Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 49, Issue 4, pp 599–611 | Cite as

Promoting self-explanation to improve mathematics learning: A meta-analysis and instructional design principles

  • Bethany Rittle-Johnson
  • Abbey M. Loehr
  • Kelley Durkin
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

Promoting self-explanation (i.e., generating explanations for oneself in an attempt to make sense of new information) is a recommended study strategy and instructional practice. A meta-analysis of the literature on prompting self-explanation to improve mathematics learning confirmed that prompted self-explanation leads to a small to moderate improvement in procedural knowledge, conceptual knowledge and procedural transfer when assessed immediately after the intervention. However, evidence that self-explanation reliably promotes learning within a classroom context or retention of knowledge over a delay is much more limited. Moderator analyses indicated that the effect on immediate outcomes was stronger if scaffolding of high-quality explanation was provided but did not vary based on whether time on task was controlled across conditions. Based on the research literature, we propose instructional recommendations for mathematics educators: (a) scaffold high-quality explanations via training on self-explanation or structuring the self-explanation responses, (b) design explanation prompts so they do not sacrifice attention to other important content, (c) prompt learners to explain correct information, and (d) prompt learners to explain why common misconceptions are incorrect. We conclude with issues for future research, such as the need for additional research on effective use of self-explanation in classroom contexts and the merits of self-explanation relative to alternative instructional techniques.

Keywords

Self-explanation Instructional practices Learning strategies Conceptual knowledge Procedural knowledge Transfer 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Writing of this article was supported in part by National Science Foundation grant DRL-0746565 to Rittle-Johnson.

References

  1. Aleven, V. A. W. M. M., & Koedinger, K. R. (2002). An effective metacognitive strategy: Learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based cognitive tutor. Cognitive Science, 26, 147–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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, 181–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atkinson, R. K., Renkl, A., & Merrill, 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, 774–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berry, D. C. (1983). Metacognitive experience and transfer of logical reasoning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 35, 39–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berthold, K., Eysink, T. H. S., & Renkl, A. (2009). Assisting self-explanation prompts are more effective than open prompts when learning with multiple representations. Instructional Science, 37, 345–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berthold, K., & Renkl, A. (2009). Instructional aids to support a conceptual understanding of multiple representations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 70–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berthold, K., Röder, H., Knörzer, D., Kessler, W., & Renkl, A. (2011). The double-edged effects of explanation prompts. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 69–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Booth, J. L., Lange, K. E., Koedinger, K. R., & Newton, K. J. (2013). Using example problems to improve student learning in algebra: Differentiating between correct and incorrect examples. Learning and Instruction, 25, 24–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Booth, J. L., Oyer, M. H., Pare-Blagoev, E. J., Elliot, A. J., Barbieri, C., Augustine, A., & Koedinger, K. R. (2015). Learning algebra by example in real-world classrooms. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 8, 530–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Broers, N. J., & Imbos, T. (2005). Charting and manipulating propositions as methods to promote self-explanation in the study of statistics. Learning and Instruction, 15, 517–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Calin-Jageman, R. J., & Ratner, H. H. (2005). The role of encoding in the self-explanation effect. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 523–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Canobi, K. H. (2009). Concept-procedure interactions in children’s addition and subtraction. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 102, 131–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining: The dual processes of generating inference and repairing mental models advances in instructional psychology: Educational design and cognitive science, Vol. 5 (pp. 161–238). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  14. Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 73–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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, 13, 145–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M.-H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477.Google Scholar
  17. Common Core State Standards (2010). Washington D.C.: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers.Google Scholar
  18. DeCaro, M. S., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2012). Exploring Mathematics Problems Prepares Children to Learn from Instruction. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 113, 552–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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, 4–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Durkin, K., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2012). The effectiveness of using incorrect examples to support learning about decimal magnitude. Learning and Instruction, 22, 206–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87, 215–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ferguson, C. J., & Brannick, M. T. (2012). Publication bias in psychological science: Prevalence, methods for identifying and controlling, and implications for the use of meta-analyses. Psychological Methods, 17, 120–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., & Catrambone, R. (2006). Can learning from molar and modular worked examples be enhanced by providing instructional explanations and prompting self-explanations? Learning and Instruction, 16, 104–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Große, C. S., & Renkl, A. (2006). Effects of multiple solution methods in mathematics learning. Learning and Instruction, 16, 122–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Große, C. S., & Renkl, A. (2007). Finding and fixing errors in worked examples: Can this foster learning outcomes? Learning and Instruction, 17, 612–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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 and Instruction, 18, 54–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hodds, M., Alcock, L., & Inglis, M. (2014). Self-explanation training improves proof comprehension. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 45, 62–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kapur, M. (2010). Productive failure in mathematical problem solving. Instructional Science, 38, 523–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kramarski, B., & Dudai, V. (2009). Group-metacognitive support for online inquiry in mathematics with differential self-questioning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 40, 377–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Krauss, R. M. (1987). The role of the listener: Addressee influences on message formulation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 6, 81–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lange, K. E., Booth, J. L., & Newton, K. J. (2014). Learning algebra from worked examples. Mathematics Teacher, 107, 534–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Legare, C. H., Gelman, S. A., & Wellman, H. M. (2010). Inconsistency with prior knowledge triggers children’s causal explanatory reasoning. Child Development, 81, 929–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Leppink, J., Broers, N. J., Imbos, T., Vleuten, C. P. M., & Berger, M. P. F. (2012). Self-explanation in the domain of statistics: an expertise reversal effect. Higher Education, 63, 771–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Loehr, A. M., Rittle-Johnson, B., & Rajendran, A. (2014). Promoting mathematical problem solving and explanation: The effects of extended homework use. Paper presented at the American Education Research Association Conference, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  36. Loewenthal, K. (1967). The development of codes in public and private language. Psychonomic Science, 8, 449–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Matthews, P., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2009). In pursuit of knowledge: Comparing self-explanations, concepts, and procedures as pedagogical tools. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 104, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McEldoon, K. L., Durkin, K. L., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2013). Is self-explanation worth the time? A comparison to additional practice. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 615–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McNeil, N. M., & Alibali, M. W. (2005). Why won’t you change your mind? Knowledge of operational patterns hinders learning and performance on equations. Child Development, 76, 883–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McNeil, N. M., Chesney, D. L., Matthews, P. G., Fyfe, E. R., Petersen, L. A., Dunwiddie, A. E., & Wheeler, M. C. (2012). It pays to be organized: Organizing arithmetic practice around equivalent values facilitates understanding of math equivalence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 1109–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mwangi, W., & Sweller, J. (1998). Learning to solve compare word problems: The effect of example format and generating self-explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 173–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. O’Neil, H. F., Chung, G. K. W. K., Kerr, D., Vendlinski, T. P., Buschang, R. E., & Mayer, R. E. (2014). Adding self-explanation prompts to an educational computer game. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 23–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pashler, H., Bain, P. M., Bottge, B. A., Graesser, A., Koedinger, K., McDaniel, M., & Metcalfe, J. (2007). Organizing instruction and study to improve student learning. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rau, M. A., Aleven, V., & Rummel, N. (2015). Successful learning with multiple graphical representations and self-explanation prompts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 30–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Renkl, A. (1997). Learning from worked-out examples: A study on individual differences. Cognitive Science, 21, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Renkl, A. (1999). Learning mathematics from worked-out examples: Analyzing and fostering self-explanations. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14, 477–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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 Scholar
  48. Rittle-Johnson, B. (2006). Promoting transfer: Effects of self-explanation and direct instruction. Child Development, 77, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rittle-Johnson, B., Fyfe, E. R., Loehr, A. M., & Miller, M. R. (2015). Beyond numeracy in preschool: Adding patterns to the equation. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 31, 101–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rittle-Johnson, B., & Loehr, A. M. (2016). Eliciting explanations: Constraints on when self-explanation aids learning. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review. doi: 10.3758/s13423-016-1079-5.Google Scholar
  51. Rittle-Johnson, B., & Loehr, A. M. (2017). Instruction based on self-explanation. In R. E. Mayer & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (2nd ed., pp. 349–364). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  52. Rittle-Johnson, B., Saylor, M., & Swygert, K. E. (2008). Learning from explaining: Does it matter if mom is listening? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 100, 215–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rittle-Johnson, B., & Schneider, M. (2015). Developing conceptual and procedural knowledge of mathematics. In R. C. Kadosh & A. Dowker (Eds.), Oxford handbook of numerical cognition (pp. 1118–1134). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Rittle-Johnson, B., Schneider, M., & Star, J. R. (2015). Not a one-way street: Bidirectional relations between procedural and conceptual knowledge of mathematics. Educational Psychology Review, 27, 587–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rittle-Johnson, B., & Siegler, R. S. (1999). Learning to spell: Variability, choice, and change in children’s strategy use. Child Development, 70, 332–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rittle-Johnson, B., Siegler, R. S., & Alibali, M. W. (2001). Developing conceptual understanding and procedural skill in mathematics: An iterative process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 346–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Roediger, H. L. III, & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17, 249–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schwartz, D. L., Chase, C. C., Chin, D. B., & Oppezzo, M. (2011). Practicing versus inventing with contrasting cases: The effects of telling first on learning and transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 759–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Siegler, R. S. (1995). How does change occur: A microgenetic study of number conservation. Cognitive Psychology, 28, 225–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Siegler, R. S. (2002). Microgenetic studies of self-explanation. In N. Garnott & J. Parziale (Eds.), Microdevelopment: A process-oriented perspective for studying development and learning (pp. 31–58). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Siegler, R. S., & Chen, Z. (2008). Differentiation and Integration: Guiding principles for analyzing cognitive change. Developmental Science, 11, 433–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Star, J. R. (2005). Reconceptualizing procedural knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36, 404–411 (Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30034943).
  63. Star, J. R. (2007). Foregrounding procedural knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38, 132–135.Google Scholar
  64. Tajika, H., Nakatsu, N., Nozaki, H., Neumann, E., & Maruno, S. (2007). Effects of self-explanation as a metacognitive strategy for solving mathematical word problems. Japanese Psychological Research, 49, 222–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Webb, N. M. (1991). Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 366–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wittwer, J., & Renkl, A. (2010). How effective are instructional explanations in example-based learning? A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 393–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wong, R. M. F., Lawson, M. J., & Keeves, J. (2002). The effects of self-explanation training on students’ problem solving in high-school mathematics. Learning and Instruction, 12, 233–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wylie, R., & Chi, M. T. (2014). The self-explanation principle in mulimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (Vol. 2, pp. 413–432). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychology and Human Development, Peabody CollegeVanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA
  2. 2.Peabody Research Institute, Vanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options