Advertisement

Educational Technology Research and Development

, Volume 64, Issue 1, pp 115–136 | Cite as

Example-based learning: exploring the use of matrices and problem variability

  • Mary A. Hancock-Niemic
  • Lijia LinEmail author
  • Robert K. Atkinson
  • Alexander Renkl
  • Joerg Wittwer
Development Article

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to investigate the efficacy of using faded worked examples presented in matrices with problem structure variability to enhance learners’ ability to recognize the underlying structure of the problems. Specifically, this study compared the effects of matrix-format versus linear-format faded worked examples combined with equivalent problem structure versus contrast problem structure on learning. A total of 113 undergraduate students recruited from campus were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions formed by a 2 × 2 factorial design. The results revealed three significant interactions on accuracy of anticipations, near transfer and medium transfer, suggesting that matrices foster learning when they contain contrast-structure problems but not with equivalent-structure problems.

Keywords

Worked example Matrix Problem structure Fading example Example-based instruction 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was partially supported by Shanghai Pujiang Program (13PJC031), Shanghai Planning Office of Philosophy and Social Science (2014JJY001), and the Scientific Research Foundation for the Returned Overseas Chinese Scholars, State Education Ministry, China.

References

  1. Atkinson, R. K., Derry, S. J., Renkl, A., & Wortham, D. (2000). Learning from examples: Instructional principles from the worked examples research. Review of Educational Research, 70(2), 181–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson, R. K., Levin, J. R., Kiewra, K. A., Meyers, T., Kim, S.-I., Atkinson, L. A., et al. (1999). Matrix and mnemonic text-processing adjuncts: Comparing and combining their components. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 342–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atkinson, R. K., Merrill, M. M., & Renkl, A. (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
  4. Atkinson, R. K., Merrill-Lusk, M. M., and Bietzel, B. (2007). Learning from book-based examples: Exploring the impact of combining fading with prompts and matrices. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Budapest, Hungary.Google Scholar
  5. Belland, B. R. (2010). Portraits of middle school students constructing evidence-based arguments during problem-based learning: The impact of computer-based scaffolds. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(3), 285–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Belland, B. R. (2014). Scaffolding: Definition, current debates, and future directions. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 505–518). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bera, S. J., & Robinson, D. H. (2004). Exploring the boundary conditions of the delay hypothesis with adjunct displays. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 381–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brünken, R., Plass, J. L., & Moreno, R. (2010). Current issues and open questions in cognitive load research. In J. L. Plass, R. Moreno, & R. Brünken (Eds.), Cognitive load theory (pp. 253–272). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). The mind’s eye in chess. In W. G. Chase (Ed.), Visual information processing. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cho, K., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50, 1042–1629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  12. Gerjects, P., Scheiter, K., & Schuh, J. (2008). Information comparisons in example-based hypermedia environments: Supporting learners with processing prompts and an interactive comparison tool. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 73–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., & Catrambone, R. (2004). Designing instructional examples to reduce intrinsic cognitive load: Molar versus modular presentation of solution procedures. Instructional Science, 32(1–2), 33–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Greeno, J. (1978). Natures of problem-solving abilities. In W. Estes (Ed.), Handbook of learning and cognitive processes (pp. 239–270). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  15. Gurlitt, J., Dummel, S., Schuster, S., & Nückles, M. (2012). Differently structured advance organizers lead to different initial schemata and learning outcomes. Instructional Science, 40, 351–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of experimental and theoretical research. In P. A. Hancock & N. Meshkati (Eds.), Human mental workload (pp. 139–183). Amsterdam: North-Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jairam, D., & Kiewra, K. A. (2010). Helping students soar to success on computers: An investigation of the SOAR study method for computer-based learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 601–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jairam, D., Kiewra, K. A., Kauffman, D. F., & Zhao, R. (2012). How to study a matrix. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37, 128–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45, 65–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., Tuovinen, J., & Sweller, J. (2001). When problem solving is superior to studying worked examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 579–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kauffman, D. F., & Kiewra, K. A. (2010). What makes a matrix so effective? An empirical test of the relative benefits of signaling, extraction, and localization. Instructional Science, 38, 679–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kim, M., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Scaffolding problem solving in technology-enhanced learning environments (TELEs): Bridging research and theory with practice. Computers and Education, 56, 255–282.Google Scholar
  23. Langan-Fox, J., Waycott, J. L., & Albert, K. (2000). Linear and graphic advance organizers: Properties and processing. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 4(1), 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lin, L., & Atkinson, R. K. (2013). Enhancing learning from different visualizations by self-explanations prompts. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 49(1), 83–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. National Assessment of Educational Progress (2003). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/mathematics/abilities.asp.
  26. National Mathematics Advisory Panel (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved January 13, 2015, from http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/report/final-report.pdf.
  27. Paas, F. G. W. C. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 429–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Quilici, J. L., & Mayer, R. E. (1996). Role of examples in how students learn to categorize statistics word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 144–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Quilici, J. L., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). Teaching students to recognize structural similarities between statistics word problems. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16(3), 325–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reisslein, J., Reisslein, M., & Seeling, P. (2006). Comparing static fading with adaptive fading to independent problem solving: The impact on the achievement and attitudes of high school students learning electrical circuit analysis. Journal of Engineering Education, 95, 217–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Renkl, A., & Atkinson, R. K. (2003). Structuring the transition from example study to problem solving in cognitive skill acquisition: A cognitive load perspective. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 15–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. Robinson, D. H., Katayama, A. D., DuBois, N. F., & Devaney, T. (1998). Interactive effects of graphic organizers and delayed review of concept application. Journal of Experimental. Education, 67(1), 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Robinson, D. H., & Kiewra, K. A. (1995). Visual argument: Graphic organizers are superior to outlines in improving learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 455–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Robinson, D. H., & Schraw, G. (1994). Computational efficiency through visual argument: Do graphic organizers communicate relations in text too effectively? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 399–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Robinson, D. H., & Skinner, C. H. (1996). Why graphic organizers facilitate search processes: Fewer words or computationally efficient indexing? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(2), 166–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Roy, M., & Chi, M. T. H. (2005). The self-explanation principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 271–286). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Suzuki, A., Sato, T., & Awazu, S. (2008). Graphic display of linguistic information in English as a foreign language reading. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 591–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 123–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sweller, J., & Copper, G. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 59–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. van Gerven, P. W. M., Paas, F. G. W. C., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Schmidt, H. G. (2000). Cognitive load theory and the acquisition of complex cognitive skills in the elderly: Towards an integrative framework. Educational Gerontology, 26, 503–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. van Gog, T., Kester, L., & Paas, F. (2012). Effects of worked examples, example-problem, and problem-example pairs on novices’ learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 212–218.Google Scholar
  47. van Gog, T., Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2004). Process-oriented worked examples: Improving transfer performance through enhanced understanding. Instructional Science, 32, 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. van Gog, T., & Rummel, N. (2010). Example-based learning: Integrating cognitive and social-cognitive research perspectives. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 155–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. van Loon-Hillen, N., van Gog, T., & Brand-Gruwel, S. (2012). Effects of worked examples in a primary school mathematics curriculum. Interactive Learning Environments, 20, 89–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Kester, L., & Paas, F. (2006). Teaching complex rather than simple tasks: Balancing intrinsic and germane load to enhance transfer of learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(3), 343–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Schuurman, J. G., de Croock, M. B. M., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (2002). Redirecting learners’ attention during training: Effects on cognitive load, transfer test performance and training efficiency. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 11–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vekiri, I. (2002). What is the value of graphical displays in learning? Educational Psychology Review, 14(3), 261–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mary A. Hancock-Niemic
    • 1
  • Lijia Lin
    • 2
    Email author
  • Robert K. Atkinson
    • 1
  • Alexander Renkl
    • 3
  • Joerg Wittwer
    • 3
  1. 1.Arizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.Key Laboratory of Brain Functional Genomics (MOE and STCSM), The School of Psychology and Cognitive ScienceEast China Normal UniversityShanghaiChina
  3. 3.University of FreiburgFreiburg Im BreisgauGermany

Personalised recommendations