Are Provided Examples or Faded Examples More Effective for Declarative Concept Learning?

  • Amanda Zamary
  • Katherine A. Rawson


Declarative concepts (abstract concepts denoted by key terms and definitions) are foundational content in many courses at most grade levels. The current research compared the relative effectiveness of provided examples to faded examples (a technique involving a transition from studying provided examples to completing partial examples to generating examples) for learning declarative concepts. In two experiments (experiment 1: n = 146, experiment 2: n = 131), participants were randomly assigned to study provided examples or complete faded examples. Two days later, participants took two final tests to assess their long-term learning: a novel example classification test and an example generation test. Results across experiments were highly consistent: performance on both final tests was similar following provided examples and faded examples practice; however, provided examples took much less time to implement during practice. Therefore, considering both long-term learning and efficiency outcomes collectively for evaluating the effectiveness of learning techniques, provided examples continue to be more effective than techniques involving both provided examples and generated examples for learning declarative concepts.


Declarative concepts Relational categories Provided examples Faded examples 


  1. Atkinson, R. K., Renkl, A., & Merril, M. M. (2003). Transitioning from studying examples to solving problems: effects of self-explanation prompts and fading worked-out steps. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 774–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blasiman, R. N., Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A. (2017). The what, how much, and when of study strategies: comparing intended versus actual study behavior. Memory, 25(6), 784–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Braver, S. L., Thoemmes, F. J., & Rosenthal, R. (2014). Continuously cumulating meta-analysis and replicability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(3), 333–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: a review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 354–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cooper, G., & Sweller, J. (1987). Effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on mathematical problem-solving transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 347–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cortina, J. M., & Nouri, H. (2000). Effect size for ANOVA designs. Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dornisch, M., Sperling, R. A., & Zeruth, J. A. (2011). The effects of level of elaboration on learners’ strategic processing of text. Instructional Science, 39, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dunlosky, J., Morehead, K., Zamary, A., & Rawson, K. A. (in press). From the laboratory to the classroom: challenges and solutions for conducting memory research in educational contexts. In: H. Otani & B. Schwartz (Eds.), Research Methods in Human Memory.Google Scholar
  10. Ebbinghaus, H. (1885). Memory: a contribution to experimental psychology. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Endres, T., Carpenter, S., Martin, A., & Renkl, A. (2017). Enhancing learning by retrieval: enriching free recall with elaborative prompting. Learning and Instruction, 49, 13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Foster, N. L., Rawson, K. A., & Dunlosky, J. (2017). Self-regulated learning of principle-based concepts: do students prefer worked examples, faded examples, or problem solving? Learning and Instruction.
  14. Gentner, D. (2005). The development of relational category knowledge. In L. Gershkoff-Stowe & D. H. Rakison (Eds.), Building object categories in developmental time (pp. 245–275). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. Gentner, D., & Kurtz, K. (2005). Relational categories. In W. K. Ahn, R. L. Goldstone, B. C. Love, A. B. Markman, & P. W. Woff (Eds.), Categorization inside and outside the lab (pp. 151–175). Washington: APA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gentner, D., Loewenstein, J., & Thompson, L. (2003). Learning and transfer: a general role for analogical encoding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 393–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gentner, D., Loewenstein, J., Thompson, L., & Forbus, K. D. (2009). Reviving inert knowledge: analogical abstraction supports relational retrieval of past events. Cognitive Science, 33, 1343–1382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goldwater, M. B., & Schalk, L. (2016). Relational categories as a bridge between cognitive and educational research. Psychological Bulletin, 142(7), 729–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gurung, R. A. R. (2017). Predicting learning: comparing an open educational resource and standard textbooks. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 3(3), 233–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gurung, R. A. R., Weidert, J., & Jeske, A. (2010). Focusing on how student study. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(1), 28–35.Google Scholar
  21. Hamilton, R. (1990). The effect of elaboration on the acquisition of conceptual problem-solving skills from prose. The Journal of Experimental Education, 59(1), 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hancock-Niemic, M. A., Lin, L., Atkinson, R. K., Renkl, A., & Wittwer, J. (2016). Example-based learning: exploring the use of matrices and problem variability. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(1), 115–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Judd, C. M., & McClelland, G. H. (1989). Data analysis: a model-comparison approach. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  24. Kalyuga, S. (2007). Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 509–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kissane, M., Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2008). The consequences of fading instructional guidance on delayed performance: the case of financial services training. Educational Psychology, 28(7), 809–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lishner, D. A. (2015). A concise set of core recommendations to promote the dependability of psychological research. Review of General Psychology, 19, 52–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Maner, J. K. (2014). Let’s put our money where our mouth is. If authors are to change their ways, reviewers (and editors) must change with them. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 9, 343–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Masson, M. E. J., & Rotello, C. M. (2009). Sources of bias in the Goodman-Kruskal gamma coefficient measure of association: implications for studies of metacognitive processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 35, 509–527.Google Scholar
  29. Myers, D. G. (2010). Psychology (9th ed). New York: Worth Publishers.Google Scholar
  30. Nelson, T. O. (1984). A comparison of current measures of the accuracy of feeling-of-knowing predictions. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 109–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Paas, F., van Gog, T., & Sweller, J. (2010). Cognitive load theory: new conceptualizations, specifications, and integrated research perspectives. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 115–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pressley, M., Wood, E., Woloshyn, V., Martin, V., King, A., & Menke, D. (1992). Encouraging mindful use of prior knowledge: attempting to construct explanatory answers facilitates learning. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 91–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rawson, K. A. (2012). Why do rereading lag effects depend on test delay? Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 870–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rawson, K. A., & Dunlosky, J. (2011). Optimizing schedules of practice for durable and efficient learning: how much is enough? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(3), 283–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rawson, K. A. & Dunlosky, J. (2013). Relearning attenuates the benefits and costs of spacing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 1113–1129.Google Scholar
  37. Rawson, K. A., & Dunlosky, J. (2016). How effective is example generation for learning declarative concepts? Educational Psychology Review, 28(3), 649–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rawson, K. A., Thomas, R. C., & Jacoby, L. L. (2015). The power of examples: illustrative examples enhance conceptual learning of declarative concepts. Educational Psychology Review, 27, 483–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Reisslein, J., Atkinson, R. K., Seeling, P., & Reisslein, M. (2006). Encountering the expertise reversal effect with a computer-based environment on electrical circuit analysis. Learning and Instruction, 16(2), 92–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Renkl, A. (2014). Toward an instructionally oriented theory of example-based learning. Cognitive Science, 38(1), 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Renkl, A., Atkinson, R. K., Maier, U. H., & Staley, R. (2002). From example study to problem solving: smooth transitions help learning. The Journal of Experimental Education, 70(4), 293–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Renkl, A., Atkinson, R. K., & Groβe, C. S. (2004). How fading worked solution steps works—a cognitive load perspective. Instructional Science, 32, 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rohrer, D. (2012). Interleaving helps students distinguish among similar concepts. Educational Psychology Review, 24(3), 355–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1985). Contrast analysis: focused comparisons in the analysis of variance. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Salden, R. J., Aleven, V. A., Renkl, A., & Schwonke, R. (2009). Worked examples and tutored problem solving: redundant or synergistic forms of support? Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 203–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schmidt, S. (2009). Shall we really do it again? The powerful concept of replication is neglected in the social sciences. Review of General Psychology, 13, 90–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Simons, D. J. (2014). The value of direct replication. Perspectives of Psychological Science, 9, 76–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 295–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sweller, J., & Cooper, G. (1985). The use of worked examples as substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 2(1), 59–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  53. Taraban, R., Maki, W. S., & Rynearson, K. (1999). Measuring study time distributions: Implications for developing computer-based courses. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31, 263–269.Google Scholar
  54. Trench, M. & Minervino, R. A. (2017). Cracking the problem of inert knowledge: portable strategies to access distant analogs from memory. In: B. H. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of Learning and Motivation (pp. 1-41).Google Scholar
  55. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.Google Scholar
  56. Weinstein, Y., Lawrence, J. S., Tran, N., & Frey, A. A. (2013). How and how much do students really study? Tracking study habits with the diary method. Poster presented at the 54th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society; Nov. 14-17; Toronto, ON, Canada.Google Scholar
  57. Wilkinson, L., Task Force on Statistical Inference, American Psychological Association, & Science Directorate. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist, 54, 594–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zamary, A., & Rawson, K. A. (2016). Which technique is most effective for learning declarative concepts—provided examples, generated examples, or both? Educational Psychology Review.
  59. Zamary, A., Rawson, K. A., & Dunlosky, J. (2016). How accurately can students evaluate the quality of self-generated examples of declarative concepts? Not well, and feedback does not help. Learning and Instruction, 46, 12–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychological SciencesKent State UniversityKentUSA

Personalised recommendations