Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 671

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Models for Understanding

Mayer, Richard E.·1989·Review of Educational Research

Abstract

What can be done to empower students to be creative when they are faced with problems? One promising instructional technique for improving students’ understanding of scientific explanations is the use of conceptual models. This review examines three predictions concerning the effects of conceptual models on students’ understanding of scientific prose: that models improve recall of conceptual information, decrease verbatim retention, and increase creative solutions on transfer problems. In a review of 20 studies involving 31 separate tests, results consistently indicated that models can help lower aptitude learners to think systematically about the scientific material they study.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/1170446

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Metadata

Authors
Mayer, R. E.
Venue
Review of Educational Research
Published
1989
Volume
59
Issue
1
Pages
43
ISSN
0034-6543 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2124818066
Cited by
671
References
0
FWCI
23.84
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.