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.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
The impasse-trigger in italics. The rest being a piece of an instructional explanation. This is also true for the example below.
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.
Ainsworth, S. E., & Loizou, A. (2003). The effects of self-explaining when learning with text or diagrams. Cognitive Science, 27, 669–681.
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.
Baker, L. (1979). Comprehension monitoring: Identifying and coping with text confusions. Journal of Reading Behaviour, 11, 363–374.
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.
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:10.1037/0022-06220.127.116.119.
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.
Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth: Heinemann Educational Books.
Chi, M. T. H. (1996). Constructing self-explanations and scaffolded explanations in tutoring. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 33–49.
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.
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.
Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477.
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.
Chi, M. T. H., Siler, S., Jeong, H., Yamauchi, T., & Hausmann, R. G. (2001). Learning from tutoring. Cognitive Science, 25, 471–533.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Gombrich, E. H. (1982). The story of art. Oxford: Phaidon Press.
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.
Graesser, A. C., Millis, K. K., & Zwaan, R. A. (1997). Discourse comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 163–189.
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.
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.
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.
Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101(3), 371–395.
Graesser, A. C., VanLehn, K., Rose, C., Jordan, P., & Harter, D. (2001). Intelligent tutoring systems with conversational dialogue. AI Magazine, 22, 39–51.
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.
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.
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.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension. A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kintsch, E., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Strategies to promote active learning from text: Individual differences in background knowledge. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 54, 141–151.
Leinhardt, G. (1993). Weaving instructional explanations in history. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 46–79.
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.
Magliano, J. P., Trabasso, T., & Graesser, A. C. (1999). Strategic processes during comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 615–629.
Markman, E. M. (1979). Realizing that you don’t understand: Elementary school children’s awareness of inconsistencies. Child Development, 46, 986–992.
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
McNamara, D. S. (2004). SERT: Self-explanation reading training. Discourse Processes, 38, 1–30.
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.
Mikkilä-Erdmann, M. (2001). Improving conceptual change concerning photosynthesis through text design. Learning and Instruction, 11, 241–257.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Renkl, A. (1997). Learning from worked-out examples: A study on individual differences. Cognitive Science, 21, 1–29.
Renkl, A. (2002). Learning from worked-out examples: Instructional explanations supplement self-explanations. Learning and Instruction, 12, 529–556.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Siegler, R. S. (1995). How does change occur: A microgenetic study of number conservation. Cognitive Psychology, 28, 225–273.
Siegler, R. S., & Jenkins, E. A. (1989). How children discover new strategies. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sweller, J., van Merriëboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296.
van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
VanLehn, K. (1991). Rule acquisition events in the discovery of problem solving strategies. Cognitive Science, 15(1), 1–47.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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