Cited by 70Visual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning

Optimizing the number of steps in learning tasks for complex skills

Open access
Nadolski, Rob J., Kirschner, Paul A., Van Merriënboer, Jeroen J. G.·2005·British Journal of Educational Psychology

Abstract

Background. Carrying out whole tasks is often too difficult for novice learners attempting to acquire complex skills. The common solution is to split up the tasks into a number of smaller steps. The number of steps must be optimized for efficient and effective learning. Aim. The aim of the study is to investigate the relation between the number of steps provided to learners and the quality of their learning of complex skills. It is hypothesized that students receiving an optimized number of steps will learn better than those receiving either the whole task in only one step or those receiving a large number of steps. Sample. Participants were 35 sophomore law students studying at Dutch universities, mean age = 22.8 years ( SD =3.5), 63% were female. Method. Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 computer‐delivered versions of a multimedia programme on how to prepare and carry out a law plea. The versions differed only in the number of learning steps provided. Videotaped plea‐performance results were determined, various related learning measures were acquired and all computer actions were logged and analyzed. Results. Participants exposed to an intermediate (i.e. optimized) number of steps outperformed all others on the compulsory learning task. No differences in performance on a transfer task were found. A high number of steps proved to be less efficient for carrying out the learning task. Conclusions. An intermediate number of steps is the most effective, proving that the number of steps can be optimized for improving learning.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1348/000709904x22403

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nadolski, R. J., Kirschner, P. A., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G.
Affiliations
Open University of the Netherlands (NL)
Corresponding author
Nadolski, Rob J.
Venue
British Journal of Educational Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-06
Volume
75
Issue
2
Pages
223-237
ISSN
  • 0007-0998 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-8279
OpenAlex
W2109816554
Cited by
70
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 8
FWCI
5.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of Educational Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DSpace (Open University in the Netherlands) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • DSpace (Open University in the Netherlands) (submittedVersion)
  • DSpace (Open University in the Netherlands) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
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
task decomposition, novice learners, multimedia learning, transfer of learning, learning efficiency, law students
MeSH terms
Adult, Computer-Assisted Instruction, Educational Measurement, Female, Humans, Learning, Male, Netherlands, Practice, Psychological, Students, Task Performance and Analysis, Teaching, Universities

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