Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T03:45:56.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Learning from Worked-Out Examples and Problem Solving

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Alexander Renkl  and
Robert K. Atkinson
Edited by
Jan L. Plass ,
Roxana Moreno  and
Roland Brünken
Alexander Renkl
Affiliation:
University of Freiburg
Robert K. Atkinson
Affiliation:
Arizona State University
Jan L. Plass
Affiliation:
New York University
Roxana Moreno
Affiliation:
University of New Mexico
Roland Brünken
Affiliation:
Universität des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken, Germany
Get access

Summary

One of the classic instructional effects associated with the Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) is the worked-example effect in cognitive skill acquisition (see Chapters 2 and 3, this volume; Paas & van Gog, 2006). Worked-out examples consist of a problem formulation, solution steps, and the final solution itself. They are commonplace in the instructional material pertaining to well-structured domains such as mathematics or physics (see Figure 5.1 for an exemplary worked-out example). When CLT researchers discuss “learning from worked-out examples,” they typically mean that after the introduction of one or more domain principles (e.g., mathematical theorem, physics law), learners should be presented with several examples rather than a single example, as it is commonly the case. Despite this emphasis on learning from examples, researchers working in this area acknowledge the importance of requiring learners to solve problems later on in cognitive skill acquisition so that they can reach proficiency in the domain they are studying.

In this chapter, we elaborate the theoretical assumptions and empirical findings involving the studying of worked-out examples and learning by problem solving in different phases of cognitive skill acquisition. Rather than summarizing the extensive literature on example-based learning and its implications for instructional design (for overviews, see Atkinson, Derry, Renkl, & Wortham, 2000, and Renkl, 2005), we instead focus on addressing the issues of: (a) when it is best to study worked-out solutions, (b) when it is best to solve problems, and (c) how the transition between these two learning methods should be structured.

Type
Chapter
Information
Cognitive Load Theory , pp. 91 - 108
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. R. (2002). An effective meta-cognitive strategy: Learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based cognitive tutor. Cognitive Science, 26, 147–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 167–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. R., & Lebiere, C. (Eds.). (1998). The atomic components of thought. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Atkinson, R. K., Derry, S. J., Renkl, A., & Wortham, D. W. (2000). Learning from examples: Instructional principles from the worked examples research. Review of Educational Research, 70, 181–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, R. K., Renkl, A., & Merrill, M. M. (2003). Transitioning from studying examples to solving problems: Combining fading with prompting fosters learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 774–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 18, 145–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clement, L., & Bernhard, J. Z. (2005). A problem-solving alternative to using key words. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 10, 360–365.Google Scholar
Cooper, G., & Sweller, J. (1987). Effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on mathematical problem-solving transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 347–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., & Charness, N. (1994). Expert performance: Its structure and acquisition. American Psychologist, 49, 725–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. Th., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilbert, T. S., Renkl, A., Kessler, S., & Reiss, K. (2008). Learning to prove in geometry: Learning from heuristic examples and how it can be supported. Learning & Instruction, 18, 54–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38, 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., Tuovinen, J., & Sweller, J. (2001). When problem solving is superior to studying worked examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 579–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2004). Measuring knowledge to optimize cognitive load factors during instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 558–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koedinger, K. R., & Aleven, V. (2007). Exploring the assistance dilemma in experiments with cognitive tutors. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 239–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koedinger, K. R., & Corbett, A. T. (2006). Cognitive tutors: Technology bringing learning sciences to the classroom. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 61–78). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Moreno, R. (2006). When worked examples don't work: Is cognitive load theory at an impasse? Learning and Instruction, 16, 170–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2005). Role of guidance, reflection, and interactivity in an agent-based multimedia game. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 117–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neuman, Y., & Schwarz, B. (1998). Is self-explanation while solving problems helpful? The case of analogical problem solving. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 15–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paas, F., & Gog, T. (2006). Optimising worked example instruction: Different ways to increase germane cognitive load. Learning & Instruction, 16, 87–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pirolli, P., & Recker, M. (1994). Learning strategies and transfer in the domain of programming. Cognition & Instruction, 12, 235–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renkl, A. (1997). Learning from worked-out examples: A study on individual differences. Cognitive Science, 21, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renkl, A. (2005). The worked-out-example principle in multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 229–246). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renkl, A., & Atkinson, R. K. (2003). Structuring the transition from example study to problem solving in cognitive skills acquisition: A cognitive load perspective. Educational Psychologist, 38, 15–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renkl, A., & Atkinson, R. K. (2007). An example order for cognitive skill acquisition. In Ritter, F. E., Nerb, J., Lehtinen, E., & O'Shea, T. M. (Eds.), In order to learn: How the sequence of topics influences learning (pp. 95–105). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renkl, A., Atkinson, R. K., & Große, C. S. (2004). How fading worked solution steps works – A cognitive load perspective. Instructional Science, 32, 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renkl, A., Atkinson, R. K., Maier, U. H., & Staley, R. (2002). From example study to problem solving: Smooth transitions help learning. Journal of Experimental Education, 70, 293–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renkl, A., Stark, R., Gruber, H., & Mandl, H. (1998). Learning from worked-out examples: The effects of example variability and elicited self-explanations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 90–108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rummel, N., Spada, H., & Hauser, S. (2006). Learning to collaborate in a computer-mediated setting: Observing a model beats learning from being scripted. In Barab, S. A., Hay, K. E., & Hickey, D. T. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 634–640). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Salden, R., Aleven, V., Renkl, A., & Schwonke, R. (2009). Worked examples and tutored problem solving: Redundant or synergistic forms of support? Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 203–213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwonke, R., Renkl, A., Krieg, K., Wittwer, J., Aleven, V., & Salden, R. (2009). The Worked-example effect: Not an artefact of lousy control conditions. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 258–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schworm, S., & Renkl, A. (2006). Computer-supported example-based learning: When instructional explanations reduce self-explanations. Computers & Education, 46, 426–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schworm, S., & Renkl, A. (2007). Learning argumentation skills through the use of prompts for self-explaining examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 285–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweller, J., & Cooper, G. A. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. Cognition & Instruction, 2, 59–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanLehn, K. (1996). Cognitive skill acquisition. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 513–539.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
VanLehn, K. (1998). How examples are used during problem solving. Cognitive Science, 22, 347–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanLehn, K., Lynch, C., Schulze, K., Shapiro, J. A., Shelby, A., Taylor, D., et al. (2005). The Andes physics tutoring project: Five years of evaluations. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15, 1–47.Google Scholar
Merriënboer, J. J. G., Clark, R. E., & Croock, M. B. M. (2002). Blueprints for complex learning: The 4C/ID-model. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 50, 39–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Kester, L. (2005). The four-component instructional design model: Multimedia principles in environments for complex learning. In Mayer, R. E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 71–93). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×