self‐regulation strategies for learning computer programming, Cognition and Instruction.
- Chi M.T.H., 1992, Cognitive models of science: Minnesota Studies in the philosophy of science.
- Chi M.T.H.(1993 June).Barriers to conceptual change in learning science concepts: A theoretical conjecture.Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.Hillsdale NJ :Erlbaum.
- Chi M.T.H., 1994, Analyzing the content of verbal data to represent knowledge: A practical guide, Journal of the Learning Sciences.
- deKleer J., 1983, Mental models.
- deLeeuw N.(1993 June).Students' beliefs about the circulatory system: Are misconceptions universal?Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.Hillsdale NJ :Erlbaum.
- Ericsson K.A., 1984, Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data.
- Graesser A.C., 1985, The psychology of questions.
- 10.3102/00028312031002338 · DOI · Paper page
- Nix D., 1985, The psychology of questions.
- Scardamalia M.(1992 July).The role of adaptation and understanding in knowledge‐building communities.Paper presented at conference of NATO Advanced Science Institute Kolymbari Crete Greece .
- Towle A., 1989, Modern biology.
- VanLehn K. &Jones R.M.(1993).What mediates the self‐explanation effect? Knowledge gaps schemas or analogies?InM.Polson(Ed.)Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.Hillsdale NJ :Erlbaum.
Cited by
Items 101–114 of 114
Loibl, K., & Leuders, T. (2018) · Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik · doi:10.1007/s13138-018-0130-7 · Cited by 34
Menekse, M., Anwar, S., & Akdemir, Z. G. (2022) · The Journal of Experimental Education · doi:10.1080/00220973.2020.1786346 · Cited by 32
Effective self-regulated science learning through multimedia-enriched skeleton concept maps
Marée, T. J., van Bruggen, J. M., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2013) · Research in Science & Technological Education · doi:10.1080/02635143.2013.782283 · Cited by 31
(2021) · Educational Data Mining · Cited by 30
Contrastive Constraints Guide Explanation‐Based Category Learning
Chin‐Parker, S., & Cantelon, J. (2017) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/cogs.12405 · Cited by 18
Assessing efficiency of prompts based on learner characteristics
Backhaus, J., Jeske, D., Poinstingl, H., & Koenig, S. (2017) · Computers · doi:10.3390/computers6010007 · Cited by 18
A contrastive account of explanation generation
Chin-Parker, S., & Bradner, A. (2017) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-017-1349-x · Cited by 15
Imitative problem solving: Why transfer of learning often fails to occur
Robertsonnm, I. (2000) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1023/a:1003884601109 · Cited by 15
Using Conversational Agents To Support Learning By Teaching
Chhibber, N., & Law, E. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1909.13443 · Cited by 11
“Learning by Thinking” in Science and in Everyday Life
Lombrozo, T. (2020) · The Scientific Imagination · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190212308.003.0010 · Cited by 10
Desai, S., & Chin, J. (2020) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/1071181320641112 · Cited by 9
The effects of reflection on seventh grade social studies student learning and perception
Denton, D. W., & Ellis, A. K. (2023) · Educational Studies · doi:10.1080/03055698.2020.1835616 · Cited by 4
Retrieval Practice Versus Elaborative Encoding: A Systematic and Meta-analytic Review
Gonçalves, A. D. O., Muniz, B. F. B., & Jaeger, A. (2025) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-025-10076-6 · Cited by 1
A metacognitive approach to learning and performance in human-AI interaction
Fan, Y., Yan, L., Molenaar, I., Greiff, S., & Gašević, D. (2026) · Communications Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44271-026-00548-y · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Chi, M. T. H., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M., & Lavancher, C.
- Affiliations
- National Taiwan Normal University (TW)
- University of Pittsburgh (US)
- ORCID
- Chiu, Mei‐Hung
- Venue
- Cognitive Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1994-07
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 439-477
- ISSN
- 0364-0213 (ISSN-L)
- 1551-6709
- OpenAlex
- W4243420394
- Cited by
- 757
- References
- 28
- Citations by year
- 2026: 51 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 48 · 2020: 53 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 42 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 30 · 2013: 34 · 2012: 35
- FWCI
- 5.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Cognitive Science (publishedVersion)
- 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
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
- Keywords
- self-explanation, self-explanation prompts, declarative knowledge, expository text reading, cardiovascular system, mental models, knowledge integration, eighth grade students, reading comprehension
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.
