Skip to main content

Are instructional explanations more effective in the context of an impasse?

Abstract

Effective instructional explanations help the students to construct coherent mental representations. To do so, one condition is that they must be tailored to students’ needs. It is hypothesized that explanations are more helpful if they also explicitly aid the students to detect problems in their mental representations, as this provokes an impasse that motivates students to process the explanation deeply. Participants were provided with a computer-based material on plate tectonics and then with explanatory support in the form of either a tailored explanation preceded by an impasse-trigger (I + E group) or an identical explanation without the impasse-trigger (noI + E group). After the reading of the materials they solved retention and transfer tests; their flawed ideas were also counted. Participants in the I + E group recalled more correct information, generated more transfer solutions, and showed fewer flawed ideas than those in the noI + E group. This indicates that tailored explanations combined with impasse-triggers that make explicit conflicts between the text model and the students′ models can indeed foster deep learning.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. The impasse-trigger in italics. The rest being a piece of an instructional explanation. This is also true for the example below.

References

  • Ainsworth, S. E., & Burcham, S. (2007). The impact of text coherence on learning by self-explanation. Learning & Instruction, 17, 286–303. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.02.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ainsworth, S. E., & Loizou, A. (2003). The effects of self-explaining when learning with text or diagrams. Cognitive Science, 27, 669–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. R. (2000). Limitations of student control: Do student know when they need help? In G. Gauthier, C. Frasson, & K. VanLehn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, ITS 2000 (pp. 292–303). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

  • Alvermann, D. E., Qian, G., & Hynd, C. E. (1995). Effects of interactive discussion and text type on learning counterintuitive science concepts. The Journal of Educational Research, 88(3), 146–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, L. (1979). Comprehension monitoring: Identifying and coping with text confusions. Journal of Reading Behaviour, 11, 363–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Sinatra, G. M., & Loxterman, J. A. (1991). Revising social studies text from a text-processing perspective: Evidence of improved comprehensibility. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 251–276. doi:10.2307/747763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Britton, B. K., & Gulgoz, S. (1991). Using Kintsch’s computational model to improve instructional text: Effect of repairing inferences calls on recall and cognitive structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 329–345. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.83.3.329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calin-Jageman, R. J., & Horn Ratner, H. (2005). The role of encoding in the self-explanation effect. Cognition and Instruction, 23(4), 523–543. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci2304_4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth: Heinemann Educational Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H. (1996). Constructing self-explanations and scaffolded explanations in tutoring. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 33–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining expository texts: The dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 161–238). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google 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, 13, 145–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Siler, S. A., & Jeong, H. (2004). Can tutors monitor students’ understanding accurately? Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 363–387. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci2203_4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Siler, S., Jeong, H., Yamauchi, T., & Hausmann, R. G. (2001). Learning from tutoring. Cognitive Science, 25, 471–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Leeuw, N., & Chi, M. T. H. (2002). Self-explanation: Enriching a situation model or repairing a domain model? In G. M. Sinatra & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional conceptual change (pp. 55–78). Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diakidoy, I. N., & Kendeou, P. (2001). Facilitating conceptual change in astronomy: A comparison of the effectiveness of two instructional approaches. Learning and Instruction, 11, 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diakidoy, I. N., Kendeou, P., & Ioannides, C. (2003). Reading about energy: The effects of text structure in science learning and conceptual change. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 335–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Díez, E., & Fernández, A. (1997). Batería multimedia de comprensión (versión abreviada). [Comprehension multimedia inventory (summarized version).] University of Salamanca, Salamanca.

  • Edwards, A. D., & Westgate, D. (1987). Investigating classroom talk. London: The Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gombrich, E. H. (1982). The story of art. Oxford: Phaidon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C. (2007). An introduction to strategic reading comprehension. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 3–26). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., Millis, K. K., & Zwaan, R. A. (1997). Discourse comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 163–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., & Olde, B. A. (2003). How does one know whether a person understands a device? The quality of the questions and the person asks when the device breaks down. Journal of Education Psychology, 95(3), 524–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., Person, N. K., & Huber, J. (1993). Question asking during tutoring and in the design of educational software. In M. Rabinowitz (Ed.), Cognitive science foundations of instruction (pp. 149–172). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., Person, N. K., & Magliano, J. P. (1995). Collaborative dialogue patterns in naturalistic one-to-one tutoring. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 359–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101(3), 371–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., VanLehn, K., Rose, C., Jordan, P., & Harter, D. (2001). Intelligent tutoring systems with conversational dialogue. AI Magazine, 22, 39–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guzzetti, B. J., Snyder, T. E., Glass, G. V., & Gamas, W. S. (1993). Promoting conceptual change in science: Meta-analysis of instructional interventions from reading education and science education. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 116–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hausmann, R. G. M., & VanLehn, K. (2007). Self-explaining in the classroom: Learning curve evidence. In D. McNamara & G. Trafton (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1067–1072). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • Kendeou, P., & van den Broek, P. (2005). The effects of readers’ misconceptions on comprehension of scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 235–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendeou, P., & van den Broek, P. (2007). The effects of prior knowledge and text structure on comprehension processes during reading of scientific texts. Memory and Cognition, 35(7), 1567–1577.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension. A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, E., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Strategies to promote active learning from text: Individual differences in background knowledge. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 54, 141–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leinhardt, G. (1993). Weaving instructional explanations in history. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 46–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linderholm, T., Everson, M. G., van den Broek, P., Mischinski, M., Crittenden, A., & Samuels, J. (2001). Effects of causal text revision on more and less-skilled readers’ comprehension of easy and difficult texts. Cognition and Instruction, 18(4), 525–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magliano, J. P., Trabasso, T., & Graesser, A. C. (1999). Strategic processes during comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 615–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markman, E. M. (1979). Realizing that you don’t understand: Elementary school children’s awareness of inconsistencies. Child Development, 46, 986–992.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, D. S. (2004). SERT: Self-explanation reading training. Discourse Processes, 38, 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Butler-Songer, N., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mikkilä-Erdmann, M. (2001). Improving conceptual change concerning photosynthesis through text design. Learning and Instruction, 11, 241–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). Learning science in virtual reality multimedia environments: Roles of methods and media. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 598–610.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., Spires, H., & Lester, J. C. (2001). The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents? Cognition and Instruction, 19(2), 177–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neuman, Y., & Schwarz, B. (2000). Substituting one mystery for another: The role of self-explanations in solving algebra word problems. Learning and Instruction, 10, 203–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nückles, M., Wittwer, J., & Renkl, A. (2005). Information about a layperson’s knowledge supports experts in giving effective and efficient online advice to laypersons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11(4), 219–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nückles, M., Wittwer, J., & Renkl, A. (2006). How to make instructional explanations in human tutoring more effective. In R. Sun, N. Miyake, & C. Schunn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 633–638). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • Otero, J. (2002). Noticing and fixing difficulties while understanding science texts. In J. Otero, J. A. León & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 281–307). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Otero, J., & Campanario, J. M. (1990). Comprehension evaluation and regulation in learning from science texts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(5), 447–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renkl, A. (1997). Learning from worked-out examples: A study on individual differences. Cognitive Science, 21, 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renkl, A. (2002). Learning from worked-out examples: Instructional explanations supplement self-explanations. Learning and Instruction, 12, 529–556.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez, E. (1996). Los textos divulgativos como una conversación encubierta: análisis de los recursos comunicativos de un texto divulgativo. [Popular science books as open conversations: analysis of the communicative devices in a popular science book.] Infancia & Aprendizaje, 75, 85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez, E., García, J. R., De Sixte, R., Castellano, N., & Rosales, J. (2008). El análisis de la práctica educativa y las propuestas instruccionales: Integración y enriquecimiento mutuo. [Analysing educational practice and instructional proposals: Integration and mutual enrichment.] Infancia & Aprendizaje, 31, 233–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez, E., Rosales, J., & Cañedo, I. (1999). Understanding and communication in expositive discourse: An analysis of the strategies used by expert and pre-service teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 37–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegler, R. S. (1995). How does change occur: A microgenetic study of number conservation. Cognitive Psychology, 28, 225–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegler, R. S., & Jenkins, E. A. (1989). How children discover new strategies. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., van Merriëboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • VanLehn, K. (1991). Rule acquisition events in the discovery of problem solving strategies. Cognitive Science, 15(1), 1–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VanLehn, K., et al. (2000). Fading and deepening: The next steps for ANDES and other model-tracing tutors. In G. Gauthier, C. Frassonand, & K. VanLehn (Eds.), Proceedings of ITS 2000 (pp. 474–483). Montreal, Canada: Springer-Verlag.

  • VanLehn, K., Siler, S., Murray, C., Yamauchi, T., & Baggett, W. B. (2003). Why do only some events cause learning during human tutoring? Cognition and Instruction, 21(3), 209–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vidal-Abarca, E., Martínez, G., & Gilabert, R. (2000). Two procedures to improve instructional text: Effects on memory and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittwer, J., & Renkl, A. (2008). Why instructional explanations often do not work: A framework for understanding the effectiveness of instructional explanations. Educational Psychology, 43(1), 49–64.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Emilio Sánchez is supported by a program from the Ministerio de Educación (Spain), project SEJ2006-13464. Héctor García-Rodicio is supported by a grant from the Fondo Social Europeo and the Junta de Castilla & León. Acuña is supported by the PROMEP-SEP (México).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Héctor García-Rodicio.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sánchez, E., García-Rodicio, H. & Acuña, S.R. Are instructional explanations more effective in the context of an impasse?. Instr Sci 37, 537–563 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9074-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9074-5

Keywords